Last week, Karl Rove pulled off a spectacular victory by suckering Dan Rather to present obviously forged documents as real. This week, the plot thickens.
GEORGE AND ALLAWI ARE TALKING ON THE PHONE
ALLAWI'S HOUSE IS BEING ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS SHOUTING "Allah Ackbar! Saddam is great! We love Kerry!" BOMBS ARE EXPLODING AND THERE IS GUNFIRE.
ALLAWI: George, I'm kind of busy. You know, the whole "Iraq" thing?
GEORGE: But that was solved a long time ago. Didn't you hear my speech from the carrier? I said, "IRAQ IS NOW A FREE COUNTRY, AND EVERYONE SHOULD GO HOME NOW."
ALLAWI: Okay, George, if you say so. What time do you want me to drop by the congress?
GEORGE: Right when my convention bubble starts to burst. Oh, and I have the speech we wrote for you.
ALLAWI: Alright, I'll see you there.
LATER, AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE FOLLOWING ALLAWI'S SPEECH
REPORTER: Prime Minister Allawi, what do you say to your critics who call you a "dundering idiot" who "can't even write his own speeches" and "who obviously doesn't know anything about Iraq, despite the fact that he is an Iraqi and living in Iraq and leading Iraq"?
ALLAWI: Well, I... (keeps talking)...
GEORGE DRINKS A GLASS OF WATER
REPORTERS OOH AND AAH
REPORTER: (Interrupting Allawi) George, where did you learn to do ventriloquism so well?
GEORGE: I'd tell you Karl Rove taught me, but that would be a lie. (chuckles anxiously) Okay, you got me. Karl Rove taught me.
KARL ROVE RUNS ON TO THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN WITH A ROLLED UP NEWSPAPER
KARL: (Hitting George with the newspaper) Bad George, bad George! No biscuit for you today!
LATER THAT DAY, JOHN KERRY INTERVIEWS REPORTERS
JOHN: I knew all along that Allawi is a stooge. In fact, his nickname was "Larry". Or was it "Moe"? I don't recall. But that's not the point. The point is that Allawi is a stooge.
REPORTER: Senator Kerry, how did you know this? You've never been to an intelligence committee for years!
JOHN: Well, as you know, (or as *I* know), I am omniscient. I am also omnipotent. Here, watch this. Using my mind I will cause an earthquake in Southern California.
JOHN CONCENTRATES.
CUT SCENE TO SAN FRANCISCO SHAKING IN AN EARTHQUAKE
JOHN: As you can see, I am clearly superior to George Bush in every way, and I will solve all the problems in Iraq and the rest of the world. However, you have to elect me president first. Otherwise, I will be powerless.
REPORTERS ARE AWWED AND STUNNED AND REVERENTLY KNEEL. A LIGHT SHINES AROUND JOHN KERRY AND HE LIFTS HIS ARMS AS IF TO BLESS THE REPORTERS.
Just re-emphasises the fact that the US thinks that it should place it's influence on everything and everybody.
Yeah, because we should be influencing other people to stand for equality, democracy, and civil liberties. Just like we influenced the Afghanis to depose the Taliban, put girls back in school, and allow women to participate in society as something more than property.
Like the way we influenced Japanese to throw away tyrannical rule by despots and adopt a democracy. Just like we convinced the Germans that having a nutjob whacko for a dictator is not a good idea. Just like we influenced the British, Indians, Chinese, and pretty much every other world out there that maybe, just maybe, freedom is a viable alternative to oh, say, injustice, hatred, violence, and tyranny.
Yeah, I think you have a great point here. So many people want to influence the world to do evil, to trade in slaves and blood, to sell out their own countries for a little profit, while the US is standing up for the individuality and freedom and humanity, at the cost of instant gratification.
First, we have not killed thousands of innocents. Sure, maybe during Vietnam or the Korean War or World War II, but not during the Iraq wars. I'd like to see your source. The reason we don't hear about it is because it hasn't happened. That's the same reason why you haven't heard about the six billion dollars I made selling lemonade.
If you would like to know who has killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, look to Saddam Hussein. Look at the mass graves. (link, link, and link) Look at the torture he has inflicted. (link, link, link)
I don't know how that even compares to the limited number of casualties that the US Forces caused. It doesn't even compare with what happened at Abu Ghraib. Nevertheless, America as a country is pursuing justice. Already, one of the perpetrators has been heavily sentenced. The others will be punished shortly. At least they get a fair trial.
Now, I know I won't sway you with my words or my evidence, because you have already seen the evidence. You are like the monkey who refuses to see and hear the atrocities committed against the people in Iraq. You then turn around and make a mountain out of a molehill, comparing the abuse that some prisoners suffered at the hand of American soldiers to the torture and suffering that Saddam caused.
I looked for accurate data on the number of civilians killed in Iraq by American soldiers. There is no such number reported anywhere. And the numbers of civilians killed isn't even accurate. Some say 25,000. Others say 6,000. Which one is right? Why are they so different? It's easy. They are not accurate. No one has done an actual body count. No one has done a count where civilians were distinguished from terrorists, insurgents, and the Iraqi military. Unfortunately, you can't ask the dead whether they were innocent or a terrorist. And you can't tell by what clothes they were wearing or even their age.
Because their city councils and school boards are elected? Because the elect the equivalent of governors and legislatures for their provinces?
Dictators don't allow the people to do such a thing. They know when people get the idea that they can elect whoever they want to run the city, that they'll figure out that they should be able to elect whoever they want to be prime minister.
It's one of the reasons why the kings of England weren't considered dictators - they allowed the people a democracy to a large extent, and even demanded it.
Maybe, I dunno, the two talk to each other? I mean, here on slashdot, we share a couple of common phrases. Take "Open Source" for instance. Or "FWIW", "IOW", "IMHO".
Just because two people use the same words doesn't mean they are a puppet of one another. It just means they are speaking the same language. In this case, both are leading on the Iraq issue. Both are seeing similar intelligence. And both are working on a plan together.
Keep your wallet slim and it will cut down on back pain and discomfort. You spend a lot of time on your bum. I'll often put my wallet next to my keyboard while I work.
When I get up for any reason, even to draw on the whiteboard, this is my procedure. 1. CTRL-ALT-L unless I'm not leaving my cubicle. 2. Put pager in pocket. 3. Put wallet in pocket.
I have double checks built in by habit. I touch my wallet and keys and pager and badge before I go into the elevator, or close any door (car or building). It's a habit now so I haven't lost my keys or wallet (or anything else critical) for as long as I can remember now. Building habits like this means I don't have to remember anything.
I keep all my gear in a specific spot in the kitchen when I come home. I empty out my loose change into the same bucket. It's probably time to cash it in.
What I have in my wallet right now:
A picture of my wife. Driver's License and insurance "cards". The one credit card I use for day-to-day purchases. The debit card to my principal checking account. Costco card. 5 business cards. I keep more in my car, office, and at home. I empty out business cards I receive when I get them. Receipts I haven't recorded in my family's general journal. Other appropriate identification pieces.
It's a nice leather bifold my wife bought me, if you're curious.
Here in Washington State, we had an intense race for the Republican party nomination in the 8th Congressional district. There were five good candidates, each of them honorable and experienced. Any one of them would have made a fine candidate. However, people tended to favor Sheriff Reichert because he was an all around good guy.
Two or three of the other candidates began to sling mud in the traditional sense. They brought up the fact that Reichert had at one time supported Sims, a very liberal democrat. Of course they tried to make it look like Reichert supported Sims and his policy, when in fact Reichert was merely supporting his boss's actions with relation to the police force.
In response, Reichert showed up to a debate, and read a statement to the effect of, "Since some of the candidates here would rather sling mud than talk about facts and issues, I am withdrawing from this debate."
You'd think that refusing to debate would be a sign of weakness, right? But Reichert still won the nomination, and he won it without ever calling into question the character of his opponents. He kept himself focused on issues and facts, and never once got sidetracked into calling the others names.
I believe that by not slinging mud and by taking the high road to avoid the mud altogether, it makes a candidate stand out.
I am getting quite tired of the baseless claims that people are making. We complain and complain because of the poison that is in politics. Well, let's get our act together and fix it.
Starting right now, let's all be a lot more civil.
Despite our political differences, we are all countrymen, in the national sense and in the sense that we all live in this world. We should respect each other and never ever attack someone's character. Let their actions speak for their character. People will be smart enough to judge for themselves. This includes everyone from John Kerry to George Bush to Saddam Hussein down to everybody in this forum.
We are all able to share our opinions. When we do, let's be clear by prefacing such statements with "I believe" or "I think" or "My opinion is". Let's never ever try to represent opinion as fact.
When we do discuss fact and logic, let's be very careful to get things right the first time. Quote your sources accurately.
The way you attack factual and logical arguments is by attacking the individual claims. For instance, if I claimed that Sadr City is now peaceful, you would attack that claim by showing me reports that it is not. You wouldn't attack that claim by calling me a liar.
If you want to end the poison in politics, you end it with yourself first. Here are my points again.
1. NEVER attack a person or their character.
2. ALWAYS preface your opinions with "It is my opinion that..." or "I feel that...".
3. ALWAYS support claims of fact with evidence, and always quote that evidence accurately. Show your logic in clear steps.
4. ALWAYS attack the claims and the logical steps people make with more or contrary evidence.
How do you defeat bad free speech? For instance, let's say someone tells an outright lie, or takes a fact an twists it and misrepresents it until they say something opposite of the fact. (This never ever happens, right?) How do you fix that?
I am reminded of a story, but I can't recall the details. The idea is that someone spread a false rumor about someone else in the community. When they saw the damage, they went to apologize. In response, the guy took a down pillow and ripped it open, and tiny feathers flew all over the yard and the street and the wind carried it quite a distance. He said, "Your rumor is like those the down from this pillow. See how it has spread? Now, in order to apologize, you're going to have to go collect ever single one of those feathers and put it back in this pillowcase." That's the kind of damage that bad speech does.
So how do you combat that and how do you fix it?
With more free speech.
Bloggers are the other part of the free speech world. They can produce more information faster than any other source. They have hundreds and hundreds of independent researchers, each specializing in one side or the other of each story.
So when Dan Rather came out misrepresenting the documents, he was held in check by more free speech.
Kind of like the question "How do you stop someone on a rampage with a gun?" The answer: "Get more and bigger guns."
KARL: George, now that we finally pulled ahead of Kerry in the polls, and your re-election is all but guaranteed, I have a plan that will guarantee your win.
GEORGE: Interesting. Normally, the front-runner tries to keep a low profile and a tame campaign. But since I am a stupid idiot and you are the great master mind of my entire political career, I'll hear you out.
KARL: See these documents I wrote in Word? They make the claims that the crazy crackpot democrats, including John Kerry, have been making for the past five years. Even though it is blatantly obvious to even untrained eyes that they are forgeries, I am going to contact Dan Rather and his team and get them to run it on 60 minutes.
GEORGE: Okay....
KARL: And after they run the story, I am going to have your surrogates on all the internet blogs post about how fake the document is and how Dan Rather should quit. That's how we'll win this election.
GEORGE: But we are already winning...
KARL: But that's not the point!
GEORGE: I'm not sure I'm following you, Karl. But since I am a stupid idiot and you are the smart guy, I'm going to give you the go-ahead on this.
MEANWHILE, AT 60 MINUTES HEADQUARTERS
DAN: Hello?
KARL: Ummm... Hello? This is... err (covers telephone with rag) (gruffy voice) This is a key informant who is unimpeachable. I have the documents you have been looking for. It shows how George Bush missed his physical and how he really didn't deserve to be in the Texas Air National Guard.
DAN: Wow! That's great. Fax them over.
DAN: Hey, these don't look right. It looks like it is written in Microsoft Word and the signature looks forged.
KARL: Ummm, yeah, he used one of those fancy IBM typewriters that were used to typeset important documents and cost $20,000.
DAN: I don't believe that the ANG would have such a device, and if I recall, they aren't easy to use at all.
KARL: Nevermind that. Just run this and you'll be famous for breaking this story.
DAN: Oh, alright. Now who are you?
KARL: That's not important. Good bye.
--------------------
Man, I would love to put together a film with all the stupid conspiracy theories that people claim the Bush administration has come up with. It could be good for several hours of constant laughter.
Rest of the world doesn't have free press
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
Considering the the we are one of the very few countries that has the freedom of the press written into our core documents, and even one of the fewer yet whow actually respect that right, I am not surprised that the rest of the world thinks John Kerry is better.
For one, the rest of the world doesn't have access to the opposition voice of CNN and CBS. That means they never hear the other side of the story. For another, the rest of the world is actually submitted to the press that their government endorses, if not writes itself.
One of the freest societies in the world - South Korea - even has problems with the press. For instance, several stories of key importance to the South Korean people have never reached their ears. Take the latest scandal over the gold medal in the Olympics. All of my relatives and friends in South Korea never heard that the judges missed an extra turn by the South Korean that would've docked the South Korean by even more points. In other words, they should be grateful that the judges stood by their decision.
And personally, as an American, I am upset that we would even ask what the rest of the world thinks! This isn't a beauty contest, this is about securing our freedom now and in future generations. Let the other countries worry about their own freedom, because we have enough on our plate right now.
BUSH: Hey Cheney, I got a great idea to get me elected.
CHENEY: What's that?
BUSH: If I come off as a complete fool, then everyone will mock me and underestimate my ability to lead. So while I am outsmarting them at every political corner in the race, they will be talking about how stupid I am rather than their issues.
CHENEY: Won't that be bad? I mean, who would want to elect a deficient president?
BUSH: No, it'll be good in a few ways. For one thing, calling people stupid has never resonated with the electorate. They thought that President Reagan was stupid, but he still pulled off some of the most decisive victories in the history of the US. Earning the title as intelligent actually turns off voters. Look at Jimmy Carter. He was considered to be the brightest president we ever had, but he failed to earn a second term. He's still unpopular.
CHENEY: Humm, you're right. Americans don't want smart presidents. They want presidents that are leaders, that are decisive, and that won't cave in to our enemies.
BUSH: Exactly. Look at our most popular president ever - FDR. He earned that popularity by coming across as a fighter, not an intellectual. He had strong words, he rose to impossible challenges. He had real balls, if you know what I mean. Look at the other Roosevelt. He was a fighter as well, and very popular. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, all of these were fighters.
CHENEY: Now that I think of it, remember the last debates with Gore? The ones you were supposed to get trounced in?
BUSH: Yep. I went into that debate armed with responses to all of Gore's criticisms. He didn't expect any new ideas of any of my responses. He didn't expect me to be able to think on my toes. He came in with the false idea of being a "great debater", but came our with his tail between his legs.
CHENEY: But isn't Kerry wiser about this? I am sure he is going to be ready.
BUSH: But see, I am giving him the false impression that I don't want to debate a "great" debater like him. I am holding off on signing up to the debates as long as possible. I am even trying to reduce the debates from three to two.
CHENEY: So he thinks you are actually afraid to debate. He thinks he can walk all over you in the debates.
BUSH: Yep. "Misunderestimate" sure is an appropriate word.
CHENEY: Well, shoo-ee. Mr. President, I think you have a fine plan there. Our should I say, Mr. "Stupid" President.
BUSH: Hehehe. Yep, all the way back to the White House. Thanks, Dick.
Voters in this country have chosen third-party candidates, and even elected one. Go back to pre-civil war times and look up the name of an obscure third-party of the time and an obscure candidate for president. He ran on an issue of moral importance, something we take for granted nowadays but was a truly revolutionary concept.
If a third-party candidate wants to succeed today, they have to find an issue that the majority of Americans support, that is more important than any other single issue, and that the two parties refuse to address properly. Running on this one issue will be enough to garner enough support to take the election.
However, there are no issues of supreme importance that the candidates aren't addressing. Right now, our number one priority is defense. We are at war with terrorist Islamists. The second most important issue is how to sustain consistent growth in the economy and smooth out the natural cycles. This is what the American people say are important, so there's no arguing with that.
If you're wondering who I was talking about above, the obscure third party was the Republican party. The candidate was Abraham Lincoln. The issue was slavery - was the African race equal with the Caucasion races, or were they merely sub-humans? If they were equal, was it right to free them from slavery and grant them equal rights? Doesn't our nation's Declaration of Independence declare "All men are equal" and talk about God-given rights that no government can take away rightly?
You know the rest of the story, but remember what caused the war.
I recently saw a report that crime is at a 30-year low, although murder rates are up. I've noticed that the police is trying to get the community involved in police actions, at least in surveillance and reporting.
Here are some suggestions.
1. Get to know your neighbors. Talk about the incident. Visit with them every once in a while and make sure that you are coordinating.
2. Call the cops, even for minor things. See someone prowling around? Call 911 and tell them you see someone prowling around your neighborhood. A side effect is that you begin to develop a sense of community with the police. They will even begin coming to you asking questions about things you didn't report. "Someone in the neighborhood reported a crime last night. Did you see anything suspicious?"
3. Get involved in your city government, and tell the city council about your issues. They may honestly not know that there is a problem. Once the council gets word of it, they will communicate with the police, and will begin working on a solution. After all, the cops really do want to help. Work to get judges that are tough on crime elected in your area. The hilltop area in Tacoma Washington was notorious for the gang crime until the judges were removed and replaced with strong judges that punished the gangs heavily. For several years, the crime stopped. Every once in a while someone gets out, but they are usually caught committing another crime within days and locked up for good.
4. In really bad areas, organize watch shifts. With your neighbors, coordinate times that you will stand watch. Sit in your room facing the street with the lights off and record stuff as it happens on a notepad. Anything suspicious? Call the police and report it. Since you can't go the whole night, you will have to coordinate 4 hours shifts at night. Compare notes and you will begin to recognize patterns. You will get to know the people lurking in the shadows and when they commit a crime, you'll be able to ID them and the police will be able to link them to all the other crimes.
Too bad there is no technological solution, but crime is a human problem and is solved with that "eternal vigilance" thing.
You should've nominated Howard Dean. He was the only one you democrats got excited over, and the only candidate with any energy. At least he carried your message honestly, rather than trying to sugarcoat it and dumb it down for public consumption. His classic line was the the one about the flag didn't belong to Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, or George Bush. I always got a tickly when he said that and I was looking forward to hearing that line every day for the next couple of months.
I would've loved to see George Bush deliver a folded flag to Howard Dean after he said that line in a debate. "Here you go. This one is for you.";-)
Why do you think we are developing laser systems that actually shoot artillery out of the air? Judging by how the military works with research press releases, I'd say we already have them deployed along the border, even though the tech rags are just now talking about them.
Remember, the F-115 came out in the open in the Iraq war, but it was already being deployed and used long before that. Some people have rumored that it has been used since the 60's. It only came out then because reporters started seeing it and asking, "What in the heck is that thing?"
You really do think the US military is stupid, don't you?
Very well, you can join the heaps of dictators and fascists and commisars that thought the same thing. Let's start with the French-Indian war, and count through all the wars throughout history and let's count the number of officers that underestimated the power of free men fighting in a volunteer army...
No military force in the entire history of the world has had as many successive and dominating victories as the US had. Name one empire that stretched from the western shores of Europe back around to the Western shores of Europe.
I daresay you could take any army from any period of time in the world, and arm a similar number of today's marines with the same weapons as the enemy, and the marines will wipe them out every time. I'm not talking, "We barely survived, but we won!" type victories, I'm talking "Mission complete, we're ready for the next one" type victories.
You have to realize that from the grunt in the mud to the top generals, every single person in that organization is thinking harder and working smarter than anybody in the enemy's organization.
I know two Marines who enlisted, and both of them came out of the organization so much smarter than they went in. They went in as C average students, barely able to pass a test, and came out talking to me about quantum physics and consistently getting As in their advanced college courses.
But anyway, go ahead and misunderestimate our president and our military. It's your loss.
When we remove our troops and then the n. koreans do this the US looks weak politically.
You missed the story. Rumsfield visits Korea a few years back. He says, "South Korea has 20 times the economy of North Korea. Why are we here? The South Koreans should've finished this twenty years ago."
Then Rumsfield begins withdrawing troops.
I can see Kim Jong Il peeing his pants when Rumsfeld made the first announcement. But his advisors say, "Oh, no great leader! He is bluffing! He can't remove the troops! If he does, we'll just walk all over South Korea, and he knows that!"
The Rumsfeld does it. What do his advisors tell him now? "Oh great leader, Rumsfeld made a strategic mistake. Let's invade now!" of course not! They are all round up and shot for being wrong.
Now Kim Jong Il is in a mad dash to get nukes before it's too late. He sees the end, and if his eyes are opened enough he'll see how he has been in checkmate for the past twenty years.
If you hadn't known, most city and regional governments are already elected, and very friendly to the US. I'm not saying all the cities are democratic, but the grand majority of them are.
The president may appoint the new judges, "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate". All that means is that the Senate has to consent to the appointment. The senate may even suggest who the president should appoint. What does consent mean? It means whatever the senate wants it to mean. They can even allow the president to appoint whoever they want and consent without even voting.
Note that the senate is the one who formed the rules on how the senate makes decisions, and so the senate is the one who can change them. It was a tradition, not a rule, that all appointments who have passed the committee are voted on after debate. It is the democrats who changed that. 51 votes is all that has been needed since the beginning of our nation. Now it has changed to 60.
All they have to do is amend their bylaws and it is done. The justices have no say in the matter, and can't even rule whether they are obeying their own rules or not, because no one but the senate determines what rules the senate follow outside of the constitution.
You might want to pick up a copy of Robert's Rules to get a feeling for what I mean by bylaws and how a deliberative body makes decisions.
The last thing you want to do is lead in a meaningless area like this. Instead, let the team decide what traditions they want to do and just follow along. Don't make traditions formal - they just happen.
As a team leader, you are really serving in two capacities. The first capacity is as a servant. You are fulfilling a role that they can't do themselves. You have to make sure you fill that role well so that it serves them. There is a time to lay down the law, but you have to think of yourself as a referee in those cases and approach it carefully, if at all. The second capacity is as a representative. You have to represent the group to somebody higher up than you. That means you have to show up to those meetings with their interests in mind, fight the fights that they would fight, and only sign on to agreements that they would make. When you have figured out these two things, then everything else flows naturally.
I believe that Bush honorably served in the military. His record proves it, if you took the time to read it.
Go read this article and tell me what you think about Bush's service.
http://www.thehill.com/york/090904.aspx
Remember, and I'll repeat it 'til I am blue in the face, I personally am proud of John Kerry's service, regardless of whether he deserved no medals or more medals, whether he fought in Cambodia or Timbuktu. I can't question anything he's done because he protected me and my family from things I can't dream about. He's been through stuff that I wouldn't dare put myself into.
This is the official Republican and Bush supporter line: We honor Kerry for his service! We don't question his service because we weren't there! We'll never know all the crap that he had to face, and we'll never be in a position to question heis dedication to our country. When Bush says this, the crowd cheers in agreement and support.
Actually, it shows the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are more than willing to honor our military and let the small stuff slide. We're even willing to forgive Kerry for lying about his service and for admitting to committed war crimes. It just doesn't bother us because we know the realities of war.
However, the left wants to find any small inconsistency or the smallest lie that Bush told and magnify it. It is important that we have a rock-solid case to defend Bush so that we can keep them focused on the issues, which is where we are focused.
Excuse me, but this is just stupid. "Just because they are fake doesn't mean they are false". So if I make up something, does that mean it is true?
If these are merely retypings, then the originals must exist somewhere. These are supposed documents written by a dead officer. If the originals don't exist, it was all made up and CBS is untrustworthy as a news source.
Slashdot Mirror
Last week, Karl Rove pulled off a spectacular victory by suckering Dan Rather to present obviously forged documents as real. This week, the plot thickens.
... (keeps talking) ...
GEORGE AND ALLAWI ARE TALKING ON THE PHONE
ALLAWI'S HOUSE IS BEING ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS SHOUTING "Allah Ackbar! Saddam is great! We love Kerry!" BOMBS ARE EXPLODING AND THERE IS GUNFIRE.
ALLAWI: George, I'm kind of busy. You know, the whole "Iraq" thing?
GEORGE: But that was solved a long time ago. Didn't you hear my speech from the carrier? I said, "IRAQ IS NOW A FREE COUNTRY, AND EVERYONE SHOULD GO HOME NOW."
ALLAWI: Okay, George, if you say so. What time do you want me to drop by the congress?
GEORGE: Right when my convention bubble starts to burst. Oh, and I have the speech we wrote for you.
ALLAWI: Alright, I'll see you there.
LATER, AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE FOLLOWING ALLAWI'S SPEECH
REPORTER: Prime Minister Allawi, what do you say to your critics who call you a "dundering idiot" who "can't even write his own speeches" and "who obviously doesn't know anything about Iraq, despite the fact that he is an Iraqi and living in Iraq and leading Iraq"?
ALLAWI: Well, I
GEORGE DRINKS A GLASS OF WATER
REPORTERS OOH AND AAH
REPORTER: (Interrupting Allawi) George, where did you learn to do ventriloquism so well?
GEORGE: I'd tell you Karl Rove taught me, but that would be a lie. (chuckles anxiously) Okay, you got me. Karl Rove taught me.
KARL ROVE RUNS ON TO THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN WITH A ROLLED UP NEWSPAPER
KARL: (Hitting George with the newspaper) Bad George, bad George! No biscuit for you today!
LATER THAT DAY, JOHN KERRY INTERVIEWS REPORTERS
JOHN: I knew all along that Allawi is a stooge. In fact, his nickname was "Larry". Or was it "Moe"? I don't recall. But that's not the point. The point is that Allawi is a stooge.
REPORTER: Senator Kerry, how did you know this? You've never been to an intelligence committee for years!
JOHN: Well, as you know, (or as *I* know), I am omniscient. I am also omnipotent. Here, watch this. Using my mind I will cause an earthquake in Southern California.
JOHN CONCENTRATES.
CUT SCENE TO SAN FRANCISCO SHAKING IN AN EARTHQUAKE
JOHN: As you can see, I am clearly superior to George Bush in every way, and I will solve all the problems in Iraq and the rest of the world. However, you have to elect me president first. Otherwise, I will be powerless.
REPORTERS ARE AWWED AND STUNNED AND REVERENTLY KNEEL. A LIGHT SHINES AROUND JOHN KERRY AND HE LIFTS HIS ARMS AS IF TO BLESS THE REPORTERS.
Just re-emphasises the fact that the US thinks that it should place it's influence on everything and everybody.
Yeah, because we should be influencing other people to stand for equality, democracy, and civil liberties. Just like we influenced the Afghanis to depose the Taliban, put girls back in school, and allow women to participate in society as something more than property.
Like the way we influenced Japanese to throw away tyrannical rule by despots and adopt a democracy. Just like we convinced the Germans that having a nutjob whacko for a dictator is not a good idea. Just like we influenced the British, Indians, Chinese, and pretty much every other world out there that maybe, just maybe, freedom is a viable alternative to oh, say, injustice, hatred, violence, and tyranny.
Yeah, I think you have a great point here. So many people want to influence the world to do evil, to trade in slaves and blood, to sell out their own countries for a little profit, while the US is standing up for the individuality and freedom and humanity, at the cost of instant gratification.
I'll debate you on the facts.
First, we have not killed thousands of innocents. Sure, maybe during Vietnam or the Korean War or World War II, but not during the Iraq wars. I'd like to see your source. The reason we don't hear about it is because it hasn't happened. That's the same reason why you haven't heard about the six billion dollars I made selling lemonade.
If you would like to know who has killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, look to Saddam Hussein. Look at the mass graves. (link, link, and link) Look at the torture he has inflicted. (link, link, link)
I don't know how that even compares to the limited number of casualties that the US Forces caused. It doesn't even compare with what happened at Abu Ghraib. Nevertheless, America as a country is pursuing justice. Already, one of the perpetrators has been heavily sentenced. The others will be punished shortly. At least they get a fair trial.
Now, I know I won't sway you with my words or my evidence, because you have already seen the evidence. You are like the monkey who refuses to see and hear the atrocities committed against the people in Iraq. You then turn around and make a mountain out of a molehill, comparing the abuse that some prisoners suffered at the hand of American soldiers to the torture and suffering that Saddam caused.
I looked for accurate data on the number of civilians killed in Iraq by American soldiers. There is no such number reported anywhere. And the numbers of civilians killed isn't even accurate. Some say 25,000. Others say 6,000. Which one is right? Why are they so different? It's easy. They are not accurate. No one has done an actual body count. No one has done a count where civilians were distinguished from terrorists, insurgents, and the Iraqi military. Unfortunately, you can't ask the dead whether they were innocent or a terrorist. And you can't tell by what clothes they were wearing or even their age.
Your lies stop here.
Because their city councils and school boards are elected? Because the elect the equivalent of governors and legislatures for their provinces?
Dictators don't allow the people to do such a thing. They know when people get the idea that they can elect whoever they want to run the city, that they'll figure out that they should be able to elect whoever they want to be prime minister.
It's one of the reasons why the kings of England weren't considered dictators - they allowed the people a democracy to a large extent, and even demanded it.
Maybe, I dunno, the two talk to each other? I mean, here on slashdot, we share a couple of common phrases. Take "Open Source" for instance. Or "FWIW", "IOW", "IMHO".
Just because two people use the same words doesn't mean they are a puppet of one another. It just means they are speaking the same language. In this case, both are leading on the Iraq issue. Both are seeing similar intelligence. And both are working on a plan together.
Keep your wallet slim and it will cut down on back pain and discomfort. You spend a lot of time on your bum. I'll often put my wallet next to my keyboard while I work.
When I get up for any reason, even to draw on the whiteboard, this is my procedure.
1. CTRL-ALT-L unless I'm not leaving my cubicle.
2. Put pager in pocket.
3. Put wallet in pocket.
I have double checks built in by habit. I touch my wallet and keys and pager and badge before I go into the elevator, or close any door (car or building). It's a habit now so I haven't lost my keys or wallet (or anything else critical) for as long as I can remember now. Building habits like this means I don't have to remember anything.
I keep all my gear in a specific spot in the kitchen when I come home. I empty out my loose change into the same bucket. It's probably time to cash it in.
What I have in my wallet right now:
A picture of my wife.
Driver's License and insurance "cards".
The one credit card I use for day-to-day purchases.
The debit card to my principal checking account.
Costco card.
5 business cards. I keep more in my car, office, and at home. I empty out business cards I receive when I get them.
Receipts I haven't recorded in my family's general journal.
Other appropriate identification pieces.
It's a nice leather bifold my wife bought me, if you're curious.
Here in Washington State, we had an intense race for the Republican party nomination in the 8th Congressional district. There were five good candidates, each of them honorable and experienced. Any one of them would have made a fine candidate. However, people tended to favor Sheriff Reichert because he was an all around good guy.
Two or three of the other candidates began to sling mud in the traditional sense. They brought up the fact that Reichert had at one time supported Sims, a very liberal democrat. Of course they tried to make it look like Reichert supported Sims and his policy, when in fact Reichert was merely supporting his boss's actions with relation to the police force.
In response, Reichert showed up to a debate, and read a statement to the effect of, "Since some of the candidates here would rather sling mud than talk about facts and issues, I am withdrawing from this debate."
You'd think that refusing to debate would be a sign of weakness, right? But Reichert still won the nomination, and he won it without ever calling into question the character of his opponents. He kept himself focused on issues and facts, and never once got sidetracked into calling the others names.
I believe that by not slinging mud and by taking the high road to avoid the mud altogether, it makes a candidate stand out.
I am getting quite tired of the baseless claims that people are making. We complain and complain because of the poison that is in politics. Well, let's get our act together and fix it.
Starting right now, let's all be a lot more civil.
Despite our political differences, we are all countrymen, in the national sense and in the sense that we all live in this world. We should respect each other and never ever attack someone's character. Let their actions speak for their character. People will be smart enough to judge for themselves. This includes everyone from John Kerry to George Bush to Saddam Hussein down to everybody in this forum.
We are all able to share our opinions. When we do, let's be clear by prefacing such statements with "I believe" or "I think" or "My opinion is". Let's never ever try to represent opinion as fact.
When we do discuss fact and logic, let's be very careful to get things right the first time. Quote your sources accurately.
The way you attack factual and logical arguments is by attacking the individual claims. For instance, if I claimed that Sadr City is now peaceful, you would attack that claim by showing me reports that it is not. You wouldn't attack that claim by calling me a liar.
If you want to end the poison in politics, you end it with yourself first. Here are my points again.
1. NEVER attack a person or their character.
2. ALWAYS preface your opinions with "It is my opinion that..." or "I feel that...".
3. ALWAYS support claims of fact with evidence, and always quote that evidence accurately. Show your logic in clear steps.
4. ALWAYS attack the claims and the logical steps people make with more or contrary evidence.
How do you defeat bad free speech? For instance, let's say someone tells an outright lie, or takes a fact an twists it and misrepresents it until they say something opposite of the fact. (This never ever happens, right?) How do you fix that?
I am reminded of a story, but I can't recall the details. The idea is that someone spread a false rumor about someone else in the community. When they saw the damage, they went to apologize. In response, the guy took a down pillow and ripped it open, and tiny feathers flew all over the yard and the street and the wind carried it quite a distance. He said, "Your rumor is like those the down from this pillow. See how it has spread? Now, in order to apologize, you're going to have to go collect ever single one of those feathers and put it back in this pillowcase." That's the kind of damage that bad speech does.
So how do you combat that and how do you fix it?
With more free speech.
Bloggers are the other part of the free speech world. They can produce more information faster than any other source. They have hundreds and hundreds of independent researchers, each specializing in one side or the other of each story.
So when Dan Rather came out misrepresenting the documents, he was held in check by more free speech.
Kind of like the question "How do you stop someone on a rampage with a gun?" The answer: "Get more and bigger guns."
KARL: George, now that we finally pulled ahead of Kerry in the polls, and your re-election is all but guaranteed, I have a plan that will guarantee your win.
GEORGE: Interesting. Normally, the front-runner tries to keep a low profile and a tame campaign. But since I am a stupid idiot and you are the great master mind of my entire political career, I'll hear you out.
KARL: See these documents I wrote in Word? They make the claims that the crazy crackpot democrats, including John Kerry, have been making for the past five years. Even though it is blatantly obvious to even untrained eyes that they are forgeries, I am going to contact Dan Rather and his team and get them to run it on 60 minutes.
GEORGE: Okay....
KARL: And after they run the story, I am going to have your surrogates on all the internet blogs post about how fake the document is and how Dan Rather should quit. That's how we'll win this election.
GEORGE: But we are already winning...
KARL: But that's not the point!
GEORGE: I'm not sure I'm following you, Karl. But since I am a stupid idiot and you are the smart guy, I'm going to give you the go-ahead on this.
MEANWHILE, AT 60 MINUTES HEADQUARTERS
DAN: Hello?
KARL: Ummm... Hello? This is... err (covers telephone with rag) (gruffy voice) This is a key informant who is unimpeachable. I have the documents you have been looking for. It shows how George Bush missed his physical and how he really didn't deserve to be in the Texas Air National Guard.
DAN: Wow! That's great. Fax them over.
DAN: Hey, these don't look right. It looks like it is written in Microsoft Word and the signature looks forged.
KARL: Ummm, yeah, he used one of those fancy IBM typewriters that were used to typeset important documents and cost $20,000.
DAN: I don't believe that the ANG would have such a device, and if I recall, they aren't easy to use at all.
KARL: Nevermind that. Just run this and you'll be famous for breaking this story.
DAN: Oh, alright. Now who are you?
KARL: That's not important. Good bye.
--------------------
Man, I would love to put together a film with all the stupid conspiracy theories that people claim the Bush administration has come up with. It could be good for several hours of constant laughter.
Considering the the we are one of the very few countries that has the freedom of the press written into our core documents, and even one of the fewer yet whow actually respect that right, I am not surprised that the rest of the world thinks John Kerry is better.
For one, the rest of the world doesn't have access to the opposition voice of CNN and CBS. That means they never hear the other side of the story. For another, the rest of the world is actually submitted to the press that their government endorses, if not writes itself.
One of the freest societies in the world - South Korea - even has problems with the press. For instance, several stories of key importance to the South Korean people have never reached their ears. Take the latest scandal over the gold medal in the Olympics. All of my relatives and friends in South Korea never heard that the judges missed an extra turn by the South Korean that would've docked the South Korean by even more points. In other words, they should be grateful that the judges stood by their decision.
And personally, as an American, I am upset that we would even ask what the rest of the world thinks! This isn't a beauty contest, this is about securing our freedom now and in future generations. Let the other countries worry about their own freedom, because we have enough on our plate right now.
BUSH: Hey Cheney, I got a great idea to get me elected.
CHENEY: What's that?
BUSH: If I come off as a complete fool, then everyone will mock me and underestimate my ability to lead. So while I am outsmarting them at every political corner in the race, they will be talking about how stupid I am rather than their issues.
CHENEY: Won't that be bad? I mean, who would want to elect a deficient president?
BUSH: No, it'll be good in a few ways. For one thing, calling people stupid has never resonated with the electorate. They thought that President Reagan was stupid, but he still pulled off some of the most decisive victories in the history of the US. Earning the title as intelligent actually turns off voters. Look at Jimmy Carter. He was considered to be the brightest president we ever had, but he failed to earn a second term. He's still unpopular.
CHENEY: Humm, you're right. Americans don't want smart presidents. They want presidents that are leaders, that are decisive, and that won't cave in to our enemies.
BUSH: Exactly. Look at our most popular president ever - FDR. He earned that popularity by coming across as a fighter, not an intellectual. He had strong words, he rose to impossible challenges. He had real balls, if you know what I mean. Look at the other Roosevelt. He was a fighter as well, and very popular. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, all of these were fighters.
CHENEY: Now that I think of it, remember the last debates with Gore? The ones you were supposed to get trounced in?
BUSH: Yep. I went into that debate armed with responses to all of Gore's criticisms. He didn't expect any new ideas of any of my responses. He didn't expect me to be able to think on my toes. He came in with the false idea of being a "great debater", but came our with his tail between his legs.
CHENEY: But isn't Kerry wiser about this? I am sure he is going to be ready.
BUSH: But see, I am giving him the false impression that I don't want to debate a "great" debater like him. I am holding off on signing up to the debates as long as possible. I am even trying to reduce the debates from three to two.
CHENEY: So he thinks you are actually afraid to debate. He thinks he can walk all over you in the debates.
BUSH: Yep. "Misunderestimate" sure is an appropriate word.
CHENEY: Well, shoo-ee. Mr. President, I think you have a fine plan there. Our should I say, Mr. "Stupid" President.
BUSH: Hehehe. Yep, all the way back to the White House. Thanks, Dick.
Voters in this country have chosen third-party candidates, and even elected one. Go back to pre-civil war times and look up the name of an obscure third-party of the time and an obscure candidate for president. He ran on an issue of moral importance, something we take for granted nowadays but was a truly revolutionary concept.
If a third-party candidate wants to succeed today, they have to find an issue that the majority of Americans support, that is more important than any other single issue, and that the two parties refuse to address properly. Running on this one issue will be enough to garner enough support to take the election.
However, there are no issues of supreme importance that the candidates aren't addressing. Right now, our number one priority is defense. We are at war with terrorist Islamists. The second most important issue is how to sustain consistent growth in the economy and smooth out the natural cycles. This is what the American people say are important, so there's no arguing with that.
If you're wondering who I was talking about above, the obscure third party was the Republican party. The candidate was Abraham Lincoln. The issue was slavery - was the African race equal with the Caucasion races, or were they merely sub-humans? If they were equal, was it right to free them from slavery and grant them equal rights? Doesn't our nation's Declaration of Independence declare "All men are equal" and talk about God-given rights that no government can take away rightly?
You know the rest of the story, but remember what caused the war.
I recently saw a report that crime is at a 30-year low, although murder rates are up. I've noticed that the police is trying to get the community involved in police actions, at least in surveillance and reporting.
Here are some suggestions.
1. Get to know your neighbors. Talk about the incident. Visit with them every once in a while and make sure that you are coordinating.
2. Call the cops, even for minor things. See someone prowling around? Call 911 and tell them you see someone prowling around your neighborhood. A side effect is that you begin to develop a sense of community with the police. They will even begin coming to you asking questions about things you didn't report. "Someone in the neighborhood reported a crime last night. Did you see anything suspicious?"
3. Get involved in your city government, and tell the city council about your issues. They may honestly not know that there is a problem. Once the council gets word of it, they will communicate with the police, and will begin working on a solution. After all, the cops really do want to help. Work to get judges that are tough on crime elected in your area. The hilltop area in Tacoma Washington was notorious for the gang crime until the judges were removed and replaced with strong judges that punished the gangs heavily. For several years, the crime stopped. Every once in a while someone gets out, but they are usually caught committing another crime within days and locked up for good.
4. In really bad areas, organize watch shifts. With your neighbors, coordinate times that you will stand watch. Sit in your room facing the street with the lights off and record stuff as it happens on a notepad. Anything suspicious? Call the police and report it. Since you can't go the whole night, you will have to coordinate 4 hours shifts at night. Compare notes and you will begin to recognize patterns. You will get to know the people lurking in the shadows and when they commit a crime, you'll be able to ID them and the police will be able to link them to all the other crimes.
Too bad there is no technological solution, but crime is a human problem and is solved with that "eternal vigilance" thing.
Wish we'd nominated Edwards.
;-)
You should've nominated Howard Dean. He was the only one you democrats got excited over, and the only candidate with any energy. At least he carried your message honestly, rather than trying to sugarcoat it and dumb it down for public consumption. His classic line was the the one about the flag didn't belong to Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, or George Bush. I always got a tickly when he said that and I was looking forward to hearing that line every day for the next couple of months.
I would've loved to see George Bush deliver a folded flag to Howard Dean after he said that line in a debate. "Here you go. This one is for you."
It'll happen soon. Keep your britches on.
As far as a country where the soldiers are told to leave, even the US isn't that friendly to the soldiers.
Why do you think we are developing laser systems that actually shoot artillery out of the air? Judging by how the military works with research press releases, I'd say we already have them deployed along the border, even though the tech rags are just now talking about them.
Remember, the F-115 came out in the open in the Iraq war, but it was already being deployed and used long before that. Some people have rumored that it has been used since the 60's. It only came out then because reporters started seeing it and asking, "What in the heck is that thing?"
You really do think the US military is stupid, don't you?
Very well, you can join the heaps of dictators and fascists and commisars that thought the same thing. Let's start with the French-Indian war, and count through all the wars throughout history and let's count the number of officers that underestimated the power of free men fighting in a volunteer army...
No military force in the entire history of the world has had as many successive and dominating victories as the US had. Name one empire that stretched from the western shores of Europe back around to the Western shores of Europe.
I daresay you could take any army from any period of time in the world, and arm a similar number of today's marines with the same weapons as the enemy, and the marines will wipe them out every time. I'm not talking, "We barely survived, but we won!" type victories, I'm talking "Mission complete, we're ready for the next one" type victories.
You have to realize that from the grunt in the mud to the top generals, every single person in that organization is thinking harder and working smarter than anybody in the enemy's organization.
I know two Marines who enlisted, and both of them came out of the organization so much smarter than they went in. They went in as C average students, barely able to pass a test, and came out talking to me about quantum physics and consistently getting As in their advanced college courses.
But anyway, go ahead and misunderestimate our president and our military. It's your loss.
When we remove our troops and then the n. koreans do this the US looks weak politically.
You missed the story. Rumsfield visits Korea a few years back. He says, "South Korea has 20 times the economy of North Korea. Why are we here? The South Koreans should've finished this twenty years ago."
Then Rumsfield begins withdrawing troops.
I can see Kim Jong Il peeing his pants when Rumsfeld made the first announcement. But his advisors say, "Oh, no great leader! He is bluffing! He can't remove the troops! If he does, we'll just walk all over South Korea, and he knows that!"
The Rumsfeld does it. What do his advisors tell him now? "Oh great leader, Rumsfeld made a strategic mistake. Let's invade now!" of course not! They are all round up and shot for being wrong.
Now Kim Jong Il is in a mad dash to get nukes before it's too late. He sees the end, and if his eyes are opened enough he'll see how he has been in checkmate for the past twenty years.
Please let me know as soon as Iraq becomes as democracy with a government friendly towards the US. Can't wait to see it happen.
= 53 57
Done.
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key
If you hadn't known, most city and regional governments are already elected, and very friendly to the US. I'm not saying all the cities are democratic, but the grand majority of them are.
The president may appoint the new judges, "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate". All that means is that the Senate has to consent to the appointment. The senate may even suggest who the president should appoint. What does consent mean? It means whatever the senate wants it to mean. They can even allow the president to appoint whoever they want and consent without even voting.
Note that the senate is the one who formed the rules on how the senate makes decisions, and so the senate is the one who can change them. It was a tradition, not a rule, that all appointments who have passed the committee are voted on after debate. It is the democrats who changed that. 51 votes is all that has been needed since the beginning of our nation. Now it has changed to 60.
All they have to do is amend their bylaws and it is done. The justices have no say in the matter, and can't even rule whether they are obeying their own rules or not, because no one but the senate determines what rules the senate follow outside of the constitution.
You might want to pick up a copy of Robert's Rules to get a feeling for what I mean by bylaws and how a deliberative body makes decisions.
The last thing you want to do is lead in a meaningless area like this. Instead, let the team decide what traditions they want to do and just follow along. Don't make traditions formal - they just happen.
As a team leader, you are really serving in two capacities. The first capacity is as a servant. You are fulfilling a role that they can't do themselves. You have to make sure you fill that role well so that it serves them. There is a time to lay down the law, but you have to think of yourself as a referee in those cases and approach it carefully, if at all. The second capacity is as a representative. You have to represent the group to somebody higher up than you. That means you have to show up to those meetings with their interests in mind, fight the fights that they would fight, and only sign on to agreements that they would make. When you have figured out these two things, then everything else flows naturally.
I believe that Bush honorably served in the military. His record proves it, if you took the time to read it.
Go read this article and tell me what you think about Bush's service.
http://www.thehill.com/york/090904.aspx
Remember, and I'll repeat it 'til I am blue in the face, I personally am proud of John Kerry's service, regardless of whether he deserved no medals or more medals, whether he fought in Cambodia or Timbuktu. I can't question anything he's done because he protected me and my family from things I can't dream about. He's been through stuff that I wouldn't dare put myself into.
This is the official Republican and Bush supporter line: We honor Kerry for his service! We don't question his service because we weren't there! We'll never know all the crap that he had to face, and we'll never be in a position to question heis dedication to our country. When Bush says this, the crowd cheers in agreement and support.
Actually, it shows the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are more than willing to honor our military and let the small stuff slide. We're even willing to forgive Kerry for lying about his service and for admitting to committed war crimes. It just doesn't bother us because we know the realities of war.
However, the left wants to find any small inconsistency or the smallest lie that Bush told and magnify it. It is important that we have a rock-solid case to defend Bush so that we can keep them focused on the issues, which is where we are focused.
Excuse me, but this is just stupid. "Just because they are fake doesn't mean they are false". So if I make up something, does that mean it is true?
If these are merely retypings, then the originals must exist somewhere. These are supposed documents written by a dead officer. If the originals don't exist, it was all made up and CBS is untrustworthy as a news source.