Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Pooh Pooh, Purdue... <g>
Boy, is Purdue going to be out for blood when they get their cleats on us next weekend.
WISCONSIN 20, PURDUE 17
Defense Delivers Badgers an Upset
Published: October 17, 2004
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind., Oct. 16 - The styles of football played at Wisconsin and Purdue provide a study in contrasts.
The Badgers rumbled their way to a No. 10 ranking by playing a smash-mouth game. Purdue soared to No. 5 behind its spread offense and the Heisman Trophy contender Kyle Orton.
Fittingly, with one crushing hit, Wisconsin and its No. 1-ranked defense provided the critical play Saturday night in a 20-17 upset of Purdue.
Wisconsin's Scott Starks and Robert Brooks crushed Orton, who ran a naked bootleg and lunged toward the first-down marker, forcing a fumble that will linger in Purdue history. Starks returned it 40 yards for a touchdown with 2 minutes 36 seconds remaining to give the Badgers a 20-17 lead. Starks flipped Orton in the air with a low hit, and Brooks hit Orton high, knocking the ball loose with his knee. Orton had made the first down, which would have put Purdue in position to run out the clock.
Wisconsin (7-0, 4-0 Big Ten) missed the extra point, which gave Purdue a chance to tie the score with a field goal. Orton led Purdue 62 yards, to the Wisconsin 25-yard line, but Ben Jones missed a 42-yard field-goal attempt with 28 seconds remaining.
"Wow," Wisconsin Coach Barry Alvarez said. "I've been in this racket a long time, and I don't know if I've ever been in a game like that."
A victory would have given Purdue (5-1, 2-1) its best start since 1943, and people around West Lafayette will be talking about a game of missed opportunities for a long time.
Orton did not play to the level of a front-runner for the Heisman Trophy, completing 25 of 42 passes for 235 yards, throwing one touchdown pass and running for a score. He fumbled twice and threw an interception.
Purdue entered the contest averaging more than 500 yards of offense and scoring 41.8 points a game. But the Boilermakers had yet to face a defense as tough as Wisconsin's, which led the nation in scoring defense at 6.5 points a game.
Orton found his favorite receiver, Taylor Stubblefield, only 3 times for 40 yards and no touchdowns. Stubblefield went into the game leading the nation with 11 touchdown catches.
The two missed opportunities that will ache most came in the fourth quarter. With under a minute remaining, the freshman wide receiver Dorien Bryant dropped an Orton bullet inside the 5-yard line that hit him in the hands. If Bryant had caught the ball, his momentum would have carried him into the end zone.
Earlier, but just as critical, was safety Kyle Smith dropping what would have been an interception with the Boilermakers leading by 17-7 with seven minutes left.
"The plays were there for us to make, and we couldn't do it," Purdue Coach Joe Tiller said.
The Wisconsin sophomore quarterback John Stocco stayed calm after Smith's near interception. He threw a 7-yard touchdown pass to Booker Stanley four plays later to cut the lead to 17-14 with 5:29 remaining.
Stocco finished 17 of 32 passing for 211 yards. He tossed one touchdown pass and threw one interception. He thrived on a night when tailback Anthony Davis struggled. Entering with averages of 153 yards a game and 5.8 yards a carry, Davis was held to 66 yards on 18 carries. He scored on a 6-yard touchdown run in the second quarter, finishing a drive he began with a 33-yard run.
At Wisconsin this season, everything comes back to the defense, especially the dominating line. Purdue did not score until early in the third quarter, when Wisconsin's best player, defensive end Erasmus James, left with an ankle injury. It was the second critical loss on the defensive line. Jonathan Welsh, the other end, was injured sacking Orton in the first quarter.
Purdue's first touchdown came on the same drive, during which James was injured. Orton capped the drive with an 8-yard touchdown pass to Charles Davis, the player who had knocked James out of the game with a legal chop block. Still, the Badgers' defensive coaches criticized the block and the Purdue players for celebrating the play.
Orton scored Purdue's other touchdown on a 6-yard run in the fourth quarter when he went past James's replacement, Joe Monty, and turned the corner for the score.
James still had his fingerprints all over Purdue's first-half offensive struggles, as the Boilermakers failed to score in the first quarter and fell behind, both firsts for them this season.
James's speed and force threw a hairpin in Purdue's offensive joyride as he forced a fumble while sacking Orton, drew two holding penalties that stymied Boilermaker drives and hit Orton's arm to cause an interception.
"We had our two defensive ends out," Alvarez said, "but still found a way to get the job done."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/sports/ncaafootball/17purdue.html
Here's the VA FSU report...
I couldn't find the Auburn Arkansas results. (I only looked in the Times... sorry.)
No. 7 Florida St. Tops No. 6 Virginia 36 - 3
Published: October 17, 2004
Filed at 4:50 a.m. ET
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Virginia was ranked higher than Florida State and looking for its first road win against a top-10 team. The No. 6 Cavaliers couldn't even get a touchdown Saturday.
``When the Florida State defense comes to play ... you see what happens,'' Seminoles linebacker Buster Davis said. ``We shut teams down.''
Wyatt Sexton's precision passing took care of the offense as the No. 7 Seminoles rolled to a 36-3 victory over previously undefeated Virginia and picked up their first win over a higher ranked team for the first time since the 1998 season.
Tailback Lorenzo Booker rushed for a career-high 123 yards and two touchdown runs, while Florida State's defense limited Virginia to 20 yards rushing.
``You get no field position and that's a (death) sentence against a team like this,'' Virginia coach Al Groh said. ``It always has been.''
Groh said it was the best Florida State team he's seen since coming to Virginia four years ago.
``They do nothing to make it easy on an opponent,'' he said.
Sexton completed 20 of 26 passes for 275 yards and a touchdown despite having five passes dropped. He has completed 66.1 percent of his passes for 846 yards and five touchdowns since replacing Chris Rix as the starter last month.
``I couldn't ask for a better outing from Wyatt,'' Florida State Bobby Bowden said. ``He's gotten better every game. It's kind of too good to be true right now.''
Sexton, however, was modest about his second near-flawless performance in three weeks.
``The offensive line made things easy for me,'' he said. ``All I had to do was drop back and do what I've been coached to do.''
Florida State (5-1, 3-1 Atlantic Coast Conference) easily played its best game of the season, getting big plays from its special teams and beating Virginia for the seventh straight time at home.
Florida State's win snapped a string of six straight losses against top-10 opponents. Virginia missed an opportunity for a road win against a top-10 team for the first time.
With No. 5 Purdue also losing, the Seminoles will likely move up in the rankings. Their only loss was a 16-10 overtime setback against Miami in their opener.
Virginia (5-1, 2-1 ACC) came into the game averaging 42.4 points and 493.2 yards, but was unable to run against Florida State's vaunted rush defense, which gave up just 5 yards in the first half.
Virginia's only points came on a 23-yard field goal by Connor Hughes as time expired in the first half.
Only the elusiveness of Virginia quarterback Marques Hagans got the Cavaliers on the scoreboard. Under a heavy rush all night, Hagans managed to complete 9 of 11 passes to set up the field goal.
Hagans completed 20 of 30 passes for 214 yards and was intercepted once before leaving after three quarters in favor of Christian Olsen.
Tight end Heath Miller caught nine passes for 110 yards for Virginia.
Sexton, meanwhile, was slicing up the Cavaliers.
The sophomore shook off the early drops and completed pass after pass, one a perfectly thrown pass to Chauncey Stovall, who outjumped Virginia's Marcus Hamilton for the ball and a 19-0 lead.
Despite four drops, Sexton completed 16 of 21 passes for 179 yards and a touchdown in the first half, throwing to nine receivers.
Florida State's special teams started the scoring.
Linebacker Ernie Sims broke free from his left side and blocked Sean Johnson's punt into the end zone midway through the first quarter for a safety and a 2-0 Florida State lead.
Leon Washington scored on a 5-yard run and finished with 68 yards rushing while Xavier Beitia kicked two field goals and missed one.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-FBC-Virginia-Florida-St.html
Hey cute stuff... Matthew news flash from the hills of nj...
The stinker is giving us your rain. Too bad we can't help Mother Nature achieve a more fair distribution of her bounty. We don't need it but you folks could sure use it. This too will even itself out.
The German Potato Salad was made by my very English mumsy who spent years learning to prepare it to my very German father's taste. It is superb. At one point, I asked her to make it for a neighborhood Oktoberfest. I boiled and peeled the potatoes. She complied. It won hands down as the best that was offered.
Thanks for the question. I'm going to ask for the bare bones prep info. I know bacon and a sweet sour mix in the drippings is an element. No idea of how to get to point b from point a though.
I hear the rain crashing into the house right now... wondering about my front walk. Backtrack time coming.
What is the answer to the age old question... "Do bears s*h*i*t in the woods?"
It is NO.
They s*h*i*t on ksquared's walk at the top of the stairs leading to her front door.
Major gross out greeted me upon my return home on Wednesday. Ach du lieber. I thought someone had thrown tar on my walk. Upon closer inspection, it turned out to be two bear turds the size of cow pies. ICK ICK ICK!
I knew the rains of Matthew were coming and decided to let nature take its course... until this evening. I could not stand seeing the piles so I decided to do the lazy clean up routine with the garden hose. Broke it up nicely but there was only one catch and what a catch it was. <g>
The yard in front of the stairs has eroded to the point where the downhill slope leads to the gap between the first stair and the yard. Instead of the brown water flowing down off the walk away from the stairs, it pooled and then moved through the gap to fill the top two.
YUCK! I'm still so nauseated that I haven't eaten dinner. LOL
Yesterday as I was bringing in my evening firewood, something shiny caught my eye at the edge of the deck. It was a major bear pie filling one of the groundhog holes. Holy cow... this critter is far too comfortable around my house.
The neighbors put out food for other woodland creatures. I think this sucker is eating in their yards and using mine as its toilet. How hygienic. Lucky me. Maybe I should put out food with a latrine sign pointing to their yards. <g>
Pouring as I type. Sure as heck hope it takes care of the mess out there.
Watch where you step, NM... especially near the edge of decks. Hope you're all right.
ksquared
Evening gp. You're welcome.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I had never heard of Dr. Samenow until you posted. I will have to scope out the book stores for his work. He sounds like someone I'd agree with.
Thanks.
BTW... my brother-in-law made a statement that he was "too old" to be doing what he is doing. I'm impressed as heck that he is still on the team. DANG! Bodes well for the offspring. <g>
Take care.
ksquared
Amen, racerdave42... amen. eom
If you don't vote for Bush...
Vote for Nader <g>
(I am not in the mood to work today.)
Good news from the NY Times.
Nader Emerging as the Threat Democrats Feared
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 - With less than three weeks before the election, Ralph Nader is emerging as just the threat that Democrats feared, with a potential to tip the balance in up to nine states where President Bush and Senator John Kerry are running neck and neck.
Despite a concerted effort by Democrats to derail his independent candidacy, as well as his being struck off the Pennsylvania ballot on Wednesday, Mr. Nader will be on the ballots in more than 30 states.
Polls show that he could influence the outcomes in nine by drawing support from Mr. Kerry. They are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Wisconsin.
Moreover, six - Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Wisconsin - were among the top 20 where Mr. Nader drew his strongest support in 2000. If the vote for Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry is as evenly divided as the polls suggest, the electoral votes in any one of those states could determine who becomes president.
Mr. Nader repeated this week that he had no intention of leaving the race. He said no one from the Kerry campaign or Democratic National Committee was pressing him behind the scenes to quit, and he said he thought that Mr. Kerry would not make a good president anyway.
"He's not his own man," Mr. Nader said on Tuesday in a telephone interview from California. "Because he takes the liberals for granted, he's allowing Bush to pull him in his direction. It doesn't show much for his character."
That is a change from May, when Mr. Nader met Mr. Kerry at his campaign headquarters and afterward praised him as "very presidential." Mr. Kerry did not ask him to withdraw then, but now the party is in a full-throated plea, with its chairman, Terry McAuliffe, saying on Thursday that Mr. Nader should "end the charade" of a campaign being kept afloat by "corporate backers."
Although Mr. Nader's support is negligible in much of the country, and scant in some of the nine states, even a tiny Nader vote could make a difference, as it did in 2000 in Florida and New Hampshire.
Democrats belittle Mr. Nader's efforts, portraying his campaign as a ragtag version of its former self, with the candidate's appearances limited to easy-to-book locations like college campuses. But they acknowledge that he could make a difference, and even Mr. Kerry has adjusted his stump speech in part to try to appeal to potential Nader voters, who tend to loathe corporate America and fiercely oppose the Iraq war.
Mr. Kerry now casts Mr. Bush as a tool of rich and powerful "special interests," and he has sharpened his critique of Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq.
Several Democratic and left-leaning groups sprung up this year to try to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot in the swing states, fearing he could siphon votes from Mr. Kerry as he did from Al Gore in 2000. In Florida that year, Mr. Nader won 1.6 percent of the vote. That accounted for 97,488 votes, and Mr. Bush beat Mr. Gore there by 537.
In 2000, Mr. Nader won 2.7 percent of the vote nationally. Pollsters say that this year, Mr. Nader's national support has dwindled, from a peak of 5 percent in May to 1.5 percent now.
In some states it is higher. This year in Iowa, the average of the latest polls shows Mr. Kerry with 47.5 percent of the vote, Mr. Bush with 46.6 percent and Mr. Nader with 4 percent.
The average of polls in Minnesota shows 45.5 percent for Mr. Kerry, 45.5 percent for Bush and 2.7 percent for Mr. Nader.
Mr. Nader is still in litigation to be on the ballot in Ohio, where Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry are in a dead heat and where Mr. Nader draws 1 percent of the vote. Mr. Nader is also appealing a court's throwing him off the Pennsylvania ballot.
Polls also show Mr. Nader drawing some support from Mr. Bush, though at a much lower level than from Mr. Kerry, which explains why Republicans have been supporting and encouraging his efforts to get on ballots while Democrats have mounted an orchestrated effort to keep him off.
"Though he hurts Kerry more than Bush, there's a potential that he hurts Bush, too," said Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster who has examined Nader voters, although she said potential Nader voters were difficult to find and hard to track.
Mr. Nader maintained in the interview "there is no evidence" that he takes votes from Mr. Kerry. He said surveys by Zogby showed him pulling equally from Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry.
A spokeswoman for Zogby International, Shawnta Walcott, said that Zogby polls showed Mr. Nader drawing far more from Mr. Kerry. She said the polls, aggregated from March through last month, showed that if Mr. Nader was not an option, 41 percent of his supporters went to Mr. Kerry and 15 percent went to Mr. Bush. Thirty percent went elsewhere and 13 percent were undecided.
Ms. Greenberg said that the profile of likely Nader supporters was changing and beginning to resemble that of voters who supported H. Ross Perot, the third-party candidate, in 1996, rather than those who supported Mr. Nader in 2000. Indeed, several celebrities and liberal activists who supported Mr. Nader in 2000 have renounced him and urged other former supporters to vote for Mr. Kerry, because defeating Mr. Bush is their top priority. Mr. Nader's former running mate, Winona LaDuke, has endorsed Mr. Kerry.
Voters who supported Mr. Nader in 2000 tended to split equally between men and women and who were white, liberal and college educated. Ms. Greenberg said voters who supported him tended to be white men, blue collar, fiscally conservative, populist, against open trade, angry about the high cost of health care and prescription drugs and virulently opposed to the Iraq war.
She said Mr. Kerry had helped diminish Mr. Nader's appeal to some of those voters through his advertising and in the debates.
"Nader is taking less out of Kerry now," she said. "So the leftover Nader vote is more conservative," meaning that they were Bush supporters originally but have defected, probably because he has allowed the deficit to balloon.
Still, the Nader factor seems wildly unpredictable.
"Nader is appealing to people who think neither party represents their interests," said David Jones, who runs an anti-Nader Web site, TheNaderFactor.com. "I don't know if we're dealing with the old 2000 voter or the new 2004 voter. The real question about them is will they vote?"
In the interview, Mr. Nader rejected the idea that he was a spoiler.
"I deny the designation entirely," he said. "Everyone is trying to get votes from everyone else. So we're all spoilers or none of us are spoilers."
Mr. Nader said his campaign was at the very least producing "great data" for him to use after the election to fight what he says are restrictive and unfair ballot-access laws. He said that in the long term his current fight would help destroy the two-party dominance of American politics, which he said was his goal.
"We lose to win, eventually," he said. "That's the story of social justice. You have to be willing to lose and fight, and lose and fight, and lose and fight. Until the agenda is won."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/politics/campaign/15nader.html?hp&ex=1097899200&en=75ad05e...
Good stuff Ms.Katie...
I am being bad this morning. I keep the Post open on my desk (paper copy) to sneak reads while I work. Just caught this last editorial. I'm ashamed I missed it the first time.
When is this country going to figure out we are at war?
It is so good to have you on board. Thanks for participating and in the words of the immortal <g> Phil...
Have fun.
back.to.wORk.ksquared
A REVOLVING DOOR FOR TERRORISTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 15, 2004 --
A kidnapping in Pakistan ended yester day in a way that underscores the na ture of the terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay.
Abdullah Mehsud was freed from Gitmo back in March under the belief that he was no longer a threat.
Wrong.
He was apparently the engineer of the kidnapping Saturday of two Chinese engineers working on a Pakistani dam near the Afghan border.
That crisis seems to have ended yesterday when Pakistani special forces moved in, killing five al Qaeda-linked terrorists. One of the hostages also died, and Mehsud is being hunted.
Coalition forces had captured him three years ago, following the October 2001 assault on al Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Freed on the (false) assumption that he was no longer a risk, Mehsud swiftly returned to his main mission in life: trying to kill as many Americans and their allies as possible.
In a decision earlier this year, the Supreme Court essentially said that the detainees at Guantanamo are eligible for some access to the federal courts and can't be held indefinitely.
The Mehsud incident underscores the wisdom of that particular diktat.
The War on Terror has no end in sight. For the duration, treating the terrorists themselves like mere common criminals makes no sense at all.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/30364.htm
More good stuff from the NY Post Opinion Page.
If Kerry really cared about the people, maybe he would bother to do his job in the Senate and vote for what he says he believes in.
HIS NEEDS CAME FIRST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 15, 2004 --
Wednesday night, John Kerry launched — to use President Bush's words — a "litany of complaints" against his opponent, alleging that the administration has failed in every way possible.
The Massachusetts liberal was especially eloquent about what he termed the Republican Party's callous treatment of the poor.
"They've wound up not even extending unemployment benefits . . ."
Well, imagine that.
Now, exactly why were the unemployment benefits not extended?
Because a bill designed to do so just barely failed in the Senate in May.
Absent was John Forbes Kerry — off busily running for president.
Had he walked into the Senate last May, taken his seat and backed up his rhetoric with an actual vote, he might have made a difference.
But, of course, he didn't.
So the bill failed, 59-40 (it needed 60 votes to pass) — and thus an extension was dead for this year.
Again, John Kerry's absence effectively killed it.
Now he blames its demise on Bush.
The man's arrogance is breathtaking.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/30365.htm
From the Post re Kerry's despicable comment about
the Cheney's gay daughter...
DIGINITY OF THE WHITE HOUSE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 15, 2004 -- It hardly seems possible, but the Demo crats stooped even lower yesterday in their contemptible abuse of Vice Pres ident Dick Cheney's daughter.
Both the veep and his wife, Lynne, reacted angrily to John Kerry's having pointedly noted in Wednesday's debate that their daughter Mary — who works for the campaign but keeps a low profile — is gay.
The suspicion is that Kerry meant to damage the Republican ticket in the eyes of any voters who have a problem with Mary Cheney's sexuality — that is, in the eyes of people that Kerry considers to be bigots.
Recall that Kerry's running-mate, John Edwards, also gratuitously brought up the subject during the vice-presidential debate.
Yesterday, Mrs. Cheney reacted furiously to Kerry's tactic, calling it "a cheap and tawdry political trick."
Which brought an outrageously over-the-top response from Edwards' wife, Elizabeth — who charged that the Cheneys are ashamed of their daughter.
"She's overreacted to this," said Mrs. Edwards on ABC Radio, referring to the veep's wife. "I think it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences . . . It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response."
That's truly loathsome.
Was Mrs. Edwards not listening to her husband when he said, "You can't have anything but respect for the fact that [the Cheneys] are willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter"?
Or was that just a load of slick lawyer Edwards' smooth talk?
Of course it was.
Yesterday, Edwards actually defended his running-mate's exploitative tactics by claiming, "Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, had themselves brought it up."
As if that gives Kerry-Edwards the right to drag an innocent bystander's name into the muck.
There's a clear line developing here.
Kerry's campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, arrogantly dismissed any suggestion that her candidates were out of line, calling it "fair game" because the Cheneys' daughter is "a major figure in the campaign."
Actually, she's nothing of the kind: Though she's appeared with her parents, she doesn't give speeches and prefers to avoid the limelight.
Now imagine this scenario, laid out by Internet blogger Edward Morrissey: What if Bush used "Julia Thorne, Kerry's ex-wife, to refute Kerry's insistence that he is a practicing Catholic [who] respects families?" A rhetorical firestorm would follow, of course.
Will the John-John ticket get a pass for invading Mary Cheney's privacy twice by injecting her into debates before a national audience — and then insulting her parents by accusing them of being ashamed of their daughter?
That's to be determined.
But let's be clear on one thing.
However despicable the Democrats' conduct is on a personal level, it becomes even more reprehensible when one considers that John Kerry is running for the presidency of the United States.
Clearly, he has no respect for Mary Cheney; has he none as well for the dignity of the office he seeks?
The two candidates — and Elizabeth Edwards — owe Dick and Lynne Cheney a public apology.
Mary Cheney, too.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/30367.htm
Morning Ms. Katie... Thanks for this.
I caught a similar headline in USA Today at the cafeteria checkout when I paid for my breakfast.
Who needs terrorists to disrupt our elections, when we have the Democrats?
Have a good one.
ksquared
Howdy Dew-zee and WELCOME!
You and Ms. Katie just made my day. Please keep posting. We could use fresh faces and input such as your excellent offerings. <g>
Later,
ksquared
Color it bright red, Miss Scarlet!!!
<g> Welcome aboard, Ms. Katie!
Dang, quit lurking and post away. Great comments and insights. (I just read ahead.) Life and work have me occupied lately so I appreciate being able to read some GOOD STUFF!
Take care and thank you.
ksquared
Morning Novo... you'll enjoy this.
Just read it and had to send it to you. Now back to wORk!
SMOKING GUN
John Podhoretz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2004 -- CONSERVATIVES are up in arms about the memo written by the chief pol itics producer at ABC News, which leaked out on Friday. They shouldn't be. Mark Halperin's memo is very useful: It reveals as no other document ever has the existence of a deeply ingrained double standard in the way political news is reported in the United States.
Simply put, Republicans and conservatives are subject to exacting scrutiny of their actions, while Democrats and liberals are treated with far greater leniency.
You can see this in the memo, when Halperin informs his colleagues, "The current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done." He also says the Bushies are making "stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Sen. Kerry at least partly through distortions."
Let's stipulate that some of the Bush attacks on Kerry feature distortions. For example, the president's claim that Kerry is proposing a government-run health-care system is a bit of trickery. Kerry proposes no such thing — though his plans are so unbelievably costly that it's more than fair to argue they would inexorably lead to government rationing of health care. But the president doesn't really argue it. He states it as fact, and if we lived in a universe in which everybody played fair all the time, he wouldn't do that.
But we don't live in that universe. We live in a universe where politicians of both sides make ellisions in their arguments — Sen. Kerry no less than President Bush. On matters ranging from tax policy to the No Child Left Behind Act, Kerry is guilty of precisely the same sorts of distortions.
But to Halperin and his colleagues in the mainstream media, the Republican distortions seem far worse because — well, because they just don't hold the Democrats with whom they agree to the same standard as they do the Republicans with whom they disagree.
Now, Kerry partisans and others will claim that the health-care distortion is nothing compared to the supposed slanders about his war record heaped on the Massachusetts senator by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Indeed, I suspect that the Swift Boat attacks are the true source (whether consciously or unconsciously I can't say) of Halperin's assertion about the fundamentally distorting nature of the Bush campaign.
But the Swift Boat attacks weren't launched by the Bush campaign, and Halperin knows it. They were launched by an independent group, one of the 527s that has arisen in the wake of the last campaign-finance law.
Oh ho, say the Kerry skeptics. Don't be naive. Surely you know that the Bush campaign is behind the Swift Boat Veterans.
But here's the thing. It would be patently, blatantly illegal for the Bush campaign to be coordinating with the Swift Boat Veterans. Halperin knows this.
He also knows that it would be illegal for the Kerry campaign to be coordinating with left-liberal 527s, which have raised more than $150 million to defeat President Bush — as opposed to the paltry $158,000 raised by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth so far.
However vilified John Kerry may feel by the Swift Boat guys, that too is as nothing to Bush-as-Hitler trope that seems to be the central ideological conceit of the anti-Bush 527s and their key organizer, George Soros.
The point here is that Republican attacks on Democrats offend the ear of mainstream-media veterans like Mark Halperin in a way that Democratic attacks on Republicans don't. And by writing his ill-advised but revelatory memo, Halperin has shown how implicit bias can become explicit newsgathering policy.
So conservatives owe Mark Halperin a debt of gratitude — for proving to all fair-minded people that we right-wingers have been hollering "foul" about media bias all these years with ample reason.
After all, how many other memos like this have been written over the decades that we haven't seen? Dozens? Hundreds?
E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/31677.htm
Morning NM... sorry to hear you missed your share of the rain. Any hope some will fall in the near future? I haven't had a whole lot of time to watch TV this weekend.
Ah... Father's 80th. By and large, a most pleasant gathering. Food was simple but delicious... Marinated top round on the grill, real German potato salad, salad, fruit salad, and rolls.
The piece de resistance was the cake. It was the centerpiece of the buffet table and admired by all. It was a sin to cut it, it was so beautiful.
However, not only was the cake gorgeous, it was one of the most moist and tastiest chocolate cakes, I've ever eaten in my life.
Everyone had a huge chunk and there is still a lot left over. I will take it into work so my coworkers can go off their diets and get a taste. People love this woman's baking. She could probably make a small fortune doing a limited number of specialty cakes for the well-to-do. She lives in one of the high ends of Morris County. Her town and those surrounding are lousy with big bucks. <g>
Chimney cleaning: I got it cleaned before I started using the fireplace in earnest. That was three years ago. Haven't had it done since. Did look up it with a mirror last year. Looked pretty spic and span. I've only been burning seasoned hardwood. I am finally at a point where everything I burn has been sitting for a year or two. I rotate the stock. The fires burn HOT and the draw is superb.
I follow Pop's example. He has only burned seasoned oak for the past 50 years in his fireplace. Has never had the chimney cleaned. Still draws to perfection and the house is still standing. <g>
If your chimney goes straight up as mine does, check it out with a mirror and a flashlight. The color of mine was black... big surprise... but the surface was smooth and there were no visible obstructions.
trkyhntr will probably be able to add any cautions that I have missed. He is a veteran of indoor fires.
Ironically... where your winters have been too warm for a fire, last year, ours was too cold for me to burn on a regular basis. I have a generic fireplace. The most inefficient source of heat going. After the fire dies, I lose a lot of heat up the chimney. Last year, it was so ding dang cold for stretches that I saved money on oil by not burning a fire and just keeping everything as closed as possible.
People keep suggesting an insert. I don't like them. To me the fun is in watching the raw fire. I continue to marvel at the cleverness of man... to be able to have a live fire in one's house and not burn it to the ground. <g>
Miss.Simple.Pleasures here.
Have a good one, Texas Rose.
ksquared
You're welcome, young one!
BTW, I'll never give away my trade secrets.
Take care.
Dang gp! That was some fine shooting!
Must make you feel really good about yourself. And rightly so! When I reread this, I had to laugh at the "old man" comment.
My sister and her husband (of Capitol Police force CERT fame) are up for my dad's 80th birthday today... HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DAD! I saw them last night.
I asked my b-in-law if he was still playing baseball. Not this year however he is "legendary". He was talking to someone who is playing this year who did not know who he was. When he mentioned he had played ball, this "kid" commented about the amazing "old man" who played ball for my b-in-law's team... yep. He was talking about J. Too funny.
He also mentioned that he has been on CERT since 1981 and thinks he's getting too old for this. He's 51. My sister calls him the oldest living SWAT team member in the U.S. It could be true.
So here's to the 50-something-year-olds and their physical prowess. Be proud to count yourself in that group, my friend.
Wondering how the training under Dr. Samenow went. Curious to hear how his clinical observations coincide with your practical experience.
In the meantime, I hope you get some time off to fish. Man does not live by shooting alone. <g>
Take care, gp. You're one of the good guys.
ksquared
Morning Walk.
Thank you for your kind words. You're right that every vote counts. I live in a tiny town... yes, there are still tiny towns in the hills of nj. I vote in every election including the school elections. It is obvious here that every vote matters. I will not waste mine.
Curious... how "elderly"? My dad is 80 today. Happy Birthday to the old Democrat. <g> I won't discuss politics with him (or Mumsy). No point to it. Maybe I could get you out here to talk some sense into them. <ggg>
So it goes.
Going to be a family celebration at the house. I'm bringing the cake. It is elaborate. I commissioned it from a woman at work who makes specialty cakes as a hobby. I can guarantee that he has never had a cake like this in his life. Wondering how I am going to be able to top it for his 90th.
Bless you for coming on board with us whippersnappers. May you live long and in good health.
Bests,
ksquared
Second YEE-HAW! GO BUSH!
THE PRESIDENT IS BACK
BY DICK MORRIS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 9, 2004 -- BUSH is back!
The president finally showed the guts, determination and focus that earned him victories in the three debates with Al Gore. He finally did his homework. He focused on his briefing points and mobilized his rhetoric to win the second debate.
It was Reagan-Mondale all over again. In the first debate of 1984, Walter Mondale soundly defeated Ronald Reagan, and in the process raised questions about the elderly president's metal acuity. In the first debate of 2004, Kerry's victory raised worries about President Bush's mental acuity. But in the second debate of his re-election year, Reagan rebounded through his humor to reassure the doubters. Twenty years later, Bush recovered through his aggressiveness to make clear that he is still the president, still the man.
Bush won even in the domestic-policy part of the debate — a victory that was as unlikely as John Kerry's win in last week's confrontation on foreign issues. By explaining his tax-cut policies and hanging John Edwards' trial-lawyer record around Kerry's neck, he rebutted the Democratic attacks and made his own record visible and showcased it compellingly.
But it was in the opening 38 minutes that focused on Iraq and the War on Terror that Bush won the key points. By coming out aggressively and attacking the bribery in the Oil-for-Food program, he showed the strength and vigor that Americans know is necessary to deal with the terrorist threat.
Bush won this debate by acing the issue of Iraq. He explained the rationale for the war and tied it to protecting homeland security. He defended his deficit by saying he was not willing either to raise taxes or to endanger our troops by underfunding the War on Terror.
The dignified, coiffeured John Kerry came out behind his podium and paced the floor. But he was shown up by George W. Bush. He showed how superficial were his arguments and how contradictory was his record. In a forum that seemed more real for the participation of the voters, Bush made it clear that he is in charge and that he is protecting us in a way that John Kerry never could do.
Kerry's debating gimmicks, his briefing notes, his talking points all came up against Bush's presidential-ness — and came up short. He was reduced to quibbling while the president focused on national policy and our public interest.
The essential contradiction of Kerry's position on Iraq became clear when Bush demonstrated how facile was the Democrat's hope that he could attract allies or win the war while proclaiming it a mistake, a failure, and a distraction.
And in the off-camera moments, it was Kerry's turn to look angry and for the bags under his eyes to acquire a petulance and a peevishness which had formerly marred Bush's performance.
Bush seemed ready to pounce. When Kerry spoke, it was Bush who crept up behind and rebutted the Democrat's talking points. Even on the question of abortion — where I agree with Kerry and disagree with Bush — the president did a good job of casting himself as a centrist and labeling Kerry as a leftist.
The crowd seemed to reinvigorate Bush. He spoke with a dignity lacking in the first debate and a presidential bearing that was not there last time.
By labeling Kerry as the most liberal member of the Senate, he pushed the Democrat into the corner and showed him to be outside the mainstream of American politics.
Bush took control of the debate. The president took over. Kerry was reduced to the posture of an outsider, a pretender, an advocate contrasted with the president.
Will the debate influence the election? Bush's responses and his policies won. He will emerge stronger for this debate. A tied race will likely revert to a Bush edge. Can Bush maintain it? Can he go through the final debate, on domestic policy, and keep his advantage?
He had a good workout in this debate. He learned how to handle Kerry not only on foreign issues, but on domestic issues as well. Bush is on his way.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/29969.htm
I saw about 5 minutes of last night's debate...
decided I needed my sleep more. I know who has my vote. Figured I read about it this morning.
Read the following and another that will be a subsequent post from the NY POST <g> and greeted myself with a big YEE-HAW!
GO BUSH!
THE L-WORD RETURNS
BY JOHN PODHORETZ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 9, 2004 -- WHO won the debate? After completely misreading last week’s presidential clash, I will spare you my call. But it seems inarguable that George W. Bush was not the same candidate last night he was last week. He was prepared, pumped up and enthusiastic, even though his trademark verbal solecisms kept getting in the way (yes, he said “Internets”).
Mind you, John Kerry was superb — for a while. He was at his best, most concise and most pointed in his summary of the case against Bush’s conduct of the Iraq war. Indeed, his handling of the matter was better, I thought, than in last week’s debate because there was something about the looser town-hall format that brought the argument down to human scale. “I do believe Saddam Hussein as a threat,” he said at the beginning of the debate. “I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary. But I would have used that force wisely, I would have used that authority wisely, not rushed to war without a plan to win the peace . . . And Iran now is more dangerous, and so is North Korea, with nuclear weapons. He took his eye off the ball, off of Osama bin Laden.” Though I don’t agree with this line, it was well-stated and cogent. But when Kerry said of future Iraq-like conflicts that “we’re not going to go alone like this president did,” he gave Bush an opening for the most passionate and heartfelt moment in both debates Bush interrupted moderator Charles Gibson to fire back: “You tell Tony Blair we’re going alone. Tell Tony Blair we’re going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we’re going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland we’re going alone. There are 30 countries there. It denigrates an alliance to say we’re going alone, to discount their sacrifices. You cannot lead an alliance if you say, you know, you’re going alone. And people listen. They’re sacrificing with us.” But the Massachusetts senator seemed to lose steam and focus at a certain point and never quite got his mojo back.
And therein hangs a fascinating tale for the rest of the campaign. Kerry found it necessary to back away, time and again, from the president’s pointblank description of him as a “liberal” — a description the president sourced to National Journal, the Washington magazine that named Kerry the “most liberal” member of the U.S. Senate in 2003. This, he said, was a “label” — and if you think he doesn’t like being labeled, you got that right. The first time, he said: “The president is just trying to scare everybody here with throwing labels around . . . I mean, seriously — labels don’t mean anything. What means something is: Do you have a plan?” The second time, he said:
“Let me just say to you, number one, don’t throw the labels around. Labels don’t mean anything.” The third time, he said: “Labels don’t fit, ladies and gentlemen.” The point here is that Kerry is desperate for Americans to view him not as a liberal, or even as a moderate, but as a right-of-center Democrat. He offered what seemed to me to be patronizing moral support to two women who asked socially conservative questions — one about stem-cell research, the other about abortion. He took pains to sound hawkish and to describe himself as a supporter of balanced budgets, welfare reform, tort reform and tax cuts. But the president was ready for him. When Kerry said his “plan” included tort reform, Bush hit back: “He said he’s for — you’re now for capping punitive damages? That’s odd. You should have shown up on the floor in the Senate and voted for it then. Medical liability issues are a problem, a significant problem. He’s been in the United States Senate for 20 years and he hasn’t addressed it. We passed it out of the House of Representatives. Guess where it’s stuck? It’s stuck in the Senate, because the trial lawyers won’t act on it. And he put a trial lawyer on the ticket.” Twice Bush said, “You can run, but you can’t hide.” He meant Kerry couldn’t hide from his liberal Senate voting record. The era of the flip-flop attack is over. The argument against Kerry’s liberalism has begun in earnest.
E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/12345.htm
gp... you rascal! <g>
Gee... and I was doing them to stay on the young side of life.
reminiscing.ksquared.happily
The daily word brought to you via the NY Post Opinion Page...
I sure hope the president's people have him well-versed for tonight's debate. I truly fear for this nation if he is replaced by the two toilets.
JOHN KERRY'S 'ALLIES' — BOUGHT AND PAID FOR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 8, 2004 -- The national media are busy trumpet ing the news that the chief U.S. weapons inspector, Charles Duel fer, found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Which is hardly news, right?
But there is news — real news — in Duelfer's 1,200-page report.
It tells the tale of how Saddam Hussein, clinging to power, enlisted top U.N. officials to help him bribe leaders of those European nations so dear to John Kerry's heart into ending tough economic sanctions against Iraq.
Whereupon Saddam planned to resume his decades-long quest for WMDs.
And he almost succeeded.
What stopped him?
The attacks of 9/11 — which prompted determined leaders like President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair finally to confront the threat Saddam represented — as Duelfer's report confirms.
The key was the United Nations' Oil-for-Food program — meant to provide relief for Saddam's suffering millions, but, in the event, one of the most corrupt "humanitarian" undertakings in history.
It provided almost no help to the Iraqi people, but rather gave Saddam nearly $11 billion in hard currency — cash used to bribe foreign officials into a gradual loosening of sanctions.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan's deputy, Benon Sevan, oversaw the program.
(Now it appears that Sevan may have enriched himself to the tune of $1.3 million, courtesy of oil companies he personally recommended to Iraq after the program began.)
Saddam's "evolving strategy," says Duelfer, "centered on breaking free of U.N. sanctions in order to liberate his economy from the economic stranglehold, so he could continue to pursue his political and personal objectives."
To do that, he resolved to divide the five permanent Security Council members. The United States and Great Britain were unapproachable — so instead he set about buying off the governments of France, China and Russia.
The three nations which — wouldn't you know? — worked at every turn to frustrate any attempt to hold Saddam's feet to the fire.
Among those to whom Saddam personally approved offers of oil vouchers — worth millions of dollars each — were:
* Charles Pasqua, a former French interior minister;
* Patrick Maugein, believed by Iraqi intelligence to be closely tied to French President Jacques Chirac; in addition, two of Chirac's aides and one of his spokesmen were given cash payoffs.
According to the report, an unnamed French politician wrote Saddam to assure him that France would use its veto power against any U.S. attack on Iraq.
* Officials in the Russian presidential office and foreign ministry.
In all, officials in more than a dozen countries were given the vouchers.
And dozens of oil companies in the same countries — their names still kept secret — got lucrative contracts.
Which were the nations with the highest percentage of oil-voucher recipients?
France, China and Russia.
The sweetheart deals "provided Saddam with a useful method of rewarding countries, organizations and individuals willing to cooperate with Iraq to subvert U.N. sanctions," according Duelfer.
In fact, Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday, "sanctions were in free fall . . . If not for 9/11, I don't think they would exist today."
Once the sanctions were gone, said Duelfer, Saddam could have had a biological weapons "within a few weeks."
"What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of use of force" and "had experiences that demonstrated the utility of WMD," said Duelfer. (This, after all, was a man who'd already used poison gas against both Iranian soldiers and Kurdish women and children.)
Also clear, according to the report, is that "Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable."
You certainly won't be hearing anything like that from the John-John Ticket — Kerry and Edwards.
The Democratic Duo has adopted the simplistic position that no weapons of mass destruction means no justification for the Iraq war. And that the enlistment of "allies" — France? Russia? — is the key to a secure America.
Back in the real world, while the Duelfer report may not be a smoking gun in the case against Saddam, it certainly represents a loaded pistol pointed straight at the United States and at the global economy — dependant as it is on Mideast oil.
Saddam fully expected sanctions to disappear — and he acted accordingly.
According to Duelfer's report, the Oil-for-Food program and Saddam's decision to once again kick out U.N. inspectors in 1998 "spurred a period of increased activity in [weapons] delivery-systems development. The pace of ongoing missile programs accelerated, and the regime authorized its scientists to design missiles with ranges in excess of 150 km."
Duelfer's investigators also "uncovered Iraqi plans or designs for three long-range ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000 km and for a 1,000-km-range cruiser missile."
These plans, they said, "demonstrate Saddam's . . . desire — up to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom — for a long-range delivery capability."
Moreover, Saddam had the help of a host of scientists and technicians from Russia, and "had entered into negotiations with North Korean and Russian entities for more capable missile systems."
In fact, a French arms firm was in negotiations to supply Saddam with critical surface-to-air missile and other high-tech parts "with battlefield applications" just three weeks before the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Duelfer's report makes it unmistakably clear that regional domination was Saddam's goal all along — and that he would have continued his quest once U.N. sanctions were lifted.
Which, thanks to the corruption at Turtle Bay, they would have been by now.
In retrospect, how can anyone doubt that Saddam represented a grave threat to the Middle East and the entire world?
That's exactly how Charles Duelfer describes him.
Waiting for U.N. "sanctions" to do the job — as John Kerry and John Edwards now say they favored — would have been foolish.
The lesson of 9/11 is that America can't let the next threat grow until it's too late to do anything about it.
President Bush understands — which is why he was right to move militarily against Iraq.
To do otherwise would have been to invite another 9/11 — or worse.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/29900.htm
Night, Folks!
Sweet dreams.
OCTOBER 4TH!!! gp and Bucky!
Happy Birthday, Gents!
Shame on me for being late.
I'm usually more alert.
Hope you both had dang fine days that will be followed by many, many more.
cake.and.candle-isms,
ksquared
Dead-eye.gp...
CONGRATULATIONS! I could use a man like you on my side here in the hills of nj.
It has been absolutely perfect weather in this neck of the woods. I've decided October is my favorite month. Actually, it is probably the best month to be born, my Libra friend.
Yipe! I am blanking out. Your birthday is soon if not recently past.
Forgive me if I missed it and forgive me for not remembering the exact day. Time to do a search. In any event...
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Soldier!
May you live long and in good health.
Life is good. Oh yes, it is.
All bests,
ksquared
Good to hear you're smokin', Bucky!
<g>
Enjoy!
Evening walknmannv...
Thank you for your kind words. The pressure is on. <g>
It's been one h*e*double*hockey*sticks of a week. Haven't had much time for anything other than work and keeping my ancient LeSabre with its 202000 plus miles on the road. I'm going for 300000. <g>
I've been spot reading the liberal press POV and the letters to the editor they choose to publish. I cannot understand the blind hatred of George W. Bush. It is irrational.
It scares me that these people would rather see us go down the tubes... a surety, IMO, under Kerry... before they'd vote for President Bush.
I must say that unfortunately, it does not surprise me. I will give the folks in my parents' age group a pass (because my beloved old folks still vote Democrat... Depression Children can be forgiven). Having spent 9 years back in nj, it amazes how stupid the general population is. I had forgotten that during my time in NY and off at school.
They soak up what they are fed by the liberal press and television news twinkies and spit is back like it is Gospel.
It isn't.
It is bad news.
I always vote. Just like you. I even make sure I vote in school elections. Someone has to say nay to the budget. <g> It is the only thing I can do. And it is the only time I feel like an adult.
Hope you are well in your neck of the dessert. Life is copacetic in the hills of nj. <g>
Bests,
ksquared
Missed it, Larry...
Where was it posted? Didn't mean to steal your thunder. I saw it in the paper today and thought it should be put on this board.
I got an interesting piece of junk mail from failed nj gubernatorial candidate Doug Forrester today. (He lost to our current Governor McQueenie.)
It is a postcard you can fill out to add to his petition to get rid of Dan Rather. He also has a site for contributions to the cause. I haven't check it out. It may have a way to add your voice to the "movement".
www.DanRatherMustGo.com
<g>
I'm going to fill out the postcard and mail it in. I'm not giving him money though. He's one of the rich cats who can afford his own political causes.
Hope you are well.
ksquared
Evening gp...
Would SOS be the proverbial S on a Shingle?
I think we had some dorm food like that. We also had hockey pucks... some ground beef creation.
The dining room was in the basement of the building. At one point, the toilet stall doors were decorated with a message...
Flush twice. It gets to the kitchen faster that way.
Ah. The good old days. I'm glad I cook for myself now.
ksquared
Bucky, you rascal!
How be you, Stranger?
Hope all is well in the southwest.
ksquared
Evening NM...
According to the weather channel it should be raining heavily on you folks this evening. Sure hope you get your share. You've been sounding dry.
Electric pumpkins are better than none. I've got to get some of the minis to place in strategic spots. My fall decorations consist of a yellow mum outside by the front door and a small scarecrow on a swing hanging in the front door window. <g>
My next door neighbors make up for my dearth of Halloween spirit. They have quite the display going. Actually, they inspired the plant. I was feeling like an October Scrooge.
Ah... first frost of the season. I blew my heater core early on the Wednesday a.m. commute. Long story short... remained mobile but spent 2 hours in the early morning 32-degree chill with wet hair before getting to my mechanic. By the time I got home, I was chilled to the bone. My teeth were chattering. I cannot remember the last time that happened.
Slept for 3 hours, waking up periodically. Felt cold and went back out. Didn't rise until I was warm. Decided the day must be productive so I loaded the wood racks on the deck. Stacked a total of 3/4 of a cord. I now have room in the wood run for the next cord. I am finally at a point where everything I burn is at least a year old. Some of what I have has been seasoned for 2 years. All hard wood. I get it from a wonderful farmer who lives up the road. He takes good care of me. Very generous cord.
I love stacking wood. The smell. The exercise. It is like playing with unevenly shaped blocks. What incredible fun.
Had a lot of fun burning it last night. I do love a fire climbing up the chimney. Helped take the last of the chill out of my bones.
Boss Bitch was a nasty c-word this a.m. Fouled my mood which wasn't superb to begin with. I resented losing time toward the latest deadline. Kicked a*s*s and had the work done by the end of the day. Our group had a meeting at 1:30. She started my part with "You're where in the commercial process?" I said that was done and I was on to the next phase. Planned to have the second file I needed by the end of the day.
Did I get a "good"...?
Nope. She looked pissed that I was doing well. Grrrr.
Pray with me for her early demise.
Oh well. I am off tomorrow. Going to have fun with my aunt whom I have not seen in about 20 years. The occasion... Pop's 80th birthday on Saturday.
He loves to fish. We have a woman at work whose hobby is to make elaborate cakes. I commissioned her to do his. It is a chocolate sheet cake with a chocolate center. The frosting is a blue lake with a chocolate icing border that runs under the green grass surrounding it. She made three pine trees from sugar cones covered with green frosting. There is a little guy in a motor boat tangled in his fishing line that will be set in the lake. Perfect since one of Pop's adventures involved hooking himself in the ear. <g> She also made a sign out of a Hershey bar covered with white frosting that says "Happy 80th Birthday Bill." <ggg>
It is magnificent and I can guarantee, he is never had a cake like this in his life.
We are having perfect weather. Clear, cool, and dry with a quintessential October blue sky. I swear this is the best month of the year.
Take care, Cute Stuff!
ksquared
Yesterday's vote to reinstate the draft...
From the Post Opinion Page:
RANGEL'S RIGHTFUL HUMILIATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 7, 2004 -- Not that it's likely to stop the Democrats from spreading rumors to the contrary, but the House of Representatives — by an overwhelming bipartisan vote — has put the lie to any claim that the military draft is coming back.
The House, voting 402-2, rejected Rep. Charles Rangel's bill to reinstate the draft, which was suspended in 1973. The legislation would have required all men and women ages 18 to 26 to perform two years of military or civilian service.
Rangel himself voted "no," albeit bitterly, calling it all "a prostitution of the legislative process."
How so? Well, he said: "All we hear on the Internet and around the country is that after the election they" — meaning the Bush administration — "are going to have the draft."
The problem here is that it's Rangel who actually wants to bring back the draft — though not because he thinks it would aid America's armed forces.
He thinks it will undercut support for robust actions in the War on Terror.
Which is just how Charlie Rangel would like it.
What he's saying, despicably, is that the president and Congress have no concern about war casualties — as long as other people's children are doing the fighting.
But the fact remains that Kerry-Edwards surrogates like Max Cleland and Howard Dean are going around the country stating flatly that President Bush has a "secret plan" to bring back the draft.
Even though no one in the administration favors reinstating the draft.
No one in the Pentagon wants it, either: Modern weaponry and tactics are too complex for untutored conscripts.
No wonder the Rangel bill had attracted only 14 co-sponsors.
Now the issue has been put rest.
Plain and simple: The only person in Washington who wants to see the draft restored is Charlie Rangel.
But not enough actually to vote for his own bill. Hypocrite.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/19994.htm
Early morning quickie from the Post...
I missed the debate. On too late.
BUSH'S MAN SHOWS BOSS HOW IT'S DONE
By DEBORAH ORIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 6, 2004 --
CLEVELAND — Once again, Vice President Cheney showed his boss how to debate — same as 2000, when he helped turn around momentum in the campaign.
Cheney looked calm and almost grandfatherly as he used his debate with veep wannabe John Edwards to take aim at top-of-the-ticket John Kerry and paint him as a flip-flopper who lacks the credibility to lead and win in a time of terror.
"You're not credible on Iraq because of the enormous inconsistencies that John Kerry and you have cited time after time after time," Cheney said.
"Whatever the political pressures of the moment requires, that's where you're at. But you've not been consistent and there's no indication at all that John Kerry has the conviction to successfully carry through on the war on terror."
There in a nutshell is the Bush-Cheney case against Kerry — but it's a case that Bush barely made in last week's first presidential debate. In an era when safety is the first concern for many voters, that was a key point.
It was Cheney who had all the best one-liners while Edwards sat there often looking slightly irked as he got zinged for failing to show up for Senate votes and was accused of knuckling under to Howard Dean's anti-war stance on Iraq.
In a sense it was a repeat of 2004 when Cheney bested Democrat Joe Lieberman in the veep debate — and helped Bush come back after he lost his first debate to Al Gore.
Last week, Bush forgot to even mention Kerry's long and liberal Senate record — which includes votes against the 1991 Gulf War — but Cheney made sure to do so, saying that "tough talk" during a debate can't cover over Kerry's 30-year record.
Any hope by Team Kerry to build on momentum from the first presidential debate was stopped short by Cheney's solid answers. Now the question is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^whether Bush learns from Cheney for his next debate against Kerry on Friday.
http://www.nypost.com/commentary/29759.htm
First frost warning in the hills of nj tonight.
Fire is at the let it die stage so I am up here, briefly.
Greetings Squirrel Lovers...
of both the culinary and friend persuasion.
The posts have been fun to read. Thank you!
I think the tenth month is my favorite. We have been blessed with cool, dry days and skies of October blue. A sight that defies description.
Need to get back to the blaze.
ksquared
Hey, hey, hey...
Hokie Auntie here! Beloved first niece and goddaughter is a top honors graduate of VT. One of her school jobs was tutoring the football players in chemistry. Helped her in her career choice. She was leaning toward sports nutrition but after getting to know these cats, she decided they were too stupid to foster long term interest. <g>
GO HOKIES!
Onward and upward.
Proud.Auntie.ksquared
Evenin' NLionGuy...
Purdue is definitely on the rise. I won't put the whammy on you. The game will play as the game will play.
Enjoy the tailgate party. Life is long and full of big turnarounds.
ksquared
LOL, BnB...
A lot of that applies to Michigan football... the big exception being the $20 bill the northern gals are forced to carry. Women's Lib... ptui. Men's lib in actuality. Mumsy was right.
Since the northern wuss boys are useless, I'm glad I'm single in the hills of nj.
Have fun... in the words of old Phil. <g>
ksquared
Sounds like Meyers-Briggs (spelling?) type casting...
I've been subjected to it twice at work. Both times I wound up being an INTP... same profile as Einstein's. Good for the ego but certainly does not lend validity to the test. <g>
Next time I'm forced to take the test, I am going to go for the extreme in all categories. Not hard to figure out, especially since they give you your test answers against the results each time. I still have mine. Bet I put the fear of God in them. LOL.
Good luck to young Erik Ainge. I wish him all the best success in his athletic career.
introvert.ksquared.thinker
Glad you were able to get your fix, BnB...
From this chick's POV, I don't care who wins... as long as Notre Dame loses. <ggg>
Quick dip before getting down to the business of the week...
From the NY Post Editorial pages, their take on the debate. Took them a while to comment. I like what they have to say. Big surprise. <g>
JOHN KERRY'S WORDS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 4, 2004 -- Friday afternoon, as the talking heads picked over the remains of Thurs day's first presidential debate — think of it as more words about words — the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Curtis Wilbur was taking up station in the Sea of Japan.
The warship will be a key link in building missile-defense system meant to protect Japan and (eventually) the United States from the clear, present and rapidly growing threat of nuclear ballistic-missile attack from North Korea.
It's hard work; it's dangerous work; it's necessary work.
So while the pundits and politicians patter on — North Korea's nukes were a major issue Thursday night — men of action and determination are doing the hard work that keeps America safe.
And talk remains cheap.
In his youth, John Kerry wore his nation's uniform — into action.
Yet even then, and certainly since, he has been very much a man of words.
There's no denying that Kerry was well-spoken Thursday during his first debate with President Bush.
But while the Massachusetts senator's verbal presentation was impressive, his actual words bear closer examination.
On several key issues during the debate, Kerry continued a pattern that emerged early in his career — for example, when his words about U.S. "war crimes" generated headlines during congressional hearings in 1971.
Not to put too fine a point on it, his words too often tend to serve not the best interests of the United States — but of America's enemies.
FOR Kerry, the only way to combat ter rorism is in concert with allies.
But only some allies — the ones who won't help America because it is not in their interests to do so.
He dismisses the coalition — 30 nations strong — that toppled Saddam Hussein and is now trying to install an unprecedented democracy in Iraq.
To Kerry, the only allies that matter are France, Germany and Russia — on Iraq, a fundamentally corrupt coalition that all along made it clear that it would never accept the removal of Saddam Hussein.
Paris, Berlin and Moscow did not obstruct U.S. efforts in Iraq because they opposed President Bush — they did so because their venal interests required Saddam Hussein in power.
The same Saddam Hussein that even whom Kerry concedes was a threat to regional and world security.
Kerry insisted he would "never give a veto to any country over our security."
But by insisting that the views of what was rightly termed the Axis of Weasel were more important than those of stalwarts like Britain's Tony Blair and Australia's John Howard — who recognized the threat a Saddam-ruled Iraq posed — Kerry, for all intents and purposes, embraced a veto.
'IHAVE a plan to have a summit with all of the allies, something this presi dent has not yet achieved," boasted Kerry, saying this was the approach Bush should have used before going to war.
But as the president said Friday, "I've never seen a meeting that would depose a tyrant or bring a terrorist to justice."
Back when it counted, the United Nations talked and talked — and then watered down the very sanctions Kerry insisted would have toppled Saddam
Recalling that shameful period, Bush said Friday: "That wasn't going to work. . . . I believe, when an international body speaks" — in threatening "serious consequences" — "it must mean what it says."
And so Bush acted — where Kerry would have favored more talk. Which would have left Saddam in power.
Indeed, Kerry now says that while the end result — Saddam's removal — was fine, the war itself was a tragic mistake. But how else would Saddam have been ousted?
As the president said during a campaign stop Friday: "You can't have it both ways — you can't be for getting rid of Saddam Hussein when things look good and against it when times are hard."
Which is why Bush is spot-on when he notes that Kerry's "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" mantra not only will demoralize our troops, but will also make much less likely the enlistment of the allies Kerry says are so critical.
Not to mention the disheartening message it sends to the Iraqi people.
But then, demoralizing U.S. troops to the benefit of the enemies of freedom is nothing new for John Kerry.
It was at the heart of his anti-war efforts in the 1970s: his ringing endorsement of the now wholly discredited Winter Soldier Investigation, which depicted U.S. troops in Vietnam as barbaric rapists and killers — something of which Kerry, to this day, insists he is still "proud."
Indeed, he said that America was the single worst violator on the entire planet of the Geneva Conventions, making clear that any Vietcong atrocities paled in comparison with those committed by U.S. troops as a matter of policy.
All this while urging a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.
On that, John Kerry got his way. Uncounted millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians paid a ghastly price, to America's everlasting shame.
In the '80s, Kerry was a passionate defender of the totalitarian Sandinistas. Indeed, the point of his now-famous "Christmas in Cambodia" Senate speech was to protect a Soviet puppet state then being established in Central America.
Thank goodness the Nicaraguan people rid themselves of Commandante Daniel Ortega. But they did it no thanks to John F. Kerry.
Now, on North Korea, Kerry's position also is that favored by another anti- America despot, Kim Jong Il.
The senator said again Thursday that he would seek bilateral talks with Pyongyang. This would effectively deep-six an ongoing effort involving China, Russia, South Korea and Japan.
Certainly Japan's concern with North Korean nukes will not be assuaged by John Kerry's words. Tokyo lives under the gun, and it will do what's necessary to protect itself.
As will, no doubt, South Korea.
It is precisely to prevent a proliferation crisis that USS Curtis Wilbur is on station in the Sea of Japan — under orders from George W. Bush to protect the peace. Tokyo and Seoul, while wary and uneasy, are satisfied. For the moment.
But it won't take much to destabilize this region of vast economic and strategic concern to America.
Cheap words won't help.
The same holds true for the Middle East, and in the larger War on Terror.
Kerry's words — and worldview — have been at odds with America's best interests many times in the past.
He's glib, but he's wrong.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/31230.htm
You're welcome, sweet stuff. <g>
I owe you a PM.
There is a squirrel who feeds off the trash can at the entry walkway to the place where I work. The first time I heard him, my gut reaction was "EEK! a rat."
Boy, was I relieved to see it was only a squirrel. Sign of the times in nj. When I was a kid, if you walked out of the house and there was a squirrel in the front yard, it would hightail it for the nearest tall oak. Now, they look at you like "what the hell are you doing here."
All nj wildlife is a little too used to people.
The population must be culled... human that is. <g>
evil.ksquared