At least this guy knows that a terrorist is still a terrorist, and he's not blind to Arab pundits who like to deceive people and not report the truth. Pretty much like America with its mainstream media. And also the guy knows that there exists a black and white issue. This is what we need, optimism. Unlike some people I know who prefer to whine and be pessimistic all day long on their blog sites along with their guttered filth. Quality blogging is what we need out there who are not afraid to report the truth and be intellectually honest.
The channel’s main program is its call-in talk shows. Iraqis from inside and outside Iraq call the channel to dish out their opinions. What I heard so far was so amazing. I heard Iraqis saying stuff I never hear before from our Arab pundits or even from Iraqis whom Al Jazeerah cheery picks to appear on its channel.
Apart from its constantly repeated call-in shows, I don’t think Fayhaa has any prominent program. The channel that was initiated by a number of Iraqi businessmen is still getting started. With its extremely low resources, this channel became a prominent voice in Iraq’s growing media market. That’s an achievement.
One of the things I really liked was that Fayhaa calls things by their true names. Apples are apples. Oranges are oranges. Terrorists are terrorists. Those who plant car bombs in police stations are not insurgents, they are not rebels, they are not militants, they are terrorists.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
"I got Fayhaa!"
At least this one Egyptian blogger in Egypt is overly excited about a "Fayhaa" satellite show that he's finally found among the many satellite channels.
Monday, November 29, 2004
Muslim Intellectuals and Liberals put the United Nations on the Hot Seat
Thanks to Iraq the Model in providing a link of a letter written up by three well known Arab and Muslim intellectuals. The letter calls upon the United Nations Security Council to proceed with the establishment of the International Tribunal to prosecute Muslim clerics, groups or individual terrorist who issue religious “fatwas” with the only intention to incite terrorist acts.
The three intellectuals are Dr. Jawad Hashim, former Iraqi Minister of Planning who had to flee from the Saddam regime in 1983; Dr. Shakir Al-Nabulsi, an author of 40 books on Arab society and culture, Middle East, and Japan; and Mr. Lafif Lakhdar, author and political commentator for the media of U.K. and the Arab world. They took a needful step in making the U.N. accountable of their own voted-upon resolutions.
What’s interesting is their approach and logic on condemning terrorist threats and how the United Nations Security Council too, also condemns all terrorist acts (see Resolution 1566 (Oct 2004), 1373 (Sept 2001), and 1267 (Oct 1999) as well as threats to international peace and security Resolution #1540 (April 2004) ).
These guys are not alone where thousands of others do share their viewpoints as well. And in doing so, they reminded the U.N. recent resolution 1566 in their letter that the U.N must somehow put a stop to these terrorist activities by freezing of financial assets, preventing terrorist movements between Arab states, and the prevention of arms supplies and such. Clearly, this letter is meant to put the U.N. on the hot seat to get them to prosecute terrorists, including Muslim Clerics. Strong words were used such as “ticking-bomb (Arab) population,” “illiteracy,” “poverty,” “backwardness in education,” “reactionary religious teaching” and the absence of a democratic government in which almost all Arab countries are managed under a dictatorial system.
The second strong condemnation was on the use of “fatwas” as a legitimate means of inciting terrorist acts that are tied with “religious duties.” They listed in their letter examples with one that of a Muslim cleric who permitted the killings of all Israelis because the Israeli citizens are to become nothing more that future “army of reserve soldiers” of Israel. And in doing so these “fatwas” are nothing but a “false umbrella of Islam” according to the three intellectuals who penned their name to the letter. And in closing, the three intellectuals also urged the U.N. to prosecute all terrorists, including Muslim clerics who incite these terrorist acts in the name of religion reminding them that the U.N. has a duty to see that these terrorists are to be prosecuted.
I don’t know about you but I think the U.N. will pass on this and weasel out of their duty, as always, to prosecute terrorists given the nature of their body being made up of countries that are deemed as “terrorist countries” when compared to the U.N. list of members that have countries supporting dictators and despots. If the U.N wants to run the world, then they had better show some backbone. But then again, I don’t think we’ll ever see a fast-track prosecution case involving hundreds of terrorists by the U.N. alone. We’ve already saw what the “The Hague” has done with Milosevic’ prosecution and after several years of playing musical chairs with the judges, legal gaffes, and lack of insight. The case is still on-going. Who says this will be any different in prosecuting terrorists and Muslim clerics who issue "fatwas" ?
Either the U.N. does something about their voted upon Resolutions or else the U.N. becomes a joke with absolutely no will of their own to keep except seeing that the U.N. members and staff keep mum on the oil-for-food program on-going investigation. Oh yeah, the U.N. is a joke. My bad.
These three Muslim liberals are breath of fresh air in a world filled with fetid terrorists' and inhumane thinkings.
The three intellectuals are Dr. Jawad Hashim, former Iraqi Minister of Planning who had to flee from the Saddam regime in 1983; Dr. Shakir Al-Nabulsi, an author of 40 books on Arab society and culture, Middle East, and Japan; and Mr. Lafif Lakhdar, author and political commentator for the media of U.K. and the Arab world. They took a needful step in making the U.N. accountable of their own voted-upon resolutions.
What’s interesting is their approach and logic on condemning terrorist threats and how the United Nations Security Council too, also condemns all terrorist acts (see Resolution 1566 (Oct 2004), 1373 (Sept 2001), and 1267 (Oct 1999) as well as threats to international peace and security Resolution #1540 (April 2004) ).
These guys are not alone where thousands of others do share their viewpoints as well. And in doing so, they reminded the U.N. recent resolution 1566 in their letter that the U.N must somehow put a stop to these terrorist activities by freezing of financial assets, preventing terrorist movements between Arab states, and the prevention of arms supplies and such. Clearly, this letter is meant to put the U.N. on the hot seat to get them to prosecute terrorists, including Muslim Clerics. Strong words were used such as “ticking-bomb (Arab) population,” “illiteracy,” “poverty,” “backwardness in education,” “reactionary religious teaching” and the absence of a democratic government in which almost all Arab countries are managed under a dictatorial system.
The second strong condemnation was on the use of “fatwas” as a legitimate means of inciting terrorist acts that are tied with “religious duties.” They listed in their letter examples with one that of a Muslim cleric who permitted the killings of all Israelis because the Israeli citizens are to become nothing more that future “army of reserve soldiers” of Israel. And in doing so these “fatwas” are nothing but a “false umbrella of Islam” according to the three intellectuals who penned their name to the letter. And in closing, the three intellectuals also urged the U.N. to prosecute all terrorists, including Muslim clerics who incite these terrorist acts in the name of religion reminding them that the U.N. has a duty to see that these terrorists are to be prosecuted.
I don’t know about you but I think the U.N. will pass on this and weasel out of their duty, as always, to prosecute terrorists given the nature of their body being made up of countries that are deemed as “terrorist countries” when compared to the U.N. list of members that have countries supporting dictators and despots. If the U.N wants to run the world, then they had better show some backbone. But then again, I don’t think we’ll ever see a fast-track prosecution case involving hundreds of terrorists by the U.N. alone. We’ve already saw what the “The Hague” has done with Milosevic’ prosecution and after several years of playing musical chairs with the judges, legal gaffes, and lack of insight. The case is still on-going. Who says this will be any different in prosecuting terrorists and Muslim clerics who issue "fatwas" ?
Either the U.N. does something about their voted upon Resolutions or else the U.N. becomes a joke with absolutely no will of their own to keep except seeing that the U.N. members and staff keep mum on the oil-for-food program on-going investigation. Oh yeah, the U.N. is a joke. My bad.
These three Muslim liberals are breath of fresh air in a world filled with fetid terrorists' and inhumane thinkings.
Friday, November 26, 2004
A Failed Revolution
This post is to say to to all the naysayers and doomsayers that they were wrong about how a free Iraq will never work or never yielded to the faith of what the majority of the Iraqi people feel about a free and democratic Iraq. The United States and the coalition forces were right to go after Saddam, his sons, and the Saddam's regime for a total change since it was they who broke the cease-fire agreement, not us. The United States and the coaltion of the willing were right. The world was wrong...wrong...wrong...wrong!
Chiraq, I'm glad your buddy is in jail.
A group of Iraqi bloggers from the Iraq the Model blogsite recognized around the world and mentioned in a variety of newspapers and ezines from around the world have decided to form their own political party called "Iraqi Pro-Democracy Party." Read their story of how this took place 3 or 4 days ago in their blog site when their party was officially recognized by the government of Iraq. Now, a fascinating blog piece in Iraq the Model:
A failed revolution. Friday, November 26, 2004In the past in Iraq (and till now in all arab and Muslim countries except for very few, and since Trotsky came up with his idea of the “Everlasting revolution”), any attempt to change the government or even part of it was considered as a “conspiracy against the revolution” and an act of treason that no one would imagine a more horrible crime and a worse punishment for.
In Iraq for a long time a revolution seemed to us to be the only way to overthrow Saddam and achieve our dreams in freedom, justice and democracy. There’s always something fascinating about revolution especially for people like us who suffered for a long time under a very brutal dictatorship.
I used to watch the injustice that’s happening allover the world and the people’s silence about it and think that the only thing that’s going to save us is a wide revolution that spreads through Iraq to the neighboring countries, as the only thing the people of the advanced world seemed to be interested in was delivering fast aid to areas in most need for it, to make our suffering less terrible but not to deal with the primary cause that was continuously causing such crisis. It’s a noble and generous effort but it wasn’t enough, as we didn't want to just live, we wanted to live as human beings.
On the other hand the governments of the advanced countries were concerned only with their interests interfering only when those interests were threatened, while some governments openly and without feeling any shame supported these dictatorships even with knowing that they were participating greatly to our continuous suffering.
We thought we couldn’t and shouldn’t depend on anyone but ourselves. Many Iraqis fought Saddam and his regime with outstanding bravery even with understanding the horrible fate that was awaiting them and their families. Others, like us kept trying to gather support, encourage people to take a stand and educate them about their rights, that they should be the ones who decide the way their country is run. However in each time we tried to organize a larger group than just us and our closest friends, we failed to gather the support of more than 5-10 people.
Trusting others was almost impossible and very risky. We had to consider that we were not only risking our lives but also the lives of our family, close friends and relatives and the future of our relatives to the 4th degree! One of these days at Saddam’s time some friends were gathering in our house. We were just chatting and having fun. Our neighbor who is a Tikriti and worked for the intelligence knocked on the door and when I opened he asked me about the cars outside our house. I told him that these were our friends’. He said to me, “You know that gathering is against the law and if it wasn’t for the fact that you’re my neighbor and I respect your family, I would’ve sent you behind the sun. Be careful, as I understand but other people may not” He said it in a warning tone not as an advice!
However, one of these days we decided that we could never accept such life and decided to gather support and confront the government in a long awaited revolution no matter what happens. We were prepared for the worst and it seemed to me that my dream of becoming a true martyr was about to come true.
We contacted some friends and people who believed in the same principles we believe in and we told them about our plan. Some people didn’t like it but we still managed to gather more than 800 people who stated that they are not afraid of saying in public that they want to overthrow the government and do whatever it takes. We heard about other groups trying to do the same and we decide to unite our efforts with theirs but first we had to make the first step alone. The group chose me, my brother Mohammed and a friend of ours to go to the authorities and talk to them, as we were still hoping to do this peacefully without unnecessary bloodshed unless they refused. We knew of course that it might well lead to our death but then the rest of us would carry on using the hard way.
We reached the government main headquarter and entered without much difficulty. We went to one of these offices as we didn’t know were to go as this was our first time there. One of the government employees asked us what was our need. We said our prayers and told him that we want to change the regime. He asked us to wait until he call for the man in charge and I said to myself, “that’s it, they’re calling the Mukhabarat” the guy came back with another man who, after greeting us asked about our group. We handed him a file that contained our goals and a list of the people who supported us. He took it and told us to come back in 3 days after they study it.
“Study it!?” I said to myself “ they’re not going to hang us? Maybe they are letting the small fish to capture the large one?” anyway we went back and spent 3 difficult nights full of worries and nightmares.
On the 3d day we went back to the same place and another man was waiting for us, “are you a representative of this group” the man asked Mohammed, “no, I’m their leader” (man, that was brave of Mohammed! Now he’s gone and I won’t have the honor of being the first martyr in the group!).
“Pleasure to meet you Sir! Have a seat please” said the man to Mohammed and the rest of us with a broad smile. ( a trap! Ok so be it!) Our friend was encouraged by this gesture and asked for tea! They brought us tea and some cookies! (Maybe a last wish grant) After few minutes the guy looked into a computer and asked us about the name of our group. We told him the name and the guy said “Congratulations! Your demand has been approved and you’ll have a chance to layout your plans in public and if enough number of people agree with you, the current government would step down and let you among others take the lead”
“What!? These people are so easy! are they wimps or what? They can kill us just like that, and no one would dare to do anything about it. Alas! There won’t be any revolution and I won’t be a martyr!” such questions were on my mind as we left the place wondering why would someone who has all the power and control in his hands hand it to another one without a fight and without the slightest objection!
That was not a dream, it’s for real and it didn’t happen in the “free and independent” Iraq at Saddam’s time, it happened 3 days ago in “occupied Iraq”.
To summerize it and although many of you know that already but I would like to announce that the party we have formed, the Iraqi pro-democracy party is now officially registered and will have the chance to compete in the upcoming elections.
You can’t imagine the thrill and happiness I felt when I held the document that state that the “Iraqi pro-democracy party” is registered and Approved as a political entity that has the right to participate in the upcoming elections! This was a dream to us, and with the help and support we received from all our friends, the readers of this blog, the dream has now became true. We still have a battle to fight and we’re more than willing to go all the way.
You can find a complete list in Fayrouz blog here. And by the way, Happy Thanksgiving everyone!-By Ali.
SOURCE
And see their new party website at: http://english.iraqdemparty.org/
Congrats to them. Only then can you have freedom before you can taste freedom and chase your dreams until it becomes a reality. Now, realize the power of bloggers. It ain't chump change no more.
The power of bloggers!
May Dan Rather Rest In Peace.
Chiraq, I'm glad your buddy is in jail.
A group of Iraqi bloggers from the Iraq the Model blogsite recognized around the world and mentioned in a variety of newspapers and ezines from around the world have decided to form their own political party called "Iraqi Pro-Democracy Party." Read their story of how this took place 3 or 4 days ago in their blog site when their party was officially recognized by the government of Iraq. Now, a fascinating blog piece in Iraq the Model:
A failed revolution. Friday, November 26, 2004In the past in Iraq (and till now in all arab and Muslim countries except for very few, and since Trotsky came up with his idea of the “Everlasting revolution”), any attempt to change the government or even part of it was considered as a “conspiracy against the revolution” and an act of treason that no one would imagine a more horrible crime and a worse punishment for.
In Iraq for a long time a revolution seemed to us to be the only way to overthrow Saddam and achieve our dreams in freedom, justice and democracy. There’s always something fascinating about revolution especially for people like us who suffered for a long time under a very brutal dictatorship.
I used to watch the injustice that’s happening allover the world and the people’s silence about it and think that the only thing that’s going to save us is a wide revolution that spreads through Iraq to the neighboring countries, as the only thing the people of the advanced world seemed to be interested in was delivering fast aid to areas in most need for it, to make our suffering less terrible but not to deal with the primary cause that was continuously causing such crisis. It’s a noble and generous effort but it wasn’t enough, as we didn't want to just live, we wanted to live as human beings.
On the other hand the governments of the advanced countries were concerned only with their interests interfering only when those interests were threatened, while some governments openly and without feeling any shame supported these dictatorships even with knowing that they were participating greatly to our continuous suffering.
We thought we couldn’t and shouldn’t depend on anyone but ourselves. Many Iraqis fought Saddam and his regime with outstanding bravery even with understanding the horrible fate that was awaiting them and their families. Others, like us kept trying to gather support, encourage people to take a stand and educate them about their rights, that they should be the ones who decide the way their country is run. However in each time we tried to organize a larger group than just us and our closest friends, we failed to gather the support of more than 5-10 people.
Trusting others was almost impossible and very risky. We had to consider that we were not only risking our lives but also the lives of our family, close friends and relatives and the future of our relatives to the 4th degree! One of these days at Saddam’s time some friends were gathering in our house. We were just chatting and having fun. Our neighbor who is a Tikriti and worked for the intelligence knocked on the door and when I opened he asked me about the cars outside our house. I told him that these were our friends’. He said to me, “You know that gathering is against the law and if it wasn’t for the fact that you’re my neighbor and I respect your family, I would’ve sent you behind the sun. Be careful, as I understand but other people may not” He said it in a warning tone not as an advice!
However, one of these days we decided that we could never accept such life and decided to gather support and confront the government in a long awaited revolution no matter what happens. We were prepared for the worst and it seemed to me that my dream of becoming a true martyr was about to come true.
We contacted some friends and people who believed in the same principles we believe in and we told them about our plan. Some people didn’t like it but we still managed to gather more than 800 people who stated that they are not afraid of saying in public that they want to overthrow the government and do whatever it takes. We heard about other groups trying to do the same and we decide to unite our efforts with theirs but first we had to make the first step alone. The group chose me, my brother Mohammed and a friend of ours to go to the authorities and talk to them, as we were still hoping to do this peacefully without unnecessary bloodshed unless they refused. We knew of course that it might well lead to our death but then the rest of us would carry on using the hard way.
We reached the government main headquarter and entered without much difficulty. We went to one of these offices as we didn’t know were to go as this was our first time there. One of the government employees asked us what was our need. We said our prayers and told him that we want to change the regime. He asked us to wait until he call for the man in charge and I said to myself, “that’s it, they’re calling the Mukhabarat” the guy came back with another man who, after greeting us asked about our group. We handed him a file that contained our goals and a list of the people who supported us. He took it and told us to come back in 3 days after they study it.
“Study it!?” I said to myself “ they’re not going to hang us? Maybe they are letting the small fish to capture the large one?” anyway we went back and spent 3 difficult nights full of worries and nightmares.
On the 3d day we went back to the same place and another man was waiting for us, “are you a representative of this group” the man asked Mohammed, “no, I’m their leader” (man, that was brave of Mohammed! Now he’s gone and I won’t have the honor of being the first martyr in the group!).
“Pleasure to meet you Sir! Have a seat please” said the man to Mohammed and the rest of us with a broad smile. ( a trap! Ok so be it!) Our friend was encouraged by this gesture and asked for tea! They brought us tea and some cookies! (Maybe a last wish grant) After few minutes the guy looked into a computer and asked us about the name of our group. We told him the name and the guy said “Congratulations! Your demand has been approved and you’ll have a chance to layout your plans in public and if enough number of people agree with you, the current government would step down and let you among others take the lead”
“What!? These people are so easy! are they wimps or what? They can kill us just like that, and no one would dare to do anything about it. Alas! There won’t be any revolution and I won’t be a martyr!” such questions were on my mind as we left the place wondering why would someone who has all the power and control in his hands hand it to another one without a fight and without the slightest objection!
That was not a dream, it’s for real and it didn’t happen in the “free and independent” Iraq at Saddam’s time, it happened 3 days ago in “occupied Iraq”.
To summerize it and although many of you know that already but I would like to announce that the party we have formed, the Iraqi pro-democracy party is now officially registered and will have the chance to compete in the upcoming elections.
You can’t imagine the thrill and happiness I felt when I held the document that state that the “Iraqi pro-democracy party” is registered and Approved as a political entity that has the right to participate in the upcoming elections! This was a dream to us, and with the help and support we received from all our friends, the readers of this blog, the dream has now became true. We still have a battle to fight and we’re more than willing to go all the way.
You can find a complete list in Fayrouz blog here. And by the way, Happy Thanksgiving everyone!-By Ali.
SOURCE
And see their new party website at: http://english.iraqdemparty.org/
Congrats to them. Only then can you have freedom before you can taste freedom and chase your dreams until it becomes a reality. Now, realize the power of bloggers. It ain't chump change no more.
The power of bloggers!
May Dan Rather Rest In Peace.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Faith Based Iniative...it works!
Not only Faith based iniatitive sounds good on paper, it actually does work! And Bush had Texas, while as Governor, as a model to begin with. :)
Here's the latest report on Faith Based Iniative. And here's another one.
Faith Based Initiative and Community Assistance programs do work . Although there are problems within these programs but overall the consensus seems to be that the whole concept actually does work quite well.
More information can be gathered from the Religion and Social Policy Organization website:
Ohh, here comes the naysayers and more ranters. Time to eat some turkeys.
Here's the latest report on Faith Based Iniative. And here's another one.
Faith Based Initiative and Community Assistance programs do work . Although there are problems within these programs but overall the consensus seems to be that the whole concept actually does work quite well.
More information can be gathered from the Religion and Social Policy Organization website:
Ohh, here comes the naysayers and more ranters. Time to eat some turkeys.
You Cannot Take God Out of Thanksgiving.
Thanksgiving. That's today. A little reminder to y'all that the heart of Thanksgiving is a religious one. However, what's sad to see is mindless school adminstrators instruct their students that they are free to thank anyone they want while learning about the 17th century celebration of Thanksgiving — as long as it's not God. And this is a sign of tolerance and free learning? Hardly.
Let's start with our founding father, George Washington, who the duty to proclaime the first day of thanksgiving in 1789, but not as a national holiday:
In 1863, Abraham Lincoln declared a national day of
Now, the Maryland school adminstrators have no right to dictate how a holiday should be celebrated by students if the schools are to observe an already recognized religious holiday. This includes recognizing the history for what it is and recognizing that the students have the right to publicly give gratitude and thanks to their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. God almighty.
The school adminstrators are plainly wrong to cover up the real reason why we have Thanksgiving. They are being the pugnacious ones. What teachers don't mention when they describe the feast is that the Pilgrims not only thanked the Native Americans for their peaceful three-day indulgence, but repeatedly thanked God.
Have a happy Thanksgiving. May your stomach be full. And don't forget about the man upstairs, either.
Let's start with our founding father, George Washington, who the duty to proclaime the first day of thanksgiving in 1789, but not as a national holiday:
"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor."
In 1863, Abraham Lincoln declared a national day of
"Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens."In the middle of the civil war, President Lincoln thought the day should be used to
"fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union."
Now, the Maryland school adminstrators have no right to dictate how a holiday should be celebrated by students if the schools are to observe an already recognized religious holiday. This includes recognizing the history for what it is and recognizing that the students have the right to publicly give gratitude and thanks to their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. God almighty.
The school adminstrators are plainly wrong to cover up the real reason why we have Thanksgiving. They are being the pugnacious ones. What teachers don't mention when they describe the feast is that the Pilgrims not only thanked the Native Americans for their peaceful three-day indulgence, but repeatedly thanked God.
Have a happy Thanksgiving. May your stomach be full. And don't forget about the man upstairs, either.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Ellen DeGeneres Honors Troops, Families on Holiday Show
Now, isn't this something? Too bad Michael Moore won't do this. Oh, right, he's a traitor, he can't do that. He'll trash the troops just to promote his views. BTW, Ellen is a Democrat.
By Donna MilesAmerican Forces Press Service
By Donna MilesAmerican Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Nov. 24, 2004 -- Comedian and talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres honored America's servicemembers today on her show, during which she presented $1.2 million in cruises to military families, aired messages from deployed troops, and plugged the Pentagon's new "America Supports You" program.
The show, filmed before a live studio audience of deployed troops' families, focused on the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday and the nation's thanks for the sacrifices its men and women in uniform and their families are making.
DeGeneres and guest host Tom Hanks sent out hearty "hooahs" to the deployed troops and urged Americans to show their support in whatever way they choose. One way, she said, is to tap into the America Supports You Web site and join in one of the many efforts already under way or send a personal note of appreciation to the troops.
During the program, several members of the audience got treated to video clips of their loved ones in Southwest Asia sending holiday messages. Among troops featured were Sgt. Carmine Vuocolo, Sgt. 1st Class David Gant, Staff Sgt. Travis Surprise, Pfc. Mark Jones and Spc. Noah Hale.
Another clip showed DeGeneres and her army of volunteers packing care packages for the troops as part of the United Services Organization's Operation Care Package program. The icing on the cake was DeGeneres' announcement that Celebrity Cruise Lines was contributing all-expense-paid cruises for four to everyone in the audience. Recipients can choose cruises to either Alaska or Mexico for up to 10 nights.
For Miranda Ellison from Camp Pendleton, Calif., the cruise will be the honeymoon she and her Marine husband, who returns from Iraq in June, never had. Gina Mahal, also from Camp Pendleton, said she feels "lucky and proud and happy for my husband that he gets this reward." Other audience members said they were delighted by the expressions of support. "I'm in tears. No words can describe how I feel," said Kathy Broehl from Camp Pendleton, whose husband will return from his deployment in four months. "It makes your heart burst, because you know people care."
"I just want to say, 'God, thank you for Ellen,'" said Zephyr Edgeington from Fort Irwin, Calif., whose husband is due home in June. "It means the world to us to get recognized for the work we do as spouses."
"This was totally amazing. I didn't think so many people cared about our troops and their wives," agreed Leah Bichlmeier, also from Fort Irwin. "Thank you, Ellen. I'll never forget it." After the show, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Allison Barber thanked DeGeneres for her support for the troops and presented her an America Supports You dog tag, which features the program's logo.
DeGeneres said she was happy to see military wives singing and dancing and having a great time on the show. It's exactly what she said she was hoping for.
In addition to its regular syndicated audience, the "Ellen" program will reach U.S. servicemembers and their families around the world. The program was aired on the American Forces Network, which is broadcast to servicemembers in 177 countries including Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as military ships at sea.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Are You a Deaf or Hard of Hearing Blogger Who Happens to be a Republican?
Are you a deaf or hard of hearing blogger who happens to be a Republican? If you are give me a buzz by clicking on my email address on my profile link directly beneath my picture and send me a response. I know you guys are out there.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Hillary's Continued Attempt to Deceive Americans
Remember, not too long ago, I warned you about Hillary's attempt at deceiving the public by being the "Christian" woman? But now Hillary seemed to have "unofficially" announced her candidacy for 2008 by saying this:
Looks like she's trying to reach the southern states by claiming that she's one of "them" which is pure baloney. So obvious. So blantant. So early in the presidential game. She can do the talk but so far she hasn't done the walk which President Bush already has credit for.
"I always take time to worship God in as evangelical a way as is feasible, given time and location constraints. As you know, I consider myself an evangelical Christian, really a Christian conservative, if you want to know the truth, so it's nice to be 'home' again in the South, which I really consider my quote-unquote home even though I live in New York most of the time. Well, Washington, D.C., most of the time, actually, but if I'm not there I'm in New York, of course, but always thinking about being here, in the South, , where I shared so many wonderful evangelical . . . moments and . . . events."
Looks like she's trying to reach the southern states by claiming that she's one of "them" which is pure baloney. So obvious. So blantant. So early in the presidential game. She can do the talk but so far she hasn't done the walk which President Bush already has credit for.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Can the Clinton Library Withstand Mother Nature?
What are the odds of the $165 million dollar steel and glass Clinton Library in Little Rock, Arkansas will get hit by a tornado in a given year? According to a tornado frequency map for Arkansas shows that the state gets 6 – 10 tornados per 1000 square miles or about 33 miles by 33 miles square area. With it’s topography and location Little Rock sits in the beeline of many of the deadly tornados that have a good chance to go ripping through one spring afternoon.
From 1950-1993 in Little Rock there were a total of 616 tornadoes (about 14 tornados a year on average), with 335 of them being classified as strong (F2 or greater intensity), and 45 of them were killer tornadoes causing 174 deaths. Weak tornadoes (F0 and F1) numbered 271, leaving 10 tornadoes without an F-scale value assigned to them. With an average of 14 tornados a year going through Little Rock area, about half of those tornados being "strong" while maybe 2 tornados may be the killer ones with it's widths being longer than the length of the Clinton Library.
Tornadoes occur primarily in the spring months, with a marked decline in the summer, and a secondary peak during the late fall. March, April, and May receive 56 percent of all tornadoes, 58 percent of strong tornadoes, 69 percent of killer tornadoes, and 89 percent of all fatalities for Little Rock. Here’s a typical tornado track.
One of the largest outbreak of tornados in a single day occurred in 1999. An F3 tornado ripped through Little Rock killing 3 people.
What may make Little Rock prone to tornado hits along the I-40 corridor near the Arkansas River Valley might be related to relief, and that the valley itself may actually cause thunderstorms to produce tornadoes. The Clinton Library sits near the Arkansas River and near Highway 30.
God forbid should anybody get injured or killed because of Clinton Library’s shards of glass flying through the air.
Besides from getting hit with a tornado, Little Rock also has a history of earthquakes to worry about.
And if that isn’t enough, the Arkansas River that runs through Little Rock where the Clinton Library sits is only but about 30 yards away. The Arkansas River has a history of historic floods with a flood stage set at 23 feet. Only 4 times over the last 60 years did the water rise higher than 23 feet. The highest recorded flood height was 30ft in 1943. Enough to inundate the lower portion of the Clinton Library and if the flood height get anyhigher than 30 feet then surely the Clinton Library will become the S.S. Lewinsky.
Now, looking at all of these potential disasters waiting to incur their wrath on the Clinton Library, it's probably better to erase a little bit of history than to have a false legacy in perpetuity. But then again we’d lose that important perspective in trying to understand how a liar can do this because “he can” and get away with it. Let’s see how the Clinton Library holds up against mother nature in 2005 onward. I pox thee!!
C'mon, get real with the pox. Don't blame me if it does happen.
I pox thee!
Ok......I'm kidding! Congrats on your "library" Clinton.
From 1950-1993 in Little Rock there were a total of 616 tornadoes (about 14 tornados a year on average), with 335 of them being classified as strong (F2 or greater intensity), and 45 of them were killer tornadoes causing 174 deaths. Weak tornadoes (F0 and F1) numbered 271, leaving 10 tornadoes without an F-scale value assigned to them. With an average of 14 tornados a year going through Little Rock area, about half of those tornados being "strong" while maybe 2 tornados may be the killer ones with it's widths being longer than the length of the Clinton Library.
Tornadoes occur primarily in the spring months, with a marked decline in the summer, and a secondary peak during the late fall. March, April, and May receive 56 percent of all tornadoes, 58 percent of strong tornadoes, 69 percent of killer tornadoes, and 89 percent of all fatalities for Little Rock. Here’s a typical tornado track.
One of the largest outbreak of tornados in a single day occurred in 1999. An F3 tornado ripped through Little Rock killing 3 people.
What may make Little Rock prone to tornado hits along the I-40 corridor near the Arkansas River Valley might be related to relief, and that the valley itself may actually cause thunderstorms to produce tornadoes. The Clinton Library sits near the Arkansas River and near Highway 30.
God forbid should anybody get injured or killed because of Clinton Library’s shards of glass flying through the air.
Besides from getting hit with a tornado, Little Rock also has a history of earthquakes to worry about.
And if that isn’t enough, the Arkansas River that runs through Little Rock where the Clinton Library sits is only but about 30 yards away. The Arkansas River has a history of historic floods with a flood stage set at 23 feet. Only 4 times over the last 60 years did the water rise higher than 23 feet. The highest recorded flood height was 30ft in 1943. Enough to inundate the lower portion of the Clinton Library and if the flood height get anyhigher than 30 feet then surely the Clinton Library will become the S.S. Lewinsky.
Now, looking at all of these potential disasters waiting to incur their wrath on the Clinton Library, it's probably better to erase a little bit of history than to have a false legacy in perpetuity. But then again we’d lose that important perspective in trying to understand how a liar can do this because “he can” and get away with it. Let’s see how the Clinton Library holds up against mother nature in 2005 onward. I pox thee!!
C'mon, get real with the pox. Don't blame me if it does happen.
I pox thee!
Ok......I'm kidding! Congrats on your "library" Clinton.
The Reagan anti-AIDS/HIV myths
Don’t be a kool-aid drinker. I try not to be one because it’s easier to check history and facts first before commenting. Nobody’s perfect but I respect people more that have facts on hand than to listen people spew utter nonsense. Let's take a look at President Reagan's supposed hatred against homosexual people and that he was anti-AIDS and a homophobe.
President Reagan first spoke of AIDS no later than September 17, 1985. Responding to a reporter's question on AIDS research, the president told a White House news conference:
Reagan responded to the increasing AIDS deaths (not yet an epidemic until well into his 2nd term), it took a good friend Rock Hudson who died of AIDS for him to begin speaking publicly about AIDS.
Reagan’s remedy works just as well for homosexual couples who would rather wait before hooking up (marriage/union) to make the commitment to stay together with the “one-partner” rule. This would even solve the AIDS problem to such a great degree, we would not be having this epidemic. The legality issue of gay-marriage is an altogether another issue for each state.
Now, before you say, “Well, then it took Reagan 4 years before he said anything about AIDS” may I remind you of the timeline of when AIDS-HIV first started coming out?
President Reagan took office in January 1981. According to the CDC a total of 31 people died of AIDS. This mystery disease had no name, and was not publicized to any extent. During his first year in office, AIDS killed 128 people. Still a mystery disease and many were were not diagnosed until much later. The disease had no name nor was there a reliable test.Finally, in 1982 the CDC named the disease AIDS, and publicly linked it to the transfer of blood. Less than 500 people die of the disease that year, and 8 million dollars is devoted to it by the US government. In 1983 the virus is finally found and the CDC warns of possible dangers to the blood supply. It won't be until 1985 that there is a reliable test for HIV. This is well into Ronald Reagan's second term.During President Reagan's first term AIDS kills less than 6000 people. Far more people died of “common” diseases like influenza, but the Reagan administration still devoted 157 million dollars to AIDS in the first four years of office, before much was even known about it.
Here is a rundown of the mortality rates for 1985 according to the CDC
Diseases of heart - 771,169
Malignant neoplasms - 461,563
Cerebrovascular diseases - 153,050
Accidents and adverse effects - 93,457
Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases - 74,662
Pneumonia and influenza - 67,615
Diabetes mellitus - 36,969
Suicide - 29,453
Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis - 26,767
Atherosclerosis - 23,926
Nephritis,nephrotic syndrome,and nephrosis - 21,349
Homicide and legal intervention - 19,893
Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period - 19,246
Septicemia - 17,182
Congenital anomalies - 12,783
Now, imagine CDC fighting to get fundings for those diseases when AIDS was just starting to become more prevalent. But President Reagan did do something about AIDS-HIV. He got the fundings started on HIV/AIDS research beginning in 1982.
According to the Congressional Research Service, federal spending on HIV/AIDS began at $5.5 million dollars in fiscal year 1982 (remember that President Reagan was inaugurated on January 20, 1981 and had no influence on discretionary spending for FY1981 but had considerable influence on requesting larger funding for FY1982 and onward). By the time Reagan left office, the fiscal 1989 budget contained $1.304 billion dollars for HIV/AIDS research and development. Overall, between fiscal years 1982 and 1989, the Reagan Administration spent $3.2 billion dollars on HIV/AIDS research and development.
HHS Discretionary Funding for HIV/AIDS
FY1981 - $200,000
FY1982 - $5.5 million dollars spent. A 2,678% increase from prior year.
FY1983 – $28.7 million dollars. A 417% increase from prior year.
FY1984 - $61.4 million dollars. A 114% increase from prior year.
FY1985 - $108 million dollars. A 77 % increase from prior year.
FY1986 - $233 million dollars. A 115% increase from prior year.
FY1987 - $502 million dollars. A 115% increase from prior year.
FY1988 - $962 million dollars. A 94% increase from prior year.
FY1989 - $1.3 billion dollars. A 36% increase from prior year.
The spending quickly accelerated within a few years from literally nothing at first. Had Reagan not care about AIDS he could have found a way to slow the growth curve and devote more money elsewhere. But he didn't.
Also, a little known history about Reagan’s tolerance toward gays. Reagan’s interior decorator, Ted Graber, who oversaw the redecoration of the White House, spent a night in the Reagans' private White House quarters with his male lover, Archie Case, when they came to Washington for Nancy Reagan's 60th birthday party — a fact confirmed for the press by Mrs. Reagan's press secretary.
Read this website called “Independent Gay Forum”.
You ought to be thanking President Reagan for what he has tried to do to fund HIV/AIDS research on such a massive scale so early on but slow at first. At least I respect the Independent Gay Forum in taking an honest look into the Reagan/AIDS myths by being factually correct thereby slamming any myths about what Reagan supposedly did not do about AIDS or cared about AIDS, and its research and cure.
Now, do you want to be a kool-aid drinker or get facts first?
President Reagan first spoke of AIDS no later than September 17, 1985. Responding to a reporter's question on AIDS research, the president told a White House news conference:
[I]ncluding what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing. And we have $100 million in the budget this year; it'll be 126 million next year. So, this is a top priority with us. Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer.
Reagan responded to the increasing AIDS deaths (not yet an epidemic until well into his 2nd term), it took a good friend Rock Hudson who died of AIDS for him to begin speaking publicly about AIDS.
Reagan’s presidency coincided with the emergence ofthe AIDS epidemic. Reagan’s response to this epidemicwas halting and ineffective. In the critical years of1984 and 1985, according to his White House physicianDr. John Hutton, Reagan thought of AIDS as though “itwas measles and would go away.” What changed Reagan’sview was the death in October 1985 of his friend RockHudson. Reagan went to Dr. Hutton and questioned him about thedisease. Hutton gave a lengthy explanation. “I alwaysthought the world would end in a flash, but this isworse,“ Reagan said. Even with his new knowledge,Reagan was slow to join the battle against AIDS. Hedid not mention AIDS in public again until Feb. 1986,when he announced that a major report on AIDS would be prepared, saying, ”We’re going to focus on prevention.“ Reagan’s surgeon general C. Everett released the report in Oct. 1986, and described hisremedy: ”One, abstinence; two, monogamy; three;condoms.“
Reagan’s remedy works just as well for homosexual couples who would rather wait before hooking up (marriage/union) to make the commitment to stay together with the “one-partner” rule. This would even solve the AIDS problem to such a great degree, we would not be having this epidemic. The legality issue of gay-marriage is an altogether another issue for each state.
Now, before you say, “Well, then it took Reagan 4 years before he said anything about AIDS” may I remind you of the timeline of when AIDS-HIV first started coming out?
President Reagan took office in January 1981. According to the CDC a total of 31 people died of AIDS. This mystery disease had no name, and was not publicized to any extent. During his first year in office, AIDS killed 128 people. Still a mystery disease and many were were not diagnosed until much later. The disease had no name nor was there a reliable test.Finally, in 1982 the CDC named the disease AIDS, and publicly linked it to the transfer of blood. Less than 500 people die of the disease that year, and 8 million dollars is devoted to it by the US government. In 1983 the virus is finally found and the CDC warns of possible dangers to the blood supply. It won't be until 1985 that there is a reliable test for HIV. This is well into Ronald Reagan's second term.During President Reagan's first term AIDS kills less than 6000 people. Far more people died of “common” diseases like influenza, but the Reagan administration still devoted 157 million dollars to AIDS in the first four years of office, before much was even known about it.
Here is a rundown of the mortality rates for 1985 according to the CDC
Diseases of heart - 771,169
Malignant neoplasms - 461,563
Cerebrovascular diseases - 153,050
Accidents and adverse effects - 93,457
Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases - 74,662
Pneumonia and influenza - 67,615
Diabetes mellitus - 36,969
Suicide - 29,453
Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis - 26,767
Atherosclerosis - 23,926
Nephritis,nephrotic syndrome,and nephrosis - 21,349
Homicide and legal intervention - 19,893
Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period - 19,246
Septicemia - 17,182
Congenital anomalies - 12,783
Now, imagine CDC fighting to get fundings for those diseases when AIDS was just starting to become more prevalent. But President Reagan did do something about AIDS-HIV. He got the fundings started on HIV/AIDS research beginning in 1982.
According to the Congressional Research Service, federal spending on HIV/AIDS began at $5.5 million dollars in fiscal year 1982 (remember that President Reagan was inaugurated on January 20, 1981 and had no influence on discretionary spending for FY1981 but had considerable influence on requesting larger funding for FY1982 and onward). By the time Reagan left office, the fiscal 1989 budget contained $1.304 billion dollars for HIV/AIDS research and development. Overall, between fiscal years 1982 and 1989, the Reagan Administration spent $3.2 billion dollars on HIV/AIDS research and development.
HHS Discretionary Funding for HIV/AIDS
FY1981 - $200,000
FY1982 - $5.5 million dollars spent. A 2,678% increase from prior year.
FY1983 – $28.7 million dollars. A 417% increase from prior year.
FY1984 - $61.4 million dollars. A 114% increase from prior year.
FY1985 - $108 million dollars. A 77 % increase from prior year.
FY1986 - $233 million dollars. A 115% increase from prior year.
FY1987 - $502 million dollars. A 115% increase from prior year.
FY1988 - $962 million dollars. A 94% increase from prior year.
FY1989 - $1.3 billion dollars. A 36% increase from prior year.
The spending quickly accelerated within a few years from literally nothing at first. Had Reagan not care about AIDS he could have found a way to slow the growth curve and devote more money elsewhere. But he didn't.
Also, a little known history about Reagan’s tolerance toward gays. Reagan’s interior decorator, Ted Graber, who oversaw the redecoration of the White House, spent a night in the Reagans' private White House quarters with his male lover, Archie Case, when they came to Washington for Nancy Reagan's 60th birthday party — a fact confirmed for the press by Mrs. Reagan's press secretary.
Read this website called “Independent Gay Forum”.
You ought to be thanking President Reagan for what he has tried to do to fund HIV/AIDS research on such a massive scale so early on but slow at first. At least I respect the Independent Gay Forum in taking an honest look into the Reagan/AIDS myths by being factually correct thereby slamming any myths about what Reagan supposedly did not do about AIDS or cared about AIDS, and its research and cure.
Now, do you want to be a kool-aid drinker or get facts first?
Revisionists. Liars. And Cheaters.
Once again, John Kerry was thinking only for himself by trying to keep the $15 million dollars of money leftover f rom the presidential campaign fund.
Is it a wonder that some Democrats continue to screw other supporting Democrats for the sake of their own agenda? Even Democrats who helped build the Clinton library where good ol' Bill himself tweaked a few things in the library to focus away from his lying under OATH about his affairs with Monica Lewinsky.
Mr. Rick Tyler said it best:
Clinton continues to try and rewrite history in the hope that the blue stained dress and his lying under oath numerous times in front of a Federal judge would forever be put away and forgotten. The Clinton Library will be his only biggest contribution to the United States. An example of why some people can get away with it.
But the Nixon Library is the exact opposite of the Clinton Library. The Nixon Library lays everything bare, including the infamous Watergate scandal as its largest exhibit. Even Ronald Reagan's presidential library includes a video of him admitting to wrongdoing in the Iran-Contra scandal. But nothing of the sorts from the Clinton Library.
John Podesta, Mr. Clinton's chief of staff from 1998 until 2001, said that the impeachment section of the library strikes the correct balance. As an ignorant Democrat he goes on to say,
A sad bunch of people, eh?
Democratic Party leaders said Wednesday they want to know why Sen. John Kerry ended his presidential campaign with more than $15 million in the bank, money that could have helped Democratic candidates across the country.
Is it a wonder that some Democrats continue to screw other supporting Democrats for the sake of their own agenda? Even Democrats who helped build the Clinton library where good ol' Bill himself tweaked a few things in the library to focus away from his lying under OATH about his affairs with Monica Lewinsky.
In the only instance in which the library's exhibit acknowledges wrongdoing, the text stops short of admitting that Mr. Clinton lied to the American people when he asserted that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
Mr. Rick Tyler said it best:
"Why should anyone expect that a dishonest administration would produce an honest library? It looks like we have the first 'I pity me' presidential library."
Clinton continues to try and rewrite history in the hope that the blue stained dress and his lying under oath numerous times in front of a Federal judge would forever be put away and forgotten. The Clinton Library will be his only biggest contribution to the United States. An example of why some people can get away with it.
But the Nixon Library is the exact opposite of the Clinton Library. The Nixon Library lays everything bare, including the infamous Watergate scandal as its largest exhibit. Even Ronald Reagan's presidential library includes a video of him admitting to wrongdoing in the Iran-Contra scandal. But nothing of the sorts from the Clinton Library.
John Podesta, Mr. Clinton's chief of staff from 1998 until 2001, said that the impeachment section of the library strikes the correct balance. As an ignorant Democrat he goes on to say,
"I don't think there's an 'Iran-Contra' alcove in the Reagan library," he said, laughing. Of course, unaware that the library does treat the affair. "There'll be partisans on both sides who think it's too much or too little, but I think it's an honest treatment that will stand the test of history."
A sad bunch of people, eh?
Monday, November 15, 2004
My own Company on Blogshares...worth $720 and going up.
Whoo hoo! Kokonut Pundits is/was worth $720 in Blogshares...whatever that means. At least my blog site is ranked #72 (now it went up to #70 a few minutes ago) with Little Green Footballs at #2 or was by the time you see it. Neat charts and all for my blogsite....impressive gains, too.
Visit Blogshares and learn more about this fantasy stock market. Hmm.....is my blogsite worth more than $720?
Anybody interested in buying?
Visit Blogshares and learn more about this fantasy stock market. Hmm.....is my blogsite worth more than $720?
Anybody interested in buying?
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Foul Language Will Not Be Tolerated
I wish I could edit just the foul words and keep the rest of the contet written in the comments section by posters responding to my blog article. But I can't. And there is no adult section when anyone can see my website. So, I am thereby instituting a warning to y'all who want to post comments to not use outright foul language but instead use a little more creativity if you wish to use that route. I have no qualms about people spouting off using expletitives and such graphic description or offensive words. The problem is, I don't have a way to ensure that only adults will read my blog articles.
One warning is enough. I've just posted the warning in my "About Me" section that *I WILL* delete any foul language or expletitives heaped upon by posters in the comments area in any of my blog articles.
You can say anything you want...except no foul language or expletitives. If you're in doubt, then don't write it. You are given the priviledge to write on my blogsite....not a "constitutional right" if you think that way.
Have phun.
One warning is enough. I've just posted the warning in my "About Me" section that *I WILL* delete any foul language or expletitives heaped upon by posters in the comments area in any of my blog articles.
You can say anything you want...except no foul language or expletitives. If you're in doubt, then don't write it. You are given the priviledge to write on my blogsite....not a "constitutional right" if you think that way.
Have phun.
Friday, November 12, 2004
The 60 Million Votes Man...President Bush.
Hail to the Chief!
President Bush became the first and only elected person to win the White House with more than 60 million votes in the presidential bid against John Kerry.
President Bush became the first and only elected person to win the White House with more than 60 million votes in the presidential bid against John Kerry.
A Deranged Dem Walking Naked in D.C.?
With all the so-called "Post Election Stress Trauma" (PEST...how fitting) coming from Democrats who are still shell shocked seeking therapy from expensive psychiatrists, I wouldn't be surprised if we get a few loonies running amok in the streets. Even Liberal actors are collapsing all over the streets in convulsions (well, not all of them) from a Bush mandate win. But now maybe more of them are totally losing it by stripping themselves down to their bare naked self and take a Post Election Stress Trauma (PEST) stroll down the streets of D.C. in a city where 90% of the voters picked Kerry. That's alot of loose canons right now. This guy is one of them.
Two pictures were taken two days (see the November 11th blog section and scroll down) ago across the street of 8th and Florida Ave NE just outside of the campus of Gallaudet University, the world's only university for deaf and hard of hearing students, in an otherwise bizarre incident. If this was a crack addict or a Democrat completely losing it, he certainly did follow the law by not jaywalking and used the cross walk while looking bothways before crossing. Such a decent law-abiding citizen we have in D.C.
Special Thanks to Ridor's blog site...the world's only "Deaf Gay Militant Terrorist" - rant blog site - in his November 11, 2004 quick reporting.
By the way, did I tell you that John Kerry lost the election?
Two pictures were taken two days (see the November 11th blog section and scroll down) ago across the street of 8th and Florida Ave NE just outside of the campus of Gallaudet University, the world's only university for deaf and hard of hearing students, in an otherwise bizarre incident. If this was a crack addict or a Democrat completely losing it, he certainly did follow the law by not jaywalking and used the cross walk while looking bothways before crossing. Such a decent law-abiding citizen we have in D.C.
Special Thanks to Ridor's blog site...the world's only "Deaf Gay Militant Terrorist" - rant blog site - in his November 11, 2004 quick reporting.
By the way, did I tell you that John Kerry lost the election?
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Who is Hillary Screwing? The Democrats?
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton said that the Bible should be used to win debates over poverty the way Republicans tried to use it on gay marriage. Hillary Clinton said that,
Win debates? The problem with this thinking is that if you are going to use the Bible as a source of your arguments to "win" debates, as if you are a Bible-believing person, then you will also have to recognize the sanctity of innocent life (i.e. "pro-life"), traditional marriage between a man and woman (since the Bible mention repeatedly throughout in the form of "begat so and so" who "begat so and so"...ad nauseum. Kind of hard to show the history of generations of "begats" between gay couples in a Bible. The Bible sets a precedence on the whole "begatness" thing when it comes to between a man and woman), and charity in the Bible. Also, the most important thing for Bible-believers is the belief in Jesus Christ and not about how Jesus Christ performed "community service" as Hillary tried to explain being the most important aspect of Christian believers:
Many of the Republicans believe in the Bible and Jesus Christ, or simply religious and believe in family values. Many. Not Everybody in the case of Republicans having a "monopoly" on religion and values. Better take a hard look at "Reverend" Al Sharpton and "Reverend" Jesse Jackson when it comes to their religion and values, though it hasn't worked for them yet.
As for "charity" didn't President Bush set up the Faith Based and Community Initiative a few years back? Where efforts on the following populations are focused on:
At-risk youth
Ex-offenders
Homeless
Hungry
Substance abusers
Those with HIV/AIDS
Welfare-to-work families
I think Hillary Clinton is a wee bit late to talk about charity and helping the poor. When President Bush had already set up a Welfare to Work program to help welfare recipents and low income members of society get into stable and expanding jobs and become independent and productive members of society. The whole premise of charity is about giving these people a chance to become independent productive members. Just like the old Chinese proverb:
Might as well go the way of the Libertarian Party from now on. Only thing is, you might have to wait awhile until something happens with this party. Until then, you guys are seriously, seriously screwed if you keep picking the same Democrat party for the all the wrong reasons.
"No one can read the New Testament of our Bible without recognizing that Jesus had a lot more to say about how we treat the poor than most of the issues that were talked about in this election."
Win debates? The problem with this thinking is that if you are going to use the Bible as a source of your arguments to "win" debates, as if you are a Bible-believing person, then you will also have to recognize the sanctity of innocent life (i.e. "pro-life"), traditional marriage between a man and woman (since the Bible mention repeatedly throughout in the form of "begat so and so" who "begat so and so"...ad nauseum. Kind of hard to show the history of generations of "begats" between gay couples in a Bible. The Bible sets a precedence on the whole "begatness" thing when it comes to between a man and woman), and charity in the Bible. Also, the most important thing for Bible-believers is the belief in Jesus Christ and not about how Jesus Christ performed "community service" as Hillary tried to explain being the most important aspect of Christian believers:
"No one can read the New Testament of our Bible without recognizing that Jesus had a lot more to say about how we treat the poor than most of the issues that were talked about in this election.'"
Many of the Republicans believe in the Bible and Jesus Christ, or simply religious and believe in family values. Many. Not Everybody in the case of Republicans having a "monopoly" on religion and values. Better take a hard look at "Reverend" Al Sharpton and "Reverend" Jesse Jackson when it comes to their religion and values, though it hasn't worked for them yet.
As for "charity" didn't President Bush set up the Faith Based and Community Initiative a few years back? Where efforts on the following populations are focused on:
At-risk youth
Ex-offenders
Homeless
Hungry
Substance abusers
Those with HIV/AIDS
Welfare-to-work families
I think Hillary Clinton is a wee bit late to talk about charity and helping the poor. When President Bush had already set up a Welfare to Work program to help welfare recipents and low income members of society get into stable and expanding jobs and become independent and productive members of society. The whole premise of charity is about giving these people a chance to become independent productive members. Just like the old Chinese proverb:
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
What is readily apparent is that Hillary Clinton got "religion in her blood" in preparation for the 2008 presidential election. A big blow to those Democratic "special interest" people who wouldn't touch a Bible if their life depended on it. Another blow is knowing the fact that Bill Clinton support the ban on local gay marriage. And he'll be helping his Hillary. Wonderful! Now you have Hillary Clinton who got "religion" her political blue blood and her husband who got the other "religion" in his blood on the belief and support for the ban on local gay marriage.
If certain "special interest" people keep picking a Democratic presidential candidate despite his or her specialized religious issues ("got religion') then some of them are certainly going to get themselves screwed over and over again, just as Democrats have done so again and again toward non-whites throughout history. But they keep voting Democrats. Don't these people see abuse toward them when it happens?
As for the vote on the ban on gay marriage (but not Civil Union) in Oregon which got 57% of the votes in a state where Kerry won 51.5% of the vote kind of tells you that the votes were mostly about "values" rather than just religious values. This certainly dispels the notion that Kerry lost the election because of those religious right wing nut jobs. Or even the evil Karl Rove who planned all this to get Oregon people to vote for the ban on gay marriage. Y'all might want to rethink your excuses of why the John Kerry lost the race.
Remember this.
Kerry sucked. Bill Clinton got sucked. Hillary Clinton got sucker punched. Do you want to be a sucker, too?
Might as well go the way of the Libertarian Party from now on. Only thing is, you might have to wait awhile until something happens with this party. Until then, you guys are seriously, seriously screwed if you keep picking the same Democrat party for the all the wrong reasons.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Strassler's Obfuscation and Silent Scream
As much as I admire this Deaf guy's site by Barry Strassler, where he sends out his free weekly e-newsletter relating to anything basically about deaf-related issues or news, he needs to learn to get a few facts straight. In his recent November 7, 2004 newsletter he has found a way to whine about the losing side of politics while attempting to befog his position about his feelings toward the Republican party or even his allegiance to the other side. He reports,
The obfuscation is the use of the word "hijacked" and believing one deaf organization actually "hijacked" another deaf organization's "website". This has never occurred. Barry need to get over the fact that nothing was hijacked from anybody's deaf political organization's website. None. Nada. Zilcho! That's the kind of smearing you have to listen to, unfortunately. There are no deaf "democratic groups" other than the "Deaf and Hard of Hearing Americans for Kerry/Edwards Steering Committee." Oh, yeah. Kerry lost the race.
But in the obfuscatation smear tactic the newsletter laments again by reporting in the "News of the Week" column:
I feel awful, too. Knowing that many people do not have a clue on what President George W. Bush did for these people in terms of civil rights and the ADA. How many people realize that the National Council on Disabilities recently praised the Bush Administration for their support of the ADA on February 23, 2004?
Hey, Barry, how about contacting these so-called hating Deaf Democrat and Republican groups and get your story right for a change? This is what we call "Responsible Journalism." Doing a journalistic stealth campaign does not do anybody good. That's why John Kerry lost.
Hmmm....I take that back. Mass emailing newsletters isn't really journalism. Still, Barry ought to get the story right for a change.
The Deaf Republicans organization strives to report factual information, provide the proper links and let you decide. You have the power of the internet and Google search engine to cross check these reportings. You have that power! In fact, it's your duty to make sure you are well informed so that you can make an informed decision when it comes to voting.
The Deaf Republicans give credit where it's due, even to the Democrats by which they deserve lots of credits when it comes to ADA and civil rights. We expect the same from them. But without knowing the history of Republicans you would be surprise to learn that the Republicans have consistently been in greater support for civil rights for all people of all races, including the disABLED Americans. Historians report that while Democrats were busy passing laws to hurt blacks, Republicans devoted their time to passing laws to help blacks, for example. Republicans were primarily responsible for the following Civil Rights legislation.
So, what do we have here? Are the Democrats trying to be revisionists now? Eh, Barry?
======
BTW folks, I get his newsletter in my email box and I read it from time to time. Interesting and informative but it has a political democratic slant against the Republicans. Looks like Barry showed his true colors in this newsletter of his on which sides of the fence he's on. Also, from what I have read over the past year or so the newsletter has a bit of a slant against the hearing population as well, in my opinion. Since there are hardly any positive mentions regarding cochlear implants and non-signers who are deaf or hard of hearing. It's a Deaf newsletter, not a deaf newsletter for the most part.
So, go read the archives of Deaf Digest courtesy of the famous Wayback Machine and really, um, well, learn about deaf culture and the community. I guess.
We, the deaf are not immune. We see Deaf Democrats and Deaf Republicans fighting each other - even to the point of having one of their web sites being hijacked! So, as far as hating a political party is concerned, we, the deaf may be no different from the hearing.
The obfuscation is the use of the word "hijacked" and believing one deaf organization actually "hijacked" another deaf organization's "website". This has never occurred. Barry need to get over the fact that nothing was hijacked from anybody's deaf political organization's website. None. Nada. Zilcho! That's the kind of smearing you have to listen to, unfortunately. There are no deaf "democratic groups" other than the "Deaf and Hard of Hearing Americans for Kerry/Edwards Steering Committee." Oh, yeah. Kerry lost the race.
But in the obfuscatation smear tactic the newsletter laments again by reporting in the "News of the Week" column:
"What does the Bush win mean for us, the deaf?" And one deaf Democrat replied,
"I just feel so awful now. This is really, really bad news for ADA and other civil rights advocates."
I feel awful, too. Knowing that many people do not have a clue on what President George W. Bush did for these people in terms of civil rights and the ADA. How many people realize that the National Council on Disabilities recently praised the Bush Administration for their support of the ADA on February 23, 2004?
“The National Council on Disability (NCD) commends the Administration's on-going support for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Millions of Americans with disabilities achieve increased productivity and independence as a result of the access provided by ADA enforcement. In response to recent cases involving the ADA, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has been consistent in actively defending the constitutionality of the ADA and the civil rights of individuals with disabilities”
Hey, Barry, how about contacting these so-called hating Deaf Democrat and Republican groups and get your story right for a change? This is what we call "Responsible Journalism." Doing a journalistic stealth campaign does not do anybody good. That's why John Kerry lost.
Hmmm....I take that back. Mass emailing newsletters isn't really journalism. Still, Barry ought to get the story right for a change.
The Deaf Republicans organization strives to report factual information, provide the proper links and let you decide. You have the power of the internet and Google search engine to cross check these reportings. You have that power! In fact, it's your duty to make sure you are well informed so that you can make an informed decision when it comes to voting.
The Deaf Republicans give credit where it's due, even to the Democrats by which they deserve lots of credits when it comes to ADA and civil rights. We expect the same from them. But without knowing the history of Republicans you would be surprise to learn that the Republicans have consistently been in greater support for civil rights for all people of all races, including the disABLED Americans. Historians report that while Democrats were busy passing laws to hurt blacks, Republicans devoted their time to passing laws to help blacks, for example. Republicans were primarily responsible for the following Civil Rights legislation.
So, what do we have here? Are the Democrats trying to be revisionists now? Eh, Barry?
======
BTW folks, I get his newsletter in my email box and I read it from time to time. Interesting and informative but it has a political democratic slant against the Republicans. Looks like Barry showed his true colors in this newsletter of his on which sides of the fence he's on. Also, from what I have read over the past year or so the newsletter has a bit of a slant against the hearing population as well, in my opinion. Since there are hardly any positive mentions regarding cochlear implants and non-signers who are deaf or hard of hearing. It's a Deaf newsletter, not a deaf newsletter for the most part.
So, go read the archives of Deaf Digest courtesy of the famous Wayback Machine and really, um, well, learn about deaf culture and the community. I guess.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Onward Ho!
Oh, this is too funny. And the illogicity of this when despondent Democrats are seriously thinking about moving to Canada. Is this the same reaction when Democrats were little kids by running off crying and hide under the bed sucking their thumbs after they lost a game?
See now, Democrats lose this very important election by voting against President Bush, the incumbent, rather than voting FOR John Kerry. See the picture? John "Flipper" Kerry was not what they really wanted (what the heck happened to Gephardt?) but they had "no choice" (it's all the Republicans' fault!) but to vote "for" John Kerry only to get President Bush out office. Nothing more. Nothing less. Ideals were lost in the flipper game.
Kerry was the war candidate, to anti-war candidate evolving Darwinian-style to become the , ehh, Democratic "war" presidential nominee. And yet the United States nearly came within a hair's breadth in electing an entire near-dysfunctional Heinz/Kerry family into the White House. Thanks to the apathetic young MTV crowd along with P. Diddy's threatening "Vote or Die!" slogan. Still the Democrats wanted John Kerry even though his income along with Heinz is worth about 1/2 billion dollars. That's $500,000,000 dollars or 500 hundred million dollars. That's alot of zeros. More than Bush and Cheney put together. Funny how the Democrats had the audicity to accuse Republicans of being the rich, snobby, hypochondriac, sniveling, unfeeling people taking advantage of the poor by giving out our jobs overseas "outsourced" to countries with lower paying wages in virtual slave-labor conditions for those who want it. Oh wait, that's the Heinz company that Terresa owns, by which she's a hypochondriac, too. The Heinz company certainly does a lot of outsourcing! Kind of pathetic, ain't it?
What's more, here's another little insight for you guys. You move to Canada, which is fine. It's your American ungodly given right. But doing so will leave the Republicans, moderate Democrats and swing-voters a greater opportunity to vote for another Republican President into office again. This would all be your fault because of the loss of a Democratic/Liberal-base shifting into Canada. You go to Canada, you can't vote in America. Go ahead. Make the yearly exodus to Canada for the next 3 years. At that rate, we'll have a couple millions less Liberals in the United States, and in time for the 2008 election.
Another thing, you're making this too easy. One little adversity comes your way, like losing an election, you give up and slink over to Canada. Even willing to wait a whole year before getting in. That's dedication right there.
This is what we don't want to see when we go to war fighting for America's very survival. People capitulating by giving over to the other side and lose everything what America has fought for centuries to keep America's freedom and liberty intact. What the Democrats need to do is to take the advice from a brave and whinny Krugman who insisted that you guys stay the course in his "No Surrender!" open letter blather. Meanwhile, Krugman is going slink off for a few months to "work" on his "book" until "January".
Of course, you can still move. Go ahead and move and hope Canada doesn't get attacked by these terrorists and you'll be conscripted into their armies when they find out they're short-changed. Think about that. Conscription. No. Let's use a more scarier word.....DRAFT! Currently Canada has an "all-volunteer" (more or less) Armed Forces much like the United States. But do you know where they stand on the re-instatement of the draft? President Bush made it pretty clear that there is to be no draft while he's in office. The United States sense of patriotism and duty is much too strong. You're taking a bigger gamble by going over to Canada. Terrorists are e..v..e..r..y..w..h..e..r..e (to the voice of Woody in Toy Story as he rotates his head to scare the evil kid Sid in Sid's backyard) and they'll need you should a draft occur.
But if Canada gets attacked something similar to 9/11 or something even hideous...are you going to run to the nearest Canadian army recruiting station and sign up? Offer your life on their platter so you can have the opportunity to fight against these terrorists as a show of duty and patriotism? Or will you move to New Zealand or Australia. Or an otherwise exotic country? Capitulating again to your own weaselness?
Predictable.
Bush's victory sparked speculation that disconsolate Democrats and others might decide to start a new life in Canada, a land that tilts more to the left than the United States. Would-be immigrants to Canada can apply to become permanent resident, a process that often takes a year. The other main way to move north on a long-term basis is to find a job, which requires a work permit. But please spare the sob stories.
See now, Democrats lose this very important election by voting against President Bush, the incumbent, rather than voting FOR John Kerry. See the picture? John "Flipper" Kerry was not what they really wanted (what the heck happened to Gephardt?) but they had "no choice" (it's all the Republicans' fault!) but to vote "for" John Kerry only to get President Bush out office. Nothing more. Nothing less. Ideals were lost in the flipper game.
Kerry was the war candidate, to anti-war candidate evolving Darwinian-style to become the , ehh, Democratic "war" presidential nominee. And yet the United States nearly came within a hair's breadth in electing an entire near-dysfunctional Heinz/Kerry family into the White House. Thanks to the apathetic young MTV crowd along with P. Diddy's threatening "Vote or Die!" slogan. Still the Democrats wanted John Kerry even though his income along with Heinz is worth about 1/2 billion dollars. That's $500,000,000 dollars or 500 hundred million dollars. That's alot of zeros. More than Bush and Cheney put together. Funny how the Democrats had the audicity to accuse Republicans of being the rich, snobby, hypochondriac, sniveling, unfeeling people taking advantage of the poor by giving out our jobs overseas "outsourced" to countries with lower paying wages in virtual slave-labor conditions for those who want it. Oh wait, that's the Heinz company that Terresa owns, by which she's a hypochondriac, too. The Heinz company certainly does a lot of outsourcing! Kind of pathetic, ain't it?
What's more, here's another little insight for you guys. You move to Canada, which is fine. It's your American ungodly given right. But doing so will leave the Republicans, moderate Democrats and swing-voters a greater opportunity to vote for another Republican President into office again. This would all be your fault because of the loss of a Democratic/Liberal-base shifting into Canada. You go to Canada, you can't vote in America. Go ahead. Make the yearly exodus to Canada for the next 3 years. At that rate, we'll have a couple millions less Liberals in the United States, and in time for the 2008 election.
Another thing, you're making this too easy. One little adversity comes your way, like losing an election, you give up and slink over to Canada. Even willing to wait a whole year before getting in. That's dedication right there.
This is what we don't want to see when we go to war fighting for America's very survival. People capitulating by giving over to the other side and lose everything what America has fought for centuries to keep America's freedom and liberty intact. What the Democrats need to do is to take the advice from a brave and whinny Krugman who insisted that you guys stay the course in his "No Surrender!" open letter blather. Meanwhile, Krugman is going slink off for a few months to "work" on his "book" until "January".
Of course, you can still move. Go ahead and move and hope Canada doesn't get attacked by these terrorists and you'll be conscripted into their armies when they find out they're short-changed. Think about that. Conscription. No. Let's use a more scarier word.....DRAFT! Currently Canada has an "all-volunteer" (more or less) Armed Forces much like the United States. But do you know where they stand on the re-instatement of the draft? President Bush made it pretty clear that there is to be no draft while he's in office. The United States sense of patriotism and duty is much too strong. You're taking a bigger gamble by going over to Canada. Terrorists are e..v..e..r..y..w..h..e..r..e (to the voice of Woody in Toy Story as he rotates his head to scare the evil kid Sid in Sid's backyard) and they'll need you should a draft occur.
But if Canada gets attacked something similar to 9/11 or something even hideous...are you going to run to the nearest Canadian army recruiting station and sign up? Offer your life on their platter so you can have the opportunity to fight against these terrorists as a show of duty and patriotism? Or will you move to New Zealand or Australia. Or an otherwise exotic country? Capitulating again to your own weaselness?
Predictable.
Resend email again.
For those who have sent emails to me, please resend them to me. Click on my profile to get my email address. I had to clean out my inbox and may have inadvertly erased some of your emails of those trying to get a hold of me regarding info about Deaf Republicans organization. Or email info@deafrepublicans.com directly to the organization for additional information.
Thanks.
Mike McConnell
Thanks.
Mike McConnell
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Bush wins!
Congrats to President Bush on winning the re-election. Winning Nevada sealed the victory, with a prediction of 286 electoral votes when everything is all over.
This is an unprecedented political event! Historical by all means. Daschle is out and Thune (R) is in as Senator for South Dakota. Edwards who volunteered to give up the senate seat in North Carolina to be the VP running mate loses the seat to a Republican named Barr. Martinez (R) of Florida is bound to get the Senate seat.
Republicans now control the House, Senate, White House, and there are more Republican governors than Democrats. President Bush won more popular votes than Clinton did with almost unprecedented voters turnout not seen since the early 1960s with more than 3.5 million extra votes for Bush in the popular vote count. Bush wins Florida by 300,000 votes.
No more will the Democrats have an excuse about Bush who "stole the election!" ever again. Bush never "stole the election" in the first place for 2000. Bush legitimately won the electoral college count. They have no ammo to do that and a Bush win sets the mandate for America.
Congrats to all who did all the hard work to get the word out. Visit the Deaf Republicans organization to see what you can do to help plan for the 2008 election as well as congressional votes in 2006. Join Deaf Republicans and be one of the official Representative for Deaf Republicans organization for the state you live in.
Again, congratulations to President George W. Bush for the re-election win. Our beloved 43rd President is ready to serve America for four more years!
This is an unprecedented political event! Historical by all means. Daschle is out and Thune (R) is in as Senator for South Dakota. Edwards who volunteered to give up the senate seat in North Carolina to be the VP running mate loses the seat to a Republican named Barr. Martinez (R) of Florida is bound to get the Senate seat.
Republicans now control the House, Senate, White House, and there are more Republican governors than Democrats. President Bush won more popular votes than Clinton did with almost unprecedented voters turnout not seen since the early 1960s with more than 3.5 million extra votes for Bush in the popular vote count. Bush wins Florida by 300,000 votes.
No more will the Democrats have an excuse about Bush who "stole the election!" ever again. Bush never "stole the election" in the first place for 2000. Bush legitimately won the electoral college count. They have no ammo to do that and a Bush win sets the mandate for America.
Congrats to all who did all the hard work to get the word out. Visit the Deaf Republicans organization to see what you can do to help plan for the 2008 election as well as congressional votes in 2006. Join Deaf Republicans and be one of the official Representative for Deaf Republicans organization for the state you live in.
Again, congratulations to President George W. Bush for the re-election win. Our beloved 43rd President is ready to serve America for four more years!
Monday, November 01, 2004
Gallaudet a liberal univ,?
Yeah, I know, Gallaudet University is a liberal arts university but the question I have for today is whether Gallaudet University is a liberal university?
If you read Gallaudet's "On the Green" from 2002, the "Roving Reporter" interviewed four different people on the campus of Gallaudet University you would find that all of them seem to disfavor anything Republican. That's 4 out of 4. I may be reading too much into this but certainly this interview alone does not answer my question, although a recent research about Gallaudet University did turn up some interesting findings.
I know one fellow who works at Gallaudet University in a teaching position. He is a staunch Republican. Now, whether he realize this or not could he be the sheep in a den full of wolves? If so, then he's going to be one tough honkin' sheep to deal with, and he's very well prepared to meet that challenge. Maybe I should ask him this question since he's already on the inside? Maybe I'll get some answers soon.
Next tidbit of information is that many may not know that Gallaudet University host the annual "Democrats vs. Republicans in Congressional Basketball Classic" with Republicans winning most of the games played over the past 10 years up to 2002. Now, with curiousity getting to me, I wonder how the crowd have reacted in the past whenever a Republican congressional team wins? What are the political leanings in Gallaudet University among students and staff? What kinds of political influences are being done?
Insofar, inside circles are telling me that Gallaudet University's newspaper "Buff and Blue" has an editor who despises anything Republican. If this is the case then what are the people like on his/her staff? What are the articles like? Anything written recently that discusses politics? About John Kerry or President Bush? Negative? Positive? Interviews? That sort of thing.
If you didn't know anything about Galluadet University the campus is located in the heart of Washington D.C. and in the heart of the most liberal people in the United States that even re-elected Mayor Marion Barry who got caught red-handed with his hands full of drugs and having an illicit affair. Washington D.C. is a town that is crime ridden, gun-filled, liberal-hating Republicans, over-zealous cops arresting 12 year girls for eating a french fry in the D.C. metro subsystem in an other wise very nice city setting with the Washington Mall, stately monuments, museams, green grasses and cherry tree blossoms.
After thinking about this could it be that Gallaudet University is not as liberal of a university as some people might think? It is no suprise students entering college for the first time are usually the impressionable sorts. And influential professors can either do lots of damage or lots of good. How many political/history/government professors at Gallaudet University are in favor of President George W. Bush? That is what I really want to know!
If you read Gallaudet's "On the Green" from 2002, the "Roving Reporter" interviewed four different people on the campus of Gallaudet University you would find that all of them seem to disfavor anything Republican. That's 4 out of 4. I may be reading too much into this but certainly this interview alone does not answer my question, although a recent research about Gallaudet University did turn up some interesting findings.
I know one fellow who works at Gallaudet University in a teaching position. He is a staunch Republican. Now, whether he realize this or not could he be the sheep in a den full of wolves? If so, then he's going to be one tough honkin' sheep to deal with, and he's very well prepared to meet that challenge. Maybe I should ask him this question since he's already on the inside? Maybe I'll get some answers soon.
Next tidbit of information is that many may not know that Gallaudet University host the annual "Democrats vs. Republicans in Congressional Basketball Classic" with Republicans winning most of the games played over the past 10 years up to 2002. Now, with curiousity getting to me, I wonder how the crowd have reacted in the past whenever a Republican congressional team wins? What are the political leanings in Gallaudet University among students and staff? What kinds of political influences are being done?
Insofar, inside circles are telling me that Gallaudet University's newspaper "Buff and Blue" has an editor who despises anything Republican. If this is the case then what are the people like on his/her staff? What are the articles like? Anything written recently that discusses politics? About John Kerry or President Bush? Negative? Positive? Interviews? That sort of thing.
If you didn't know anything about Galluadet University the campus is located in the heart of Washington D.C. and in the heart of the most liberal people in the United States that even re-elected Mayor Marion Barry who got caught red-handed with his hands full of drugs and having an illicit affair. Washington D.C. is a town that is crime ridden, gun-filled, liberal-hating Republicans, over-zealous cops arresting 12 year girls for eating a french fry in the D.C. metro subsystem in an other wise very nice city setting with the Washington Mall, stately monuments, museams, green grasses and cherry tree blossoms.
After thinking about this could it be that Gallaudet University is not as liberal of a university as some people might think? It is no suprise students entering college for the first time are usually the impressionable sorts. And influential professors can either do lots of damage or lots of good. How many political/history/government professors at Gallaudet University are in favor of President George W. Bush? That is what I really want to know!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)