Symbol of Freedom

Election Day

Whatever your moral or political views may be on the War in Iraq, this weekend they are irrelevant. This weekend, millions of Iraqis will literally risk their lives to cast their vote for change, and freedom in Iraq.

Let's put the political posturing aside for two days and simply hope and pray for the safety of those Iraqi citizens, the brave Iraqi police force who protect them, and of course the U.S. and other military men and women in harms way.

This weekend Iraq will see the climatic confrontation between those who believe in freedom and those who believe in tyranny.

May freedom reign.

US Military is “part of the problem” according to Kennedy

In U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy’s speech today at the Johns’ Hopkins School of International Studies he made the following statement about our military personnel in Iraq:

“Our military has become part of the problem, rather than the solution.”

You can contact the Senator's office at (202) 224-2633 ... I for one have called demanding his apology to our military men and women and their families.

It's doubtful they'll get one.

Students Arrested for Drawing Stick Figures

Occasionally, I'll come across a news item that has nothing really to do with the 2008 election but that's so preposterous I must share it with you.

This is one of those times ... now I could rant and rave about a) the stupidity of the school administration, b) the stupidity of the local law enforcement, or c) the stupidity of the District Attorney ... but in the interest of open debate, I'll let you all have the first word.

The article came off the web site of WKMG, a local Florida television station.

One last thing: Pay close attention to the quote from the police spokesman (a term used very loosely here) Russ Kearn. If anyone can figure out just what in the world he's saying, I'll send them a dozen Krispy Kremes ... seriously.


Students Arrested Over 'Violent' Stick Figure Drawings
Pictures Show Classmate Being Stabbed, Hung
POSTED: 1:40 am EST January 26, 2005
UPDATED: 3:07 pm EST January 26, 2005




OCALA, Fla. -- Two boys, ages 9 and 10, were charged with felonies and taken away from school in handcuffs, accused of making violent drawings of stick figures.

The boys were arrested Monday on charges of making a written threat to kill or harm another person, a second-degree felony.

"The officer found they were drawing these pictures for the sole purpose of intimidating and scaring the victim," said Ocala Police Sgt. Russ Kern.

The boy depicted in the drawings told his teacher, who took the sketches and contacted the school dean, Marty Clifford. Clifford called police, who arrested the boys after consulting with the State Attorney's Office.

They were also suspended from school.

One drawing showed the two boys standing on either side of the other boy and "holding knives pointed through" his body, according to a police report. The figures were identified by written names or initials.

Another drawing showed a stick figure hanging, tears falling from his eyes, with two other stick figures standing below him. Other pieces of scrap paper listed misspelled profanities and the initials of the boy who was allegedly threatened.

Parents of both of the arrested boys said they thought the boys should be punished by the school and families, not the legal system.

Ocala police said they stand behind the decision to arrest the children.

"When an adult or even myself look at the picture looked at it at first I was thinking there is really not much to the picture or I would not be that scared by the picture those children drew," Ocala police spokesman Russ Kearn said.

"However, we have to put ourselves in his mind and that's the bottom line here. It is his well-being and the way he perceived that picture to be. It actually put him in extreme fear and he was in fear for his life."

Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.

A Free Iraq?

On this deadliest day of fighting since the war began almost 2 years ago, I ask the question:

Will Iraq embrace freedom?

31 Americans were killed today in our on-going fight against terrorism and our attempt to bring free-elections to Iraq.

Many believe that this violent corner of the world will never be free ... while others, including the Bush administration, believe that when given the choice, people will always choose freedom over tyranny.

It looks as if elections will go ahead as scheduled, despite the almost constant attempts to undermine the January 30th date by Democrats. But, while they will go ahead and even though the Iraq police force is growing, there will have to be a strong US military presence on Election Day.

So, we will see elections in Iraq - but will their results hold? Will Iraq's be able to live in freedom once the high levels of American troops depart over the next several years?

In twenty, thirty, one hundred years, will Iraqis be living in freedom?

~~~
Support the Military:
For those interested in support the US Military and their families, please consider a donation to Fisher House, a unique non-profit that offers temporary housing within walking distance to military hospitals for families of hospitalized military men and women.

For Hillary, the road to White House has several Right turns

On three separate occasions Hillary has moved visibly Right on contentious issues like immigration, faith-based organizations, and just yesterday, abortion.

During her speech to Family Planning Advocates of New York, Hillary used much softer language than in the past to describe abortion opponents.

Hillary talked of finding "common ground" on this issue and of "deeply held differences" over this "tragic choice". She even went as far as to say that she, "... for one respect(s) those who believe with all their heart and conscience that there are no circumstances under which abortion should be available."

Clinton also called for the Bush administration, religious groups, supporters and opponents of abortion rights to look beyond abortion and form a broad alliance on other, less inflammatory issues: sex-education programs for teenagers that included abstinence education, emergency contraception for women who have recently had unprotected intercourse, and family planning.

This "work together" approach is in stark contrast to her speech earlier this month when she blasted the Bush administration for focusing too heavily on abstinence programs.

Is this a genuine shift from her rather hard-lined pro-choice stances of the past?

We all know that politicians move either Left or Right depending on where the votes are.

It's debate08's opinion that Hillary's rhetoric is merely a hollow attempt to round out her rough, Liberal edges in the minds of moderate Democrats and Independents for her run in 2008.

So, here's my question: Is this a shift? And if so, for those who are used to having Hillary squarely in their corner on abortion issues, immigration issues (she came out recently with very strong rhetoric on the need to crack down on illegal immigration, in an attempt to position herself to the right of Republicans) and basically every other issue, how does this shift make you feel? Do you feel alienated? Or is it just par for the political course?

More importantly, are you buying it?

Yellow ribbons have some seeing red...

The Blogosphere is ablaze tonight with the issue of the Support the Troops yellow ribbons and the University of Oregon.

The U. of O. demanded that an ex-military employee remove a yellow ribbon from his maintenance vehicle … a vehicle owned by the University.

Conservative blogs have weighed in calling the position “disgusting” and an attack on the Bill of Rights.

But, I’m not buying it...

Don’t get me wrong. There has been no more a destructive movement, in my opinion, than the Liberal take-over of the University’s in America. Ex-60’s hippies, disillusioned with the post-Vietnam world, opted for the warm and cozy life of academia. And while there, they have infected schools and generations of kids who walk their halls with their “war is not the answer”, “give peace a chance”, “America is the evil one” drivel.

But, here’s the rub: The University owns the vehicle. The employee has no more of a right to place a support the troops ribbon on the University’s property, than the school has the right to place an anti-war ribbon on his belongings.

Do I “support” the University position? No. Do I like it? Of course not.

But this is not an attack on the Bill of Rights. It’s a lack of decency in a time of war when men and women are risking their lives. Perhaps "disgusting" is an accurate description.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to my blog to make it easier to make comments. Unfortunately, that means that all previous comments have been erased.

In Response to your comments

Had some feedback (GREAT!) on my most recent post ... and I'll have to admit it and eat a little crow. "Don't Call Us ... We'll Call You" was a pretty one-sided post - it's those darn Finnish, they get me every time.

The point was made that I "left no room for debate" but what would you have me do, debate myself?

The debate comes from you - the reader - and hopefully the comments you post. The more you post, the more we debate.

My pledge is that I'll always post comments (unless they're vulgar) and I'll always take the time to respond and keep the debate going.

Fair enough?

For all those who like the earlier post "Worth a thousand words..." here's a little more info. on the picture of President Bush hugging the girl:

Her name is Ashley Faulkner and she lost her mom on 9-11. Bush was at a campaign stop in Ohio and walked passed her until a friend of Ashley's yelled to the President that she'd lost her mom. He turned around and gave her a hug. Ashley's Dad snapped this photo and then posted it on the internet, where it took off.

The Bush/Cheney team never "used" the photo ... although other groups did in support of Bush.

I believe it's a genuine moment in politics - and unfortunately a rare one at that.

Thanks for the comments, folks. Keep 'em coming.

Don't call us ... we'll call you

Nokia CEO, Jorma Ollila, gave a rare interview over the weekend and took the opportunity to rip on conservative America.

The 54 year old complained about "an era of selfishness that was very different from his childhood days in a small town in central Finland, when family values were of prime importance."

"This is a very self-centered period," he continued. "Which also has plenty of good features too because, when understood correctly, it can help you live independently and stand on one's own two feet."

"What I'm worried about is that if this disintegration of values continues and develops further, we'll get a conservative counter-reaction precisely like what has actually happened in the USA," he said," Ollila said.

Feel free to deposit your Nokia cell phones into the trash now.

Let's pick this apart a bit shall we?

1) He's 54 years old ... born in Finland in 1951 ... and so the only reason why his mother's maternity nurse was not adorning a swastika was? Okay, cheap shot ... maybe.

2) But seriously, what is this guy talking about? Since when did the Finnish beleive in "standing on one's own two feet"? And "family values" is as foriegn a concept as is the 40 hour work week.

I think we know why this guy seldom gives interviews ... he manages to alienate 60+ million people in the wealthiest country on the globe, good going Mr. CEO.

The Blog will change the world

From today's LA Times... "Blogs are the only uncontrolled and totally free medium, so they have the potential to attract many people, even people who are apathetic." ~ Hossein Derakhshan, a 28-year-old Iranian

Iran Attempts to Pull Plug on Web Dissidents
About 20 online journalists and bloggers have been jailed. Some say they were tortured and forced to publicly denounce their work.

By Megan K. Stack, Times Staff Writer

TEHRAN — The criminal seems younger than his 25 years. He is the quiet type, shy and lanky, peering solemnly through octagonal glasses.

He has no weapons, not in the traditional sense. His name is Hanif Mazroui, and the tools of his crime are a handful of ideas and skinny fingers flying over the keyboard. He is one of about 20 Iranian Web loggers and journalists who have been arrested and jailed in recent months.

Government prosecutors call Mazroui a violator of national security and an inciter of unrest. If you ask the nation's conservative mullahs, he's an acid eating away at the fabric of the Islamic revolution.

He has done time in solitary confinement, and reportedly weathered death threats from judiciary officials. Asked about his time in prison, Mazroui dropped his chin, studied his shoes and said, "I prefer not to talk about it."

Then, after a moment of awkward silence as he slumped at his father's side, he fished into the pocket of his peacoat, drew out a bundle of black cloth and handed it over. It was a frayed blindfold, cut from thick canvas, with a tiny triangular wedge sliced out for a nose.

He'd been forced to wear it in prison, he explained, and he'd smuggled the blindfold out with him as a keepsake.

"I just want to remember where I was," he said. "I'm grateful for my time in prison, because I realized how much we should pay for freedom, and that freedom can't be got easily. I'm a small drop of that."

After toiling for years to silence dissent within the Iranian republic, the mullahs have turned their war against free press to the last reserve of open political debate: the Internet.

Since the summer, Iran's Web loggers, or bloggers, and online journalists have been demonized as CIA collaborators, their work whitewashed from many Iranian computers with filters.

"They can't accept the free exchange of ideas and equality offered by the Internet," said Sayed Mustafa Taj-Zadeh, an advisor to reformist President Mohammad Khatami. "They had to crack down on it."

The Web logs hadn't been around for long. When they made their debut in Persian cyberspace in 2001, frustrated politicos hoped a new horizon had opened up. At last, repressed Iranians had found a space they could clutter up with words, ideas, flights of fancy.

The Internet was ubiquitous, anonymous. And for a short and glorious time, it was free from the censure of the mullahs.

In their first year, nearly 3,000 Persian blogs sprang to life ...

... "They suddenly felt that we were using the Internet as an alternative to the papers they'd shut down," said Hossein Derakhshan, a 28-year-old Iranian pioneer who took the groundbreaking step of publishing online instructions in Persian to teach Iranians how to post Web logs. He moved to Toronto five years ago with his wife, a Canadian citizen.

"Blogs are the only uncontrolled and totally free medium, so they have the potential to attract many people, even people who are apathetic."

The arrest of online journalists and bloggers began last fall. The writers say they were tortured and forced to publicly denounce their work. Even technicians who worked on Web pages have been imprisoned.

Read the full story here

Worth a thousand words...

When you have a choice between this:




This:




Or this:





It's no wonder we got this:

W. II

~~~~

Official 2005 Inaugural site

For the best coverage

Protest the 2005 Inauguration

The Rather School of Journalism

The media still doesn't get it ... even after Rathergate. Particularly repugnant was today's article by Timothy Heritage, Four More Years of Bush Makes the World Anxious.

He leads off with this:

PARIS (Reuters) - The rest of the world will be watching with anxiety when President Bush is inaugurated Thursday for a second time, fearing the most powerful man on the planet may do more harm than good.

Many world leaders, alienated by Bush's go-it-alone foreign policy and the U.S.-led war in Iraq, would have preferred him to lose the U.S. election last November. Since his victory, they have been urging him to listen and consult more.

Good opening ... catchy ... oh, by the way, which leaders?

You'd think after an opening statement such as this, a reputable journalist would list and quote these leaders extensively to re-enforce his point, right?

Well, here's the very next paragraph:

Mistrust also runs deep among ordinary people. Some 58 percent of people surveyed in a British Broadcasting Corporation poll in 21 countries said they believed Bush's re-election made the world a more dangerous place.

What happened? Where did the "leaders" go?

Instead of backing up his outrageous opening claim he moves on, hoping we all accept his statement as fact.

He continues:

"Negative feelings about Bush are high," Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes which carried out the study, told the BBC. "This is quite a grim picture for the United States."

Grim picture for the U.S.? Actually, no ... for France perhaps, Russia too, and Germany, and let's not forget Iran and North Korea; and for terrorists worldwide, yep pretty grim ... but for the U.S.? No, not so grim.

Later in the piece, Heritage finally quotes an actual public official, albeit a French one:

"I think 2005 should mark a new start in our relations ... based on listening to each other, having a more regular dialogue and mutual respect," French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said last week, reflecting the view of the European Union.

Reflecting the views of the EU? What, all of it? All 25 nations? I didn't know that's how every country felt? Actually, it's not. But why should this stop our esteemed journalist from the school of Rather?

He goes on...

"It is clear that this is an administration that believes in force and strength and is not particularly bothered by what other countries may think," said Guillaume Parmentier of the French Institute of International Relations in Paris.

Finally, someone gets it! But incredibly, Parmentier seems to think "force and strength" are bad adjectives when describing foreign policy ... ah, those wacky French.

Heritage concludes:

"The more Bush expands the horizon of American violence in the region, the greater the prospect of extremism and fanaticism," said Egyptian political analyst Mohamed al-Sayed.

Yep, we better stop that "American violence" so we can go back to the more acceptable terrorist violence ... because let's be honest here, America doesn't take every precaution imaginable to save innocent life or anything like that, and terrorists don't, say, target innocent life.

It's a common tool for journalists of The Rather School of Journalism to quote an Egyptian when discussing American foreign policy. It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

Well, that's all from the Rather School of Journalism. Until next time, keep making up those stories and undermining the country.

Rice v. Boxer

Life according to a Democrat: We like minorities ... Republicans don't. We help, encourage, nurture, understand minorities ... Republican's don't. Minorities can thank Democrats for everything good in their lives ... go ahead and blame Republicans for everything bad. We beleive you should have a helping hand from government to make up for past suffering ... Republicans would rather see you in the gutter.

So you can imagine the head-scratching amongst Democrats as Bush went about selecting the most racially diverse Cabinet in US history, including:

The first Black Secretary of State
The first Black Secretary of Education
The first female Interior Secretary
Not to mention Alberto Gonzales, who'll soon be the nation's first Hispanic Attorney General

How do Democrats respond? They tear down - or at least try.

They try to label Gonzales as pro-torture, but it didn't stick and he'll be confirmed. And today they set their sights on Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

Barbara Boxer - that pillar of truth - questioned Rice's integrity:

"I personally believe that your loyalty to the mission you were given to sell this policy overwhelmed your respect for the truth."

In other words, "I think you're a liar"

Boxer then went on to say she'll be submitting contradictory statements for the record, made by Rice, about the War in Iraq.

Rice, to her credit, didn't take the bait:

"I have never ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything. It is not my nature, it is not my character ... And I would hope that we can have this conversation and discuss what happened before and what went on before and what I said, without impugning my credibility or my integrity."

Should Gonzales or Rice get a free-ride in their hearings because of their skin color ... no, I don't believe in Affirmative Action.

Apparently - today at least - neither did Boxer.

How many make it right?

Aves writes the following in response to yesterday's post on Tony Blair:

Do you think maybe there might be a problem when SO many people disagree with him (Blair, I assume but Bush works here too) and SO many people are protesting. Isn't it true that if the majority of the people don't agree with it, then there is a good chance that there's something wrong with it? I mean, isn't that how America works? Majority rules.

Thanks for the post Aves, but - respectfully - I believe you couldn't be more wrong.

Can only one man (or woman) - or a small segment of a population - be right? If it takes more than one person, then how many? Conversely, just because many, many people believe in something, does that make that thing right?

Think slavery or Germany in 1940.

Kerry and The Left hung their hat on this premise during the campaign: If the whole world is against the War in Iraq (of course, that in itself wasn't true... the Coalition of the Willing is comprised of some 50 countries) then the War in Iraq must be wrong.

But since when did the opinions of France, Germany, or Russia determine whether American foreign policy is right or wrong? Remember Kerry's "global test" during the debates? Thank God he's not our President.

But Aves brings up more than a political question - it's a moral one.

For instance, let's say me and a few of my friends believe in something but no one else does. Then we're wrong? What if we convinced 51% of the world to believe in it; all of a sudden we're right?

But if you think about it, that thing my friends and I originally believed in has not changed, just the number of people who believe in it ... how can that fact change the rightness or wrongness of the idea?

It's a fascinating point that, like so many others, transcends politics.

Thanks for the comment Aves ... I think you're wrong, but I'm only one person, so if you get a friend to agree with you, that'll make you right!

From across the Pond

The Economist calls him the "second most important politician in America".

Who is he?

He's Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and an unwavering supporter of President Bush and the War in Iraq.

debate08 does not place Blair quite as high up on the US political totem poll as The Economist does, but agrees that Blair has been - and will continue to be - a crucial ally for Bush.

Blair's passionate and articulate words defending the rationale behind the War in Iraq are in the league of Churchill (particularly his acceptance speech to Congress in 2003 when he was presented with the Congressional Gold Medal).

Without doubt, there is no other politician in recent memory who has taken the kind of beating Blair has by the hands (and pens) of his own people. The British Press can be brutal, cutting political foes to the core with rhetoric that makes US journalists sound like cuddly teddy bears.

Through it all Blair has stood tall and faced them head-on. He's never wavered, not once. And for this he should be commended.

But unlike Bush, Blair must face voters one last time. British parliamentary law requires Blair to call an election by Summer 2006. Historically, however, PM's call elections a year or so early, when they feel most likely to win, and to avoid being forced to call an election when they don't want to.

May 2005 is the most likely time.

debate08 predicts Blair's re-election but it won't be pretty. The anti-war factions will be out in full force ... and then there's that British press.

Complicating matters will be the EU's Constitution vote (debate08 will talk more about this fascinating vote in a later blog) that will also take Brits to the polls this year.

What impact will Blair's re-election have on 2008? A big one.

Bush will rely on Blair throughout his second term to stand with him and deliver the message on the War in Iraq that he (Bush) sometimes has trouble articulating effectively. And 2008 will be as much of a referendum on that conflict and the greater War on Terror, as the 2004 election was.

Simply put, Blair's oratory skills in defending US foreign policy will be a boost to the Republican effort to retain the White House in 2008.

Lawyer-Speak

I wasn't planning on writing my blog on this topic, after all the CBS frenzy is tempting, but then I read this...

"Don't cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?"

Ponder this profound thought for a moment.

Now in terms of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse, it was disgusting, regrettable, the work of a reckless and morally destitute few, and those responsible should (and are being) dealt with swiftly.

It was degrading, but I believe it was not torture.

Having said that, Guy Womack's (Attorney for Charles Graner, the "ring leader" of the abuses) reference to cheerleaders in his opening remarks shows such a disconnect with common sense that it defies all logic.

Here is another example of a lawyer with absolutely no moral compass or common sense.

Dennis Prager often speaks on this issue ... law students go into law school thinking like the rest of us - in terms of right and wrong, good and bad etc. - they come out of law school thinking only in terms of legal and illegal.

Now, there are exceptions, but by-and-large it seems the more formal education people receive, the less common sense they retain. And law school does an exceptional job of stripping the logic from a person.

The Left have a harder time holding onto their morality because, let's face it, you don't have to think to be a Lefty, you just have to feel. This is why academia is populated with Liberals.

The Right, by contrast, relies more heavily on reason and logic to arrive at a conclusion, instead of feelings. That's why the Left calls them cold hearted - if they have hearts at all - and lacking in compassion.

It's a shame, because we need to hold a real debate on the issue of what constitutes appropriate measures in military prisons ... not the partisan "lynching" Democrats are trying to orchestrate in the confirmation hearings of Alberto Gonzales.

But the Left - full of emotion - is unable to talk calmly and logically about the issue, and acknowledge that there are times when "less than savory" actions are necessary to force prisoners to talk and possibly save lives.

Mr. Womack's comments though should dismay Left and Right ... and prompt us all to wonder what exactly goes on in our law schools.

Who Will Lead?

One political race that few pay attention to, but that will have implications on 2008 is the race for the DNC Chair ... Democrats need to find direction and they need a leader who will provide it.

Conventional wisdom says that their choice - made at the DNC's February meeting - will shape their Party and indirectly their eventual Nominee.

There are really only three main candidates:

Howard Dean, the Outsider, who wants to come in and play.

Wellington Webb, DNC Vice-Chair and former Mayor of Denver.

Tim Roemer, former Congressman from Indiana.

debate08's money is on Dean ... the DNC leader's main focus will be on raising money, an art Dean showed considerable skill in during the early days of the 2004 primary. Dean also has a large and loyal following; although they were following Outsider Dean, it's still to be determined if they'll follow him into the lion's den.

But with Dean, Republicans have more to love than fear.

Dean raised his primary money by positioning himself firmly on the Left flank of the Left.

His legendary anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Washington rants are seldom discussed now only because of his infamous last burst (AAAaaaarrrggghh!!) after a momentum-ending 3rd place finish in Iowa.

So, follow the logic (or lack thereof): Bush hangs his re-election hopes on the War on Terrorism and specifically the front in Iraq; Bush wins decisively with close to 61 million votes and so the Democrat-elite select the anti-war candidate to re-tool, re-shape, and become the "face" of the Party.

Make sense? I don't get.

But please, don't listen to me ... pick Dean in February.

Please.

~~ Numbers Don't Lie ~~

Bush's 61 million is the highest vote total a Presidential candidate has ever received, ever. (And yet the country is apparently divided like never before?)

Clinton rec'd 44 million in 1992; 47 million four years later
Gore rec'd 51 million in 2000 (to Bush's slightly less tally)

And for you Deaniacks who'd like to relive the infamous Scream. Enjoy.

Look at me, I'm above the law

Here's the latest on Hillary's fowl play.

Boxer's (Non)Rebellion

Barbara Boxer - the ultra liberal from California - wiped away tears yesterday (which I believe were provided by an aide before the press conference) as she announced that she would object to the certification of Ohio's electoral votes during a joint session of Congress.

A little history lesson: Normally, a joint session of Congress (the House and the Senate) certify the electoral results ... it's more ceremonial than anything else.

Usually.

But all it takes is one member of the House and one member of the Senate to refuse to certify the votes and then, instead of a joint session, the House and Senate must review the electoral votes separately and after a 2 hour "debate" come back together to vote on the certification.

(The Senate eventually voted 74 to 1 to overrule Boxer's objection; House vote was 267 to 31)

The official reason Boxer gives for her objection is reports from that state of long lines, which is pathetic in itself. But what's more disgraceful - and I believe a more accurate description of her true motives - was Boxer's statement:

"We cannot keep turning our eyes away from a flawed system particularly as we have people dying in Iraq every day to bring democracy to those people."

Nice transition, Boxer.

I have a "no-profanity rule" on my blog ... but she's making it tough.

This was nothing more than a politically driven move by an ultra-liberal, who has completely gone off the range. If the Democratic Party had a spine, or a moral compass, or any sense at all for that matter, they would publicly rebuke Boxer.

Guess what? They won't.

While Democrats call America a "divided" nation and demand that President Bush "reach out" to try and bridge the gap that he alone created, they allow one of their more prominent members to make a mockery of our electoral system, President Bush, and the 60+ million Americans who voted for him.

But, the gags on them ... they're the Party of no ideas, no present or future tense, and no direction or clear leader.

Keep it up boys and girls ... and continue your decent into political oblivion.

~~ Links ~~

Get the skinny on BarbaraBoxer

Learn about the real Boxer Rebellion

Go buy a book

In lieu of a long diatribe, today's blog is simple:

Visit Hugh Hewitt's web site and read it - all of it.

Better yet, buy Hugh's latest book, Blog. Hugh's dead-on when he says that blogs are right now challenging - and will one day soon overtake - the old-guard media establishment.

That's it ... do it ... bye bye.

What's in a title, anyway?

So every once in a while, we'll pause from the pursuit of political truth and take a look at what else is going on in the world ... for instance, today, let's look at the AARP's January/February 2005 magazine cover. (AARP, for you youngsters, is the Association of American Retired Persons)

This is the AARP's People of the Year issue, so naturally Richard Gere is on the front cover.

Anyone that read this last sentence and didn't frown, please stop reading and go away.

For the rest of us, let's find out why Richard Gere is receiving such a distinguished honor, shall we?

Aah ... there it is ... the answer. In the bottom left-hand corner of the magazine cover is the following:

Richard Gere, 55
Global Activist

Global Activist?

Global Activist?

Are you telling me that he didn't "get the cover" for his stirring role in Shall We Dance? (The ONLY movie he was in for the entire year of 2004 according to www.imbd.com)

I suppose he's too busy being globally active to do movies anymore ... now that I think about it, perhaps he should get an award for not doing movies anymore.

But anyway, this brings me to an interesting question:

If you could - which apparently you can - just make up a title for yourself, what would it be?

Let's face it, actor wasn't cutting it for Richie, so he went with something more dignified. And just think, if you pick the right title you could land on the cover of next years AARP's People of the Year issue.

Ah, to dream.

P.S. For all those offended by my tongue-in-cheek- mockery of Richard Gere, get over it, and remember how the doofus preached a non-military response to the 9-11 attacks in the hopes that asking the bad people to stop would bring about peace.

Why Jeb?

Jeb Bush has been tapped by his older brother to join Powell on a trip to the devastated areas of Asia ... Powell, sure. But why Jeb?

Reports cite his experience in dealing with hurricane disaster areas in his home state - a job that kept him busy late last year as four hurricanes pounded the Florida coast.

That's true - but I'm not buying it.

Now, don't get me wrong ... I like the move of sending an envoy: a) It shows how serious America is in helping the hundreds of thousands of victims; b) After getting a first-hand look, Powell will hopefully be able to increase the aid even more than its current levels and get supplies into the hardest hit areas more quickly; but let's not forget letters C and D.

c) It keeps those idiots quiet - like the UN - who complained about the lack of US aid ... "stingy" was the word; and finally d) it gives Jeb international experience.

Mark my words ... in the not so distant future, Jeb Bush will be standing behind a podium, asking Americans for their vote for President, and he'll be referring to his work in Asia as proof-positive that he's got the international, foreign policy experience necessary for the job.

You heard it here folks.

On a rainy LA night...

It's a rainy Sunday night in LA ... what better time to launch debate08?

The 2008 Presidential race began 11-03-04 - right after Kerry's fond-farewell in Boston - so we've got some catching up to do.

For tonight let's ask the big questions.

Hillary is already moving Right on issues like immigration and when someone is this power-crazed there can be no doubt she's going to run. I'm not even going to ask.

But there are lots of other questions to ask - and answer:

Will Jeb run? How 'bout Rudy? Of course, McCain will want another shot, but does he deserve one? Will Arnold's team get the US Constitution changed so he can run? Will George W. Bush end the debate by choosing a successor for Cheney in two years - and thus the GOP Nominee?

And on the other side: Will Dean be the new DNC Chairman? Will the little Deaniacks be able to co-exist with the Clintonians?

When will Hillary announce? And when she does, who will challenge her? What in the world will Hubby Willy do? Can America stomach another term with HW in the White House?

Lot's of questions for sure ... and I'll do my best to ask more questions here on debate08 and hopefully get some answers.

But for now, it's dinner time...