October 11, 2004
Brave John (Sir Robin) Kerry bravely ran away...away...

John Kerry has been painting himself as heroic and "angry" during the events on 9/11. A BBC documentary, recently aired on Public Television in the US, showing the events of 9/11 in several areas, including on Capitol Hill. Footage of
John Kerry's 'as it happens' reactions is also shown in this documentary.
Last night my local PBS showed two documentaries about 9/11/01.The first was about NY and the second about PA and DC.
In the raw footage shot that horrible day they showed the Capitol building being evacuated.
Hundreds of people were struggling to get down those massive stairs. You saw EVERYONE helping eachother- like the elderly or women who were wearing high heels, etc.
Then the camera switched position and the vantage point was of a side staircase next to the main one. Who comes out but John Kerry.
He was dressed in an immaculate dark blue suit with a matching powder blue pocket handkerchief and silk tie. Not a hair on his overly-coiffed head was out of place.
Now remember- this was filmed while the Pentagon was in flames, three years ago...the camera man did not film John Kerry "The Candidate" he was showing some guy coming out the door...
Well our friend the hero John Kerry looks over at the crowd, shrugs his arms a bit, looks around as if to see if anyone is looking- and BOLTS down the side stairs! He didn't help a single soul! ( I guess no one was drowning)
Meanwhile- Donald Rumsfeld was ignoring his Secret Service detail so he could help carry the injured out of the burning Pentagon.
This is the same John Kerry who has been jumping up and down about President Bush not reacting for six minutes as he sat in a classroom full of grade school students (and repeating the mantra of "Bush is dumb" that Michael Moore has been trying to forcefeed onto the American public).
I'm immediately reminded of "brave" Sir Robin from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, as portrayed in that legendary motion picture by Eric Idle.
Brave Sir Robin ran away, bravely ran away away. When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. A brave retreat by brave Sir Robin.
Sounds like Ketchup Boy beat a hasty retreat, which has been caught on tape.
Posted by: mhking at
08:59 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Bwwwhahaha. That's good. Bush should immediately make a commercial juxtaposing his 7 mins of "inaction" (naturally waiting for more coherent info to filter up before making a move -- not that MO/MSM cared) and sKerry's brave retreat.
Posted by: Andy at October 11, 2004 11:04 AM (WC1fj)
2
Still haven't figured out the "Trackback" feature....Anybody that can explain it to me, let me know....Until then, I've got this post linked from MY blog as well...
Posted by: CrzyDJM at October 11, 2004 12:21 PM (PLM85)
3
I also saw online (newspaper website, IIRC) Kerry admitted he sat in his office in shock for 30 minutes after the first plane hit. I take that with a grain of salt; he said he didn't move until he heard the plane hit the Pentagon.
For your reading and listening pleasure, the Brave Sir Robin seen from "Holy Grail" is here:
http://arago4.tn.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/holy-grail/scene-10.html
Posted by: LCVRWC at October 12, 2004 05:53 AM (L3qPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NBC's Today exploits Reeve to benefit Kerry

It didn't take long for the leftists in the media to start to
employ and exploit the memory of Christopher Reeve to the potential benefit of John Kerry's campaign.
We were treated, not once but twice, to the same clip of Reeve from the 1996 Democratic National Convention, saying "America does not let its neediest fend for themselves," as a man in a wheelchair looked on. Got it.Just in case anyone was still wondering where Chris was coming from, here was a clip of him saying "it gets lonely sometimes to say 'come on, let's get more progressive.'" Yes, that's the problem with America. Not liberal enough.
The message could not have been made too much clearer. Honor Chris Reeve: vote Democrat!
And
we're supposed to be the "bad guys?"
Posted by: mhking at
03:10 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.
1
MH: I love your site if I haven't already told you that yet and I respect the way you come across. Yes, I know they've been using Chris Reeve's death as a reason to vote for John Kerry; it's sickening. First of all, stem cell research would not have made a difference to Christopher Reeve - his brain stem was dead and every function of his body was handled by machines but even with the brain stem death, his lasting this long only happened because he was so rich. I lost respect for the man a long time ago and I happen to be an extremely disabled person on disability, critically ill, and dirt poor now so it always pissed me off that this man who had so much money, slowly dying (Mattie Stephanic comes to mind here but in a more compassionate mode) saying this should happen when doctors, because of law suits and whatnot, do not want to deal with someone as high risk as me, who is on Medicare and Medicaid. I don't count; I have no money. They forget I'm a human being too. If people want to honor Chris Reeve, then they should honor they neighbors and do for those who can't do for themselves. Voting Democrat and voting for Kerry is not going to change that and he is using it to build momentem; it offends me.
Keep up the good work.
~C
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at October 11, 2004 06:00 PM (D39Vm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
He made us believe a man could fly...
Lois: "Any more at home like you?"Clark: "Uh, not really, no."Indeed. Rest well, Chris...

Christopher Reeve
1952-2004
From Dan Jurgens' legendary Superman #75 (1992):
"But most will remember this sad day as the day the proudest, most noble man they ever knew finally fell. For those who loved him -- one who would call him husband, one who would be his pal, or those who would call him son -- this is the darkest day they could ever imagine. They raised him to be a hero: to know the value of sacrifice, to know the value of life. And for those who served with Superman in the protection of all life comes the shock of a failure: the weight of being too late to help. For a city to live, a man had given his all and more. But it's too late. For this is the day that a Superman died."
Posted by: mhking at
02:47 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.
October 10, 2004
More Democrats get their talking points from ABC News than any other source

Today's
New York Post includes an editorial that finds it unfathomable that bias against the GOP by the mainstream media is
as open and as blatant as it is during this election cycle.
Though many in the press deny this bias, Newsweek editor Evan Thomas all but confessed the bias on this week's edition of PBS' Inside Washington.
"The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards — I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox — as being young and dynamic and optimistic, and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow."
A memo from ABC News Political Editor Mark Halpern surfaced on
The Drudge Report on Friday. Halpern's memo, to the chagrin of ABC, all but told reporters to be harder on Bush than on Kerry.
An internal memo written by ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff: During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable."The controversial internal memo obtained by DRUDGE, captures Halperin stating how "Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win."
But Halperin claims that Bush is hoping to "win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions."
This rings true when you look back at ABC News over the course of the past year, most notably at their daily political news column,
The Note,
back on February 10.
Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."
It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him -- and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.
More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow.
The overriding evidence shows that ABC News obviously has a liberal agenda, geared toward removing the current Administration from office by any means necessary, and they won't hesitate to use underhanded and unethical means to do so.
Posted by: mhking at
04:05 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.
1
You surely must have missed the story today where Bush was caught with his pants down. He sent out fake news reports AGAIN.
Your candidate has ZERO credibility.
Posted by: eff ewe at October 10, 2004 05:40 PM (ntT+4)
2
EE, if you didn't have such a classy nick, I'd think you were joking.
Molehill
Mountain
Posted by: Chris at October 10, 2004 05:50 PM (9VCzx)
3
Sounds like EE's widdle feelin's got hurt....
Good!
Posted by: Michael at October 10, 2004 06:03 PM (bJ0qq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ketchup Boy continues to pander to black audiences

John Kerry continued his stretch of
pandering to black church congregations, while kissing the feet of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson today in Miami.
The Democratic presidential nominee attended two church services Sunday, instead of his usual one, worshipping first with Haitian Catholics and then with Baptists, where the Rev. Jesse Jackson (news - web sites) and Al Sharpton (news - web sites) tied his election to the civil rights struggle."We have an unfinished march in this nation," Kerry said at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, as many congregants waved fans handed out by the campaign with his slogan, "Hope is on the way."
"Never again will a million African Americans be denied the right to exercise their vote in the United States of America," Kerry promised, referring to the disputed Florida recount in the 2000 presidential race. As he often does before black audiences, Kerry said he has a legal team that will aggressively respond to any allegations of disenfranchisement.
Kerry continued to preach to the false mantra of black disenfranchisement in Florida, a spectre which was initially raised in the midst of the 2000 election fiasco.
Jackson, Sharpton and US Rep Carrie Meek (D-FL) spoke at the church services in support of Kerry while deriding President Bush and those who support him.
Jackson told worshippers their political concerns are issues that touch their everyday lives, not gay marriage."I see disturbing signs today that some of our churches have been confused by wolves in sheep's clothing," Jackson said. "How did someone else put their agenda in the front of the line?"
"November 2, the power is in your hands, hands that once picked cotton," Jackson said.
While I have ancestors did pick cotton, they did so in order for me to think for myself; to move forward and make my own decisions -- not have Jesse Jackson and his cronies (up to and including John Kerry) make my decisions for me.
Posted by: mhking at
03:38 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Chris at October 10, 2004 06:00 PM (9VCzx)
2
Good for you. When Bill Cosby started talking and everyone was criticizing what he had to say, I could not understand why because what he was saying was not only the truth but absolutely correct. Jesse Jackson and people like him, I feel are racists and they fall back on the past as an excuse for why things should be better for them. The Irish were slaves, too, over in Ireland, of the manor and farm owners but I sure don't put blame on them for my position in life. It's called "personal responsibility." I just wish people would be human beings, not black, not latino, not white and then go around and say "you owe me." No we don't; you owe yourself.
~C
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at October 11, 2004 06:07 PM (D39Vm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 09, 2004
Ohio men videotaped vandalizing and urinating on Bush/Cheney sign

Two men who ripped down and urinated on a Bush/Cheney campaign sign
were caught on tape -- literally -- Friday morning.
The videotape shows the men sneaking into the yard of a West Market Street home and bending the sign to the ground. The men struggled to rip the sign out of the ground by shaking it and pulling it but couldn't get it off the posts, so they knocked it down. Sounds heard on the tape suggest the men urinated on the sign. They were white males, about 30 to 35 years old, well-dressed and well-groomed. They parked across the street in what police think was a foreign car, a Toyota or Honda.The homeowner, Steve Kotsatos, who is also assistant to the director of the Summit County Board of Elections, called Akron police dispatchers at 10:38 a.m. Friday and told them about how his campaign sign was vandalized.
He said he caught the vandals on a night-vision camera he had installed the day before.
The large 4-by-8-foot, red, white and blue sign was tipped over in Kotsatos' yard about 1 a.m. Friday.
John Kerry's name was scrawled across Bush's name in black marker on one side of the sign -- the work of previous vandals, Kotsatos said.
The vandalizing video of the "wanted water-makers" is
available on the web (.MOV) for your sampling.
Posted by: mhking at
06:36 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Nice.....real nice.....It's people like that that make me vote for Bush.....What a couple of ingrates...
Posted by: CrzyDJM at October 10, 2004 02:34 AM (0MRGl)
2
They think their making an impact for Kerry, but their only denigrating his name and theirs...and their cowards to do this at night. This must be commonplace in the area since the homeowner placed a camera on it.
Another great campaign ad for John Kerry!
Posted by: Michael Gallaugher at October 10, 2004 09:15 AM (3hihQ)
3
that was great, maybe Mikey Moore-on can put that in his next movie.
freakin' muckadoos...
Posted by: Joshua at October 10, 2004 11:37 AM (ZOwDj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Mt. St. Helens undergoing more indigestion

Earthquake activity is up once again at Mt. St. Helens in southern Washington state, but according to geologists,
there is no reason to raise the volcanic alert level -- at present.
Scientists said earthquake activity had been low until Friday, indicating molten rock was moving upward with little resistance. By Saturday, however, quakes of magnitude 2.4 were occurring every one to two minutes, they said."It's at levels equal to or higher than the Oct. 5 steam and ash eruption," said Jeff Wynn, the U.S. Geological Survey's chief scientist for volcano hazards at Vancouver.
A bubble on the south side of the dome has also risen to at least 330 feet since scientists first spotted it on Sept. 30 and is now almost as tall as the dome's 1,000-foot summit, said USGS geologist John Pallister.
Some people are speculating that a blast rivalling the 1980 eruption that killed 57 people. Scientists with the US Geological Survey are discounting that possibility at present. But they are keeping an eye on the seismograph and on the summit of the volcano.
Posted by: mhking at
06:25 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Is your live feed still working? When I clicked on it this morning, I got the beheading video. Don't know if that was me or you.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at October 11, 2004 03:09 AM (D39Vm)
2
Hello folks nice blog youre running
Posted by: lolita at January 19, 2005 03:47 PM (yM4u5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Austrailan PM Howard reelected to fourth term
Australian Prime Minister
John Howard was reelected today in an election that guaranteed him at least a full decade in office.
Mr Howard, 65, is now guaranteed a decade in power, unless he retires early, and will become the nation's second-longest serving prime minister behind Liberal Party founder Sir Robert Menzies.Opposition Leader Mark Latham phoned Mr Howard to congratulate him on his victory at about 9:30pm (AEST).
Mr Howard claimed victory about an hour later after winning a swing to the government in all states.
"I am truly humbled by this extraordinary expression of confidence in the leadership of this great nation by the coalition," he told cheering supporters in Sydney.
"In accepting their charge to lead the nation I rededicate myself and all of my colleagues to the service of the Australian people."
Howard's conservative government was among the first to join the "Coalition of the Willing" in working to root out terrorism around the globe. Australia is an integral part of the war on terror, and an ally I'm glad we have on our side.
Posted by: mhking at
06:18 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 2 kb.
October 08, 2004
Post-game analysis, first watch

Bush looked much better tonight than last debate. He looked far more relaxed, and he got in more zingers against Kerry.
At more than one point, it looked like a case of "who can insult who better," though.
Ultimately, I think Bush won this debate; he brought forth more points, he connected more with the audience as a whole.
Kerry fell into the trap of repeating himself over and over again (much as Bush did last week). He looked far more nervous, and much less comfortable than he did during last week's debate.
I was pleasantly surprised that Kerry didn't bring up Vietnam -- someone close to Kerry is obviously telling him to dummy up about Vietnam and concentrate on THIS century.
Finally, that last question regarding Bush's "mistakes" was a Democratic set-up, if there was one.
Posted by: mhking at
06:00 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.
1
All true, I think Kerry is only comfortable when he's on a podium looking down at the masses, tells you more than you'd learn analyzing the content of his message....NOT that appearances are everything mind you
Posted by: Michael Gallaugher at October 09, 2004 11:55 AM (4uzhk)
2
Sorry to post an off topic reply Mike, I just wanted to let you know if you didn't already, that John Howard won the Australian election. As you are aware, he is a very conservative leader, and was one of the first to sign on to the "coalition of the willing". This must give you American conservatives great heart. We as a nation are still right beside you.
Posted by: Patrick at October 09, 2004 05:55 PM (Xs8mK)
3
Bush won this debate convincingly. As Kerry resembled the type of politician that gives other politicians a bad name, you know, that type that will take any position for a vote, Bush remained focused as he drew a line in the sand, making his positions clear and showing passion in his convictions. Seriously, at one point I expected Kerry to break out singing Charles Durning’s flip-flop politician song, from the movie “Best Little Whore House in Texas”.
As far as style, Bush did even better. Bush was natural, passionate, and in control. After the debate, I heard members of the Kerry team whining about how Bush bullied the moderator at one point. IÂ’m sorry, but I will sleep a lot better knowing that terrorist using cowardly intimidation tactics know that our Commander and Chief has no problem being an intimidator (or bully). As a Marine, the leader I felt most comfortable with the possibility of going to war under, was a five foot five gray haired Colonial who made 250lb grown men tremble with respect as he passed by. And what better time for Bush to assert his passionate interruption, than in defense of his comrades that risked a lot in their own countries to prove, once again, that they stand as AmericaÂ’s allies. In South Central growing up, if I fought by your side and you didnÂ’t have the nads to verbally defend my contribution as it is denigrated behind my back, IÂ’d consider you to be as much a coward as the person who didnÂ’t have the nerve to put me down to my face.
On the other hand, Kerry came across as a well-polished well-rehearsed elitist wanna-be aristocrat and if those were qualities that interested me in a leader, IÂ’d move to France.
Posted by: blanko at October 09, 2004 06:45 PM (qJDCB)
4
Bush should certainly point this out during the next debate that in spite of team sKerry's attempt to disrupt the Aussie election, the people overwhelmingly voted to remain part of Bush's coalition in the GWOT
Posted by: Andy at October 10, 2004 02:42 PM (WC1fj)
5
I saw it a a clear victory for Bush. He seemed much more impassioned (some would say too much so in the first 30-40 minutes or so), and by the end of the debate, had the audiance in his camp. Kerry's naunce is playing against the voters...they may not say so, but I feel most folks want things to be more black and white regarding foreign policy, they don't wan't grey.
I predict a Bush win by at least 300 electoral *points*, quite possibly much closer to 400.
Posted by: Guy S. at October 11, 2004 08:58 AM (6aoDM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Bush-Kerry Debates, Round Two
Time for the sequel.
As I mentioned last week, this debate, live from Washington University in St. Louis, will be in a "town hall" format, with questions from a live audience. The audience is made up of undecided voters (as if I completely believe that).
Charles Gibson, anchor of ABC's Good Morning America will moderate this evening's debate.
As with last week's debate, live streaming coverage can be found from C-Span (RP) or BBC World (WMP) online.
Live blogging has commenced all over the place -- check the blogroll at the right; most folks are offering some form of live, running commentary. In addition, Free Republic has a live message thread running with ongoing conversation.
Post-game analysis will run pretty much all weekend long in the usual places.
Posted by: mhking at
02:24 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.
British hostage Bigley beheaded

Sad word in this morning that 62 year-old British hostage Ken Bigley, kidnapped with murdered Americans Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong three weeks ago,
has been murdered in Iraq.
Militants in the Iraqi city of Fallujah say they believe Mr Bigley was killed on Thursday in the town of Latifiyah, 22 miles south-west of Baghdad.A news presenter in Abu Dhabi said on television: "We have learned from informed sources in the Iraqi capital that the kidnappers of Kenneth Bigley have killed him."
The horrific alert comes just 24 hours after Iraq's interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, said there were promising behind-the-scenes to secure Mr Bigley's release.
There are conflicting reports
regarding the circumstances of Bigley's murder.
U.S. military sources told NBC News that they have reports from Iraq that Bigley might have been killed while trying to escape. The reports indicate that a number of "others" who might have been trying to help Bigley escape were also killed, the sources said.
No stills or video has been released of the decapitation by the monsters, as has been the practice in the past.
UPDATE - 12:30P ET:Reuters confirms that a videotape of Bigley's beheading exists, and they have seen it. It will be available on the web soon. I'll have links to it once it becomes available.
Bigley's brother has been quoted as saying that Prime Minister Tony Blair has his brother's "blood on his hands."
Posted by: mhking at
05:07 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Horrible as the news is, it's important to notice that he was trying to escape, and that there were others who might have been helping.
The islamofacists won't be showing that, just as they didn't show the Italian who defied them as he died.
Posted by: Fausta at October 08, 2004 05:42 AM (amKa9)
2
Reuters has seen the video. Looks like this is pretty much confirmed.
Posted by: John Little at October 08, 2004 06:09 AM (4jzOE)
3
Amazingly, Reuters doesn't place the blame on Bush. Bigley's brother must be in grief, but how he can blame Blair for the actions of Islamofascist bastards is a leap o' logic.
Posted by: skh at October 08, 2004 09:52 AM (0xwoN)
4
Islamo-Fascist cockroaches!!!!
Posted by: Joshua at October 08, 2004 03:19 PM (ZOwDj)
5
Because Britain and America could have gotten Bigley released but chose not to. quite simple really.
oh and because had it not been for Bush and Blair Bilgey would not have been in iraq in the first place nor would terrorists have been able to kidknap him.
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 09, 2004 06:08 AM (JJWO4)
6
Paul B has been ranting against Blair et al for some time now and has been visited by Dutch and British police. Philip B on the other hand has stated that it is not the government's fault. Paul B is involved with Stop the war as well.....hmmm. Claiming the Uk/US could have got Ken B released but choose not to shows someone has been taking the happy pills rather than writing the essay that is due next week.....nice of young-white-and-liberal to (a) call them terrorists unlike his liberal friends who call them freedom fighters and (b) imply that he is actually a racist by telling us all he is white and therefore liberal (c) Oh and young. Ageism! Shoot the young whippersnapper!
Posted by: dave t at October 09, 2004 06:37 AM (YEz8c)
7
1. Am young. 21 on tuesday which i assume still makes me young.
2. Am white no way around that one.
3. Politically I am a liberal.
I see the insurgents as part freedom fighters. The people who kidknap and execute people such as Bigley and the Americans he was with are terrorists in my book. Attacking coalition soldiers who are occupying and therefore fair game is fair enough targeting civilians makes one a terrorist.
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 10, 2004 11:44 AM (E1ciy)
8
So you want Saddam back? Want to look at some Iraqi blogs and see that the real picture is not what wee Charlie Kennedy is telling you? As a former soldier who took part in Gulf War 1 we are not 'fair game' so I wonder what the lads from the local regiment think about you saying they were fair game when they lost two on a recent tour to your 'freedom fighters' from Iran. Oops they were in Iraq? Bad mapreading Mr Insurgent!
More of your wishy washy Liberal 'we hate the war but support our troops...?'
Posted by: dave t at October 10, 2004 01:31 PM (rcNW0)
9
Unlike most Americans i meet I can make a distinction between supporting my country's troops and the war they are fighting. Most fellow Brits can also make this distinction. Seeing as you are probably no more intelligent than that post of yours here is the distinction in laymans (that means for the average bloke on the street) terms.
1. The war was wrong. There were no WMDs, no connection between Saddam and 9/11 and you were not asked in by the Iraqis, no UN security council resolution and according to international law war for regime change is illegal.
2. However if you are a member of the British Army and as far as i am aware the US Army you do not get a choice from your political masters where you go. If George W..ker Bush or To55pot Blair order you to go somewhere then off you go.
This whole liberals are against our brave boys because they are against the war is bullshit created by republicanazis like Bush to deflect public attention from his warmongering. In your case it seems to be working.
Our troops are occupiers and the Iraqis have every right to attack them. I don't like it when British troops get attacked by the populace because i do feel they could be better off without saddam and they are british, but they are occupiers and have to expect attacks. perhaps fair game was an unfortunate choice of words.
Answer me this (expecting a sensible answer is wildly optimistic but what the hey)
1776 British troops on British soil attacked by the locals. Terrorism, insurgency or legitimate protest?
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 11, 2004 06:08 AM (E1ciy)
10
Just for info I am currently halfway through a four year English/History (Hons) degree with Education at Stirling, a real university not the former Oxford Polytechnic....I bet you tell the girls you 'are up at Oxford' do you? I am a trained instructor, a member of the executive council of a national political party (I'll tell you which one when I see your next post), a war veteran who is 80% disabled thanks to the IRA (more of your heroes...)and a married father of three kids all older than you. Oh and I have got straight A's so far on all my semesters.....so the thick old squaddie stereotype did not work for you did it?
Amongst other things Saddam ignored 17 UN resolutions, the ISG report says Saddam had WMD and wanted to get them up and running and would have done if the sanctions had been lifted by the UN head honchos who were also gaining money (as were France and Russia etc) from the Oil for Food prog.....I also note you say nothing about the thousands killed yearly by Saddam. Will you still be saying the same if the WMD suddenly appear in downtown London having been moved via Syria for example? As I said go and look at some of the Iraqi blogs rather than Salam Pax.....you might find he was just a bit biased being the son of a Ba'ath party official....
I suppose if London does go up in smoke you and your ilk will blame anyone but the people who did it - the terrorists. Yet you'll be the first to scream for some poor soldier to die to protect you if one comes knocking on your door..... And to use the American War of Independence where Brits fought Brits as an example ! Hello! It was a civil war! I don't think somehow you are going to get a First Class in History .......there are no so blind as cannot see.....try and look at BOTH sides rather than blindly accept what you are told. I thought students were supposed to question everything ! I do and my professors love me for it and we have some great discussions about Iraq, politics and teaching.
I guess this was not a sensible answer but when you use words like Tosspot Blair and Nazi etc. you probably weren't wanting or are capable of giving one. You haven't got a bloody clue what you are talking about. Go away, do some REAL research and come back when you have a reasoned argument with evidence not ranty talking points from some PowerPoint presentation.
Posted by: dave t at October 11, 2004 11:26 AM (rcNW0)
11
1. Don't say i am at oxford. I don't need to. Yes Brookes used to be Oxford Polytechnic but is now a university that was shortlisted for the Times University of the year 2003. Voted best new uni in UK for last 3 years or so and history course and dept there is rated 5 star. Stirling for the record got 5 not 5 star. for 2004 the Times League Table puts Oxford Brookes 20th in the Country for History with a 5 star rating and an overall score of 87.3. Stirling is equal 40th with 5 rating and overall score of 82.9. For the further record i obtained grade A at GCSE and grade A at A-Level. Furthermore on my synoptic A-level paper, a 2 essay question paper on nazi germany i got 100 percent amd have the slip to prove it.
2. I do not like the IRA nor do i know anyone who does. They are however a good example of why it is better to negotiate with terrorists to a point than engage in the ultimate futility trying to kill all of them.
3. In a strictly legal sense 1776 was a British civil war though as a fellow history student you would have to admit that most of the colonists fighting against Britain considered themselves American.
4. Saddam ignored 17 security council resolutions true. However we id not go to war to enforce those 17. We got ourselves 1441 which threatened him unless he allowed weapons inspectors to search for WMDs. Those inspectors found nothing and Blix's report in February 2003 while mentioning more could be done on the co-operation side, Iraq was showing a greater willingness to co-operate than before. We attacked in March 2003 because it was fast becoming obvious that had we allowed Blix and El Baradaie (can't remember how his name is spelt) time to complete the job they would have reported back what the ISG told us last week -and for the record what many liberals myself included were saying before the war and all the way up to now- and completely destroyed Bush and Blair's reason for war.
5. Can you really not see the flaw in this logic. "Saddam must be forcibly disarmed because he is a danger to us and the region." why hasn't he attacked up to now and why didn't he attack with WMDs in March 2003 "He was afraid of our response" looks to me like containment was working then.
6. If london were attacked by terrorists yes i would be a pissed as everyone else. I would however look a little bit further and ask myself WHY a terrorist felt the need to attack me and my country. Odds are it would have something to do with us screwing them somewhere along the line. People do not become terrorists for no reason.
7. I have never ever claimed to dislike soldiers. I have the utmost respect for the british army as it is the most highly trained on the planet. The soldiers in iraq are doing what they were ordered to do which is unfortunate but not their fault. my beef is with the politicians who sent them there for no reason.
8. yes 1000s per year were killed by saddam. how many iraqis have been killed in the 17 months since we invaded? have heard in the region of 10000 but not sure what total figure is. What is the magic number by the way. At what numerical point does one set of deaths become OK and another genocide or mass slaughter? Our invasion got rid of saddam yes. What will replace him? a legitimate democratic government elected by the iraqi people under electoral conditions condusive to a fair election? not any time soon. What will the US response be if the above does by some miracle happen and an iranian style theocracy is fairly elected? Will they accept it? pigs might fly.
9. If you don't like phrases such as tosspot blair and republicanazi then perhaps you might like to refrain from insulting liberals and others on here can stop using the term islamofascist.
10. If i believed everything i was told i would not be having this argument with you. I would be supporting Bush and Blair and claiming the war was right.
11. ok apologies for the thick stereotype was out of order with that one.
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 11, 2004 11:40 PM (E1ciy)
12
See how easy it is to actually persuade me that you have deep felt views and that you are thinking about them?
I used to live in Oxford so am glad to see that Brookes is getting better than the old days when it used to be a depository for the forerunners of the BNP Youth Wing.....
The major sticking point is STILL however that you are pesisting in woolly thinking that if we are nice to the Terrorists that they will stop everything and become our friends. They are religious fanatics and many of their leaders have said that they are not interested in negotiating but only in killing all unbelievers. I for one, whilst defending to the death if necessary your right to have your own views, will continue to be wary and take precautions to protect my family and my friends as I honestly believe that unless we destroy the Islamic fanatics (to allow the rest of the Muslim world to continue to develop) then we have no chance for a stable world. Let us not forget that they have killed far more Muslims than non-Muslims so far....and what about rights for women, children etc. Islam needs to have the equivalent of our Reformation in order to allow all her followers to become equal. So far there is little sign of this happening.
PS Read Major General Richard Holmes's latest on the War of Independence - jolly good book and continues the case made in Rebels and Redcoats off the BBC series that it was a civil war ....but let us not go there or we will be here for the next week and I have an essay on the antiwar movement during Vietnam to finish off! Cheerio and back to work I think!
Posted by: dave t at October 12, 2004 12:19 AM (rcNW0)
13
i think its sick putting that video onto the net the people that put it on there need locking up
Posted by: karla palin at March 18, 2005 04:08 AM (sSioJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 07, 2004
Playing God. No other words for it.
When you think you've heard everything about the sliminess of the attitudes of some doctors,
something else comes along to blanch your skin and drop the pit of your stomach even further.
Leading doctors today called for a major overhaul to avoid babies being born alive after abortions.Professor Campbell said that all abortions carried out after 18 weeks of pregnancy should include an injection, followed by drugs, to induce labour and a stillborn child.
Next week a motion is being tabled at the British Medical Association conference that babies should be entitled to all the intensive care that babies born prematurely receive. Consultant obstetrician-Jim Thornton said in the past babies were born alive after abortion more regularly but "people didn't make a fuss and pretended not to realise the baby was born alive".
Professor Thornton, of City Hospital, Nottingham, said: "Once it is born, you can't kill the baby but the law doesn't say anything about to what degree you resuscitate it.
"The way it is dealt with is by sensible doctors and sensible nurses keeping it under their hat and allowing the baby to pass away peacefully."
Professor Campbell does not believe that a baby born in this way should be kept alive at all costs.
"What paediatricians do is spend resources keeping a baby that is going to die, alive. It is absolute nonsense. It does show that is up to us (obstetricians) to make sure the baby is not moving."
As I mentioned previously, I try to stay away from abortion conversations as a whole. But what happened to the vaunted Hippocratic Oath? Blog brother
Avery put it succinctly: "At Least Our Ob/Gyn Was Human..."
Posted by: mhking at
05:18 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I dislike abortion itself but believe the choice of women in this area should not be infringed upon becuae religious and unreligious people don't personally like it. If the baby to be aborted was mine however i would sing a diff tune.
The stuff in your post is stunning and awful if true. If a baby that has been aborted then is born alive it should be cared for. If the abortion didnt work TOUGH!!!!!! surely it is against the hypocratic oath to allow a baby to die because it was supposed to be dead when born.
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 07, 2004 05:25 AM (E1ciy)
2
I'm so glad the doctors' names are public, that will help me to know to avoid them.
Posted by: Lola at October 07, 2004 07:53 AM (V1eTE)
3
YW&L,
So, for you, the only difference is that the child comes out dead, vs. comes out alive. That's the demarcation line.
Who decides this line? Why at that point? Why 18 weeks, vs 17.5?
This is the problem with the pro-choice position - it's entirely an arbitrary, subjective choice what is considered viable, human life. This is why the anti-abortion people have the logical upper hand - for those folks, life begins at conception, and a line need not be drawn.
TV (Harry)
Posted by: Inspector Callahan at October 07, 2004 10:21 AM (qKXq+)
4
No it is not the only difference for me.
My position on abortion is this.
1. Personally i do not like it. If i were a prospective father and the mother wanted an abortion i would give her anything she wanted for as long as she wanted to not have an abortion.
However if there are genuine grounds for an abortion then OK and here's why.
2. There is debate as to what point in a pregnancy a foetus is a person. As far as I am concerned it is in the 2nd or 3rd trimester and someone who rdeads the bible every day of his life can argue otherwise till the cows come home. The seed of an oak tree is not an oak tree it is a seed and therefore a POTENTIAL tree. A foetus of 3 weeks is a POTENTIAL person as far as i am concerned.
3. If the life or health of the woman is in danger if she goes through with a pregnancy then I am sorry the life of the person already alive comes first.
4. As a bloke i am never going to be in the position of a pregnant woman therefore it is not up to me or any other man for that matter to tell a woman she HAS to have a baby.
5. What about a woman who has been raped?
Despite this i cannot believe that any doctor would kill a baby that has been born alive after an abortion. thats just sick.
I believe in a womans right to choose and the bible is no where close to being an acceptable or legitimate argument to the contrary. That said i would try everything to persudae ther mother of my future children to not have an abortion. ultimately it is and SHOULD be the womans choice.
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 07, 2004 11:21 AM (E1ciy)
5
My line of demarcation is the mother's health. If the pregnancy is a serious health risk to mom, psychological as well (but serious, not she just doesn't feel so hot) the I agree with the right to abortion. A woman shouldn't have to go through pregnancy knowing she is going to die or suffer serious life long health consequences.
But just because she doesn't want it? If the baby is alive then mom has nothing to do with it anymore; help the child.
Posted by: Rachel Ann at October 07, 2004 11:29 AM (jFNc5)
6
That sums it up better than i put it.
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 07, 2004 01:28 PM (E1ciy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
CBS to BoycottCBS.com founder: "You're a putz!"

CBS has sent it's first statement to the founder of BoycottCBS.com,
in the form of a snarky e-mail from CBS executive Ted Data to BoycottCBS.com founder Michael Paranzino.
Addressed to BoycottCBS.com founder Michael Paranzino, the email from the CBS’ “Black Rock” headquarters in New York City was brief and to the point:“PARANZINO..YOU'RE A PUTZ!
“GET A LIFE PARANZINO!!!!”
Paranzino responded with aplomb to the e-mail.
“I’m flattered that CBS News executives read our web site, because we certainly don’t watch their news programs. CBS News debate ratings last night ranked fourth behind NBC, ABC, and Fox, which was showing baseball. It’s time for CBS executives to stop sending silly emails and start cleaning house at their troubled news department.“And I’d like to thank Mr. Data for his email, which made me feel young again. I haven’t been called that since junior high.”
No other "official" word has come out of Black Rock to BoycottCBS.com's efforts.
Posted by: mhking at
05:06 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.
"This Land" sequel to premiere on Jay Leno tonight

Jib Jab, the outfit that gave you
"This Land," the satirical flash animation of George Bush and John Kerry going at each other to the tune of "This Land is Your Land,"
are at it again.
From the creators of the political satire sensation "This Land" comes a sequel set to the tune of "Dixie."The online animation "Good To Be in DC!" features the presidential and vice presidential candidates along with Attorney General John Ashcroft, CBS News anchor Dan Rather, filmmaker Michael Moore, talk show host Rush Limbaugh and Jane Fonda.
"In `This Land,' you had basically (President) Bush and (John) Kerry," said Evan Spiridellis, who co-produced the cartoons with his brother, Gregg. "This piece is more about the whole town, the whole system."
The new piece is set to premiere on
The Tonight Show Thursday night, and will be available online at
JibJab.com shortly after.
Posted by: mhking at
04:06 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.
Dennis Miller on George W. Bush
From Dennis Miller's
Tonight Show apparance the other night:
That's why I like Bush. He doesn't over-think it. He wakes up every morning, jumps out of bed, lands on his two feet, scratches his balls, and says, "Let's kill some f@#@$ing terrorists!"
Posted by: mhking at
03:53 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.
October 06, 2004
High-octane beer on the way from Anheuser-Busch

Anheuser-Busch is
introducing a sweetened, caffeinated beer, targeted at twenty-somethings that regularly guzzle vodka-based drinks like they're going out of style.
The new beer B(E) -- read as "B to the E power" -- will roll out in several phases starting in November.Advertising will focus on in-store merchandising and promotions at bars and nightclubs, with some local print work and online marketing, Anheuser-Busch officials said.
B(E) infuses beer with caffeine, guarana and ginseng, along with berry aromas for a sweeter, yet more tart taste at 6.6 percent alcohol by volume, said company brewmaster Nathaniel Davis.
Anheuser-Busch designed the new brew for 21- to 27-year-old drinkers who seek novel beverages and switch drinks more frequently according to mood and occasion, the company said.
The new drink will be priced somewhat higher than standard beers, and marketed in slimmer cans, not unlike Red Bull and other energy drinks.
Posted by: mhking at
05:35 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Doesn't mixing alcohol and caffeine sort of defeat the purpose of both?
Posted by: Scott McClare at October 06, 2004 07:32 PM (DqZD3)
Posted by: Gib at October 07, 2004 03:46 AM (PsC2M)
3
That's jus sad that they are creating a whole new generation of people who drink inferior beer. ... uh I mean become alcoholics.
Posted by: Joshua at October 07, 2004 05:05 AM (ZOwDj)
4
I think this is a similar concoction to Buzz Beer, the drink Drew Carey and friends brewed up on the Drew Carey Show a few years ago.
Posted by: JQ at October 07, 2004 04:27 PM (+QIvh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Liberal Dominance of Black Media Won't Fix Itself
My new Project 21 piece was published this week.
Not all blacks are liberal, but liberals nonetheless dominate the black media.
So what's a conservative - especially a black conservative - to do about it?
For one thing, stop allowing this dominance to occur by default, because it's falsely defining black America as less conservative than it really is.
In a October/November 2003 Gallup poll, more blacks identified themselves as conservative (30 percent) than liberal (22 percent). A 1996 Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies poll similarly found a nearly equal distribution among blacks who defined themselves as conservative, liberal and moderate. School choice and gay marriage are just two of the recent high-profile splits between black America and the liberal establishment.
It's obvious there's a diversity of political opinion in the African-American community, but what about the seemingly monolithically liberal black media?
In most major radio markets, black radio dominates the dial. In black radio, Tom Joyner rules the roost. His ABC-distributed program is among the top draws not only in black radio but in urban and suburban radio, period. A long-time radio veteran with extensive local-market experience in Chicago and Dallas, Joyner holds court over a cornucopia of topics. He and his cohorts are frequently visited by phone or in person by newsmakers and commentators who maintain a definite sway among black Americans. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Julian Bond are among Joyner's semi-regular guests. NPR and PBS talk show host Tavis Smiley is a regular weekly contributor.
Joyner additionally hosts gatherings at Disney World, festivals around the nation and even an annual ocean cruise. He holds fundraisers for historically black colleges and is an outspoken advocate of "giving back" to the community.
Tom Joyner is an opinion leader in the black media establishment.
His mantra nowadays is getting President George W. Bush out of office. Joyner's program hosted several of the Democratic presidential candidates, but he hasn't had on anyone from the GOP. While part of this can be attributed to the current anti-Bush, anti-Republican bias of Joyner and his compatriots, just as much blame lies with the Republicans themselves.
The visible communication sources in black America - from Joyner and Smiley on the radio to BET to TV One on television as well as publications ranging from Johnson Publishing's Jet and Ebony to Earl Graves' Black Enterprise and the local black press - are a virtual wasteland when it comes to conservative ideas.
Conservative blacks from Project 21 often are represented in press reports and with New Visions Commentaries, but why isn't the President there? Why aren't Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell there? Why aren't John Ashcroft or Donald Rumsfeld there?
Why was Trent Lott only on BET to apologize for putting his foot in his mouth regarding the late Strom Thurmond and not to discuss conservative proposals to reform Social Security, how tougher standards and choice can improve education and how tax cuts don't just help the rich?
All those individuals will readily show up at Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh's bully pulpits. That's not a bad thing. It's always good to preach to the choir.
But always rallying the faithful doesn't expand one's presence. One cannot expand their message unless and until they step outside their comfort zone.
Going on black radio may not be easy or comfortable for conservatives at first. A wariness exists on both sides. As the ice is broken - and as black America recognizes that this is not a matter or a means of being used or pandered to simply for votes or support - both sides will begin to open up and to discover that a common ground truly exists.
Even Tom Joyner may discover there is not only room but a necessity for a vigorous political debate among black Americans. To deny it is to deprive black America of something it truly deserves. But it is something that both he needs to be open to as well as those pushing conservative policies.
Posted by: mhking at
06:54 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 681 words, total size 4 kb.
1
When BET had the Sunday talking head show, they complained that they were always rebuffed when they tried to get GOP presence on the show.
Tavis Smiley regularly gets the conservative view on the day's topics.
In the Baltimore area, Ehrlich and Steele appear in the Black media, though not as often as they do on the conservative stations.
Posted by: DarkStar at October 06, 2004 03:36 PM (cnw1A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
And the No-Prize goes to...

I didn't get a chance to award the "No-Prize" yesterday; it got a bit on the busy side here (plus I was out for a good chunk of the day).
Anyway, the best caption for Ketchup Boy's attempt at playing football has to go to Songstress7 for here entry, "Senator Kerry attempts to find his head in the last place he left it...
I don't know when I'll do another one -- although doing one weekly sounds like it might be a fun thing to do.
I want to thank all you folks who participated though! Thanks!
Posted by: mhking at
05:55 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.
Oh, and for us Nip/Tuck fans...
Nip/Tuck's season finale was last night on FX.
The "out of left field" revelations kept coming hot and heavy.
First we find out that Ava's a man (ok, transgendered).
Then not only do we get to see the slimy Alec Baldwin as the doctor....
...we find out that HE'S AVA'S HUSBAND!
And if you think I'm revealing everything, just wait until the last five minutes (after all, The Carver is still out there and gunning for Sean)!
And after the teardrop in the final scene, we're left hanging until next June!
Both The Shield and Nip/Tuck are starting late next season, due to Michael Chiklis and Julian McMahon both appearing in Fantastic Four, shooting now for a July release (as Ben Grimm and Victor Von Doom respectively).
Posted by: mhking at
05:25 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.
October 05, 2004
Ooh...that's gonna leave a mark...

Quote of the night that sums up the entire debate from Vice President Cheney:
"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight. "
That's what you call "smackdown."
John "Breck Girl" Edwards fidgeted, hemmed, hawed, and did his level best to try to deflect, defend and otherwise protect the man at the head of the Democratic ticket, John Kerry.
Edwards insisted that he and Senator Kerry were not guilty of the flip-flops that their record strongly indicates, while Cheney went on the offensive, attacking the dismal voting and attendance records of both Kerry and Edwards.
Edwards tried to link Cheney's personal association with defense contrator Halliburton with failed companies like Enron, and the criminal activities of that company's head, Ken Lay. Cheney countered by challenging Edwards' lack of experience on the Hill (Edwards has only been in the Senate since 1999; Cheney has served in four presidential administrations, and has also been a part of the leadership of the US House).
Unlike last week's tie, I've gotta give this one to Cheney.
Posted by: mhking at
06:24 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.
1
OUCH!! Smackdown is right.
Did you happen to count the many times John Edwards mentioned Kerry and then said "I'm sorry, I know that's against the rules." But he kept doing it anyway.
I typed out and have the transcript of the first Presidential debate and I can prove for a fact that Bush won that debate; I would have to say the same for this one - Cheney won the debate in spite of and despite "his long resume'" that Johnny boy here kept bringing up.
~Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at October 05, 2004 06:44 PM (D39Vm)
2
Great quote. Too bad Chaney has already admitted it is not true. He has met him before.
Posted by: DarkStar at October 05, 2004 07:03 PM (cnw1A)
3
Cheney win. Facts against accusations. Cheney is just level headed and answers so completely that Edwards just look...light...
Posted by: jbrookins at October 05, 2004 07:04 PM (8QQyX)
4
bush did not win the debate last week. if anything kerry came off better although he did not land any killer blows. he looked and sounded more presidential while bush seemed like a naughty schoolboy pleading with teacher for another chance.
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 05, 2004 10:31 PM (E1ciy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
95kb generated in CPU 0.0296, elapsed 0.0715 seconds.
54 queries taking 0.0523 seconds, 181 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.