Defending Ourselves?

"Joe": Can't wait for Nov 3rd to get here. The election will be over .... well, the voting will be over with, let's say that. No matter what the size of Bush's victory, and I do expect he will squeak by, the Dems will unleash their Trial Lawyers Assn volunteers on the process, so it'll probably be tied up in the courts for months.

For this we have the wonderful lunatic Al Gore to thank, since he took the 2000 election to court. I didn't think Gore could make himself a more reviled politician than Richard Nixon, for example, but he has. The Kennedy/Nixon 1960 election was so close that Nixon could have turned to the courts, like Gore did. To Nixon's credit, he didn't pursue it legally, and the reason he didn't is precisely because he was concerned about the effect of such action on the electoral process such as what happened in 2000.

We're about to see the same thing this year, except worse than 2000.
The Dems can't win elections through the force of their stand on the issues, and persuasion of the electorate to vote them into office, so they have to resort to legal maneuvers to try to claim victory.

It's a pathetic state of affairs, and I think it will take a long time for any kind of sanity to return to the Democrat Party. Makes me long for the like of Scoop Jackson and John Kennedy, who at least believed we should defend ourselves in the world.

The people in charge of the Party are nothing but a bunch of appeasers. They're living in their own Sept 10th world.
It's amazing to me how Kerry has managed to make this race as close as he has. It means gobs of Americans are either so consumed with hatred for President Bush, or actually believe what Kerry is saying, or both, that they've entered some kind of "dark and nether region in their minds", in my view.
When I ask Kerry voters why they are voting for Kerry, without fail they say, "well, because Bush this, or Bush that, etc." The veins pop out on their necks and temples, they get red, and the rage simply takes over. I haven't heard anyone explain attributes of Kerry that make him the better man for the job...not one.

Jeremy: First, on the issue of neverending elections, not only do we have Al
Gore to thank, but the Supreme Court of the United States, who
decidedly made elections a court issue (rather than a legislative
issue, as is laid out in the Constitution) by calling an end to the
recounts. If they had thrown it back to the Florida legislature, as
the Constitution calls for, it would have set a precedent which made
it much harder to go to the courts after a Presidential Election.

Second, on the issue of "defending ourselves". Persian Gulf II was hardly defending ourselves. We took offensive action against a nation who had never attacked us and wasn't aggressing anyone at the time. I understand that Saddam was not complying with UN resolutions, but let the UN take care of that. There were far greater threats for us to pay attention to (i.e.--Iran and North Korea), not to mention finding Bin Laden and bringing him to justice."

I don't particularly like Bush or Kerry. They both supported the
pre-emptive strikes on Iraq (although who knows where Kerry stands on
the issue from minute to minute--don't know whether you saw the
Saturday Night Live debate where Kerry said "What George Bush doesn't
tell you is that whenever I've supported the war it's been in front of
a pro-war audience and whenver I've been against the war it's been in
front of an anti-war audience. That's not flip-flopping, it's
pandering, and you deserve a president who knows the difference!")

I'll tell you why I support Michael Badnarik. He believes in keeping
our troops at home to actually defend us instead of sending them all
around the world in offense. I understand that in sports the best
defense is a good offense. However, this is real life-and-death we are
talking about, and not only do I think that it's not right to go to war against
and kill civilians in a country that has not attacked us, but I also
think it flares up bad feelings that provoke our enemies. While I
like Bush's "spreading democracy and freedom" in theory, I think that
our government will prove to be as inept at doing this as it is in
delivering mail and providing health care. People must come to want
freedom so much that they rise up and fight for it themselves before
they will ever be ready for it.

While I don't agree with the Libertarian plan to immediately remove
all of our troops from Iraq, I don't believe this plan will really
harm things any more than Bush or Kerry's plans there (and actually
he's given vague notions of inspiring volunteers who believe in the
rebuilding effort to go help out), and I do agree with the Libertarian
plans for future defense of our country, which includes tracking down
actual terrorists against our nation rather than tromping all around
the world in a vague, never-ending "War on Terror" that will be about
as successful as the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Poverty".
>> Permanent Link >>

Three Options: You Decide 2004

NAM: "We here at the 'NAM would like you to consider the following of three options for 2004:

1. You can pick your major party candidate that you think is the "lesser evil" of what clearly is two common evils. If you aren't interested in making government smaller and limiting it's growth then be prepared for an era of expansionism unlike any of those ever before it, and the possible repercussions that might occur from such a decision.

2. You can support some other of the lesser third parties or simply not vote in 2004. Since very few other political third parties even advocate smaller government (most are openly Socialist), you can rest assured that your actions will encourage and endorse major party candidates to continue government expansionism. Those parties know they have your vote in times of dire need because you will be supporting their ideas.

3. You can stop playing with "lesser evils" and support the only party that will consistently promote both civil liberties and free markets in the Constitutional manner intended by the American Founding Fathers, the United States Libertarian Party. Your vote is not only a vote for the Presidency, it's a display to politicians that says "We want smaller government! Small balanced budgets, fewer government regulations and less overall taxes... or you don't get my vote!" With moderate public support, Libertarians can become the leading political interest in Washington, which would allow them to spread their ideas not only amongst major parties but amongst popular media outlets that are vital to promote party growth. There is an outstanding opportunity for reform of the existing major parties and the growth of a new, powerful third party - but to effect this real political change you must take a stand and support Libertarian ideas."
>> Permanent Link >>

Media Ignores Third Largest Party

Badnarik/Campagna '04 for President: "The major media networks have been willfully ignoring alternative voices in this presidential election, focusing only on the two major parties, Democrat and Republican. We acknowledge that the majority of America aligns itself with one major party or the other and there will be undoubtedly be an imbalance in coverage in favor of these two parties. Yet, with the exception of Ralph Nader (a celebrity), we have documented a complete blackout, or 'spiking', of third party candidates and their platforms (specific to Badnarik, but other 3rd party candidates are equally discriminated against):

CNN - 0 mentions (interesting, considering the LP convention was hosted in the same city as their headquarters, Atlanta GA)
FoxNews - 6 mentions (0 since July 20th)
MSNBC - 4 mentions
ABC News - says 24 mentions, only 5 shown
CBS News - 0 mentions"
>> Permanent Link >>

A-Bomb Peace (The Only True Peace)

"My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins here because for a century-and-a-half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific."

George W. Bush
February 18, 2002
A century-and-a-half of peace, interrupted by World War II. Speaking in Tokyo.
>> Permanent Link >>

Articles on Google Censorship

Google News China Omits Results

China's Orwellian Internet

My Experience of Google's Censorship

Oh, whoops, just realized it's just Google News China which is censoring search results. That's okay, apparently, because the Chinese government has asked them to. I just hope google is also ensuring that we Americans don't see any sites George W. doesn't want us to.
>> Permanent Link >>

Google Censorship

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:04:41 +0900, Jeremy wrote:

Please register my complaint over google's blatant censorship of pages
on which to include its ads. Of course the ads that used to appear on
my site (ads for Kerry, ads for checking the current status of the
election, and other political ads) fit perfectly with my site and
would provide a very valuable experience for both your advertisers and
my users. The presidential election is exactly what my users are
interested in, and of course POLITICAL WEBSITES will contain
controversial topics! Where the hell are your political ads going if
they cannot go on sites that may contain "sensetive" content?

Jeremy
--see all prior correspondence below--

From: Jeremy
Subject: Technical Questions
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:05:57 -0700

Hello. I added adsense to my website a few weeks ago, and it was working
great. There were many ads and they were perfectly targeted to my site.
Then I changed it to allow image ads about a week ago. All of a sudden
there were only public service ads, and despite changing my code back to
text only, the public service ads are persisiting. How can I get the ads
back? Please help!

Thanks,
Jeremy

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:59:38 -0700, Google AdSense
wrote:
> Hello Jeremy,
>
> Thank you for your email and welcome to AdSense. I have examined your
site
> and researched this issue. We are constantly revising our content
> targeting algorithms in order to deliver the most relevant ads to web
> pages. While this system works very well, there are a small number of
> pages where poorly targeted or non-paying ads will show up. Regretfully,
> the page you sent us appears to fit into this group. Thank you for
> bringing this to our attention; your feedback will help us improve our
> content targeting servers to prevent this issue.
>
> Please feel free to reply to this email if you have additional questions
> or concerns.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chris
> The Google Team

From: Jeremy
Subject: Re: [#15280575] Technical Questions
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:29:21 +0900

Thanks for your answer. However, there is something not right going
on. The page does work with targeted ads, as they were perfectly
targeted just over a week ago. Also, several similar websites have
perfectly targeted google ads, including image ads. I don't
understand how mine could work perfectly for a week and then stop.
Did all of those advertisers pull out?

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:28:26 -0700, Google AdSense
adsense-support@google.com> wrote:
Hello Jeremy,

Thank you for your reply. Please note that we currently do not run paid
Google ads on web pages that are determined to contain potentially
sensitive content by our automatic contextual advertising system.

While reviewing your blog, I noticed that you have an entry that discusses
abortion issues. Many of the ads that would appear on your site would not
be relevant to your blog's content. Therefore, the ads would not provide a
valuable experience for your site's users or our advertisers.

Because our system automatically classifies web pages based on the type of
content, the ads appearing on the page you mentioned are public service ads,
for which you do not receive earnings. Thank you for your understanding.

Please feel free to reply to this email if you have additional questions
or concerns.

Sincerely,

Chris
The Google Team
>> Permanent Link >>

3 Party Debate?

LIBERTARIANS GET THEIR DAY IN COURT

**Phoenix, AZ - The case has been filed, the orders have been served, and the hearing has been scheduled. On Tuesday, the Superior Court of Maricopa County will decide whether or not taxpayer money can be used to present campaign commercials for favored political parties and their candidates.

At issue is the exclusion of Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate, from a Wednesday event at Arizona State University in Tempe.

“The media refers to this event as a ‘debate,’” says Stephen Gordon, Badnarik’s communications director. “But there are three candidates on the ballot in Arizona, and the University, in collusion with an allegedly non-partisan, allegedly non-profit organization, is spending about $2 million to publicize the views of only two of them."**

Read the full text of the article here.
>> Permanent Link >>

Badnarik Arrest

AP Wire | 10/08/2004 | University glows in presidential debate spotlight: "Just as the debate began, two third-party presidential candidates purposely crossed a police barricade and were arrested. Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik were protesting their exclusion from the debate.

Cobb's message: 'To expose the undemocratic nature of these debate, this election and our government. These are not debates, these are infomercials.'"
>> Permanent Link >>

"The President just said something . . . very important" --John Kerry

"Well I can't say it any more plainly." --George W. Bush
>> Permanent Link >>

Eliza v. Candid

"Senator Kerry . . . though he was controlled, and organized, and 'presidential' has always seemed like a phony to me, a manufactured, plastic candidate." --Candid Spirit

"It scared me that Bush's response to a serious issue during the debate was the comment 'I'm a pretty relaxed guy, I don't take it personally.'" --Eliza

To see the complete text of what I'm responding to, click here.

Eliza and Candid Spirit, you both have excellent points. I nominate the two of you for the next debate. Only, I don't like either of your points FOR a particular candidate, just Eliza's points AGAINST Bush and Candid's points AGAINST Kerry.

You're both right. Eliza, Bush's style, while popular with many who feel they could get along with him because he's a "regular guy", does not inspire confidence. As Candid pointed out, he seemed like he really didn't want to be at that debate, and he often seems very uncomfortable when in front of any audience not filled with Republicans. This doesn't inspire confidence as a world leader. Also, he's just downright scary when he takes us into pre-emptive wars on faulty intelligence. Not that other nations didn't follow the same faulty intelligence, but at least Blair admited to the faulty intelligence. Bush just tries to change history and say we went to free the people of Iraq-how noble of us.

Kerry, on the other hand, also followed this faulty intelligence. And not only did he vote to give Bush the authority to pre-emptively strike Iraq, but he said last month that if he had it to do over again, he'd vote the same way--even knowing what we know now. Where does Kerry stand on the issues? What will he really do in Iraq? We do know that he plans to send more troops. Apart from that, we know what he said over and over again in the debate--Bush messed up the war and as president, Kerry would have handled it differently. We just don't have a clue what he would have done differently.

Only one candidate plans to bring the troops home. Only one candidate plans to make the U.S. military a defensive military again rather than an offensive one. Only one candidate wants to return America to the values of Thomas Jefferson--"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." You two watched a sham of a debate. Despite the heavy handed rhetoric, the two candidates have equally bad plans for America. Watch the real debate which included Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. Vote for liberty, vote for peace.
>> Permanent Link >>

The Real Debate

Just finished watching the real debate: "DEBATES SHOWED THAT NEITHER BUSH NOR KERRY IS FIT TO BE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF".

Although I've read much about Michael Badnarik online, this was the first time I've actually heard him speak. I must say he was excellent in the debate, and I'm proud to support him as my choice for President of the United States.
>> Permanent Link >>

Which Came First? So Is an Egg a Chicken?

Have you ever opened up a free range egg and discovered a little black spot that you realized was a chicken fetus? Did you look on the fetus' early demise as a tragedy as deep as a baby chicken dying? Thus is a simple argument for the pro-choice cause which works for me.

Many (especially evangelical Christians in America) see a fertilized human egg as a human being. But do you see a fertilized chicken egg as a chicken? It seems so simple that the egg is simply a mass of cells with the potential to become a chicken. Yet when, in humans, that egg remains inside the potential mother (and thus remains a part of her body), so many define it as a human. Why?

My girlfriend, Eliza, made a good point while we were discussing the subject the other day. When humans (particularly in the west, where we have time on our hands) discover that they are pregnant (and they want to be, so they tell their friends and family), their fertilized egg is immediately defined as a baby by all who are excited by the news. Many find out as soon as possible whether it will be a boy or a girl so that they can rush out and buy things blue or pink. Then, if things go wrong, it's a tragedy. Well, of course it's a tragedy to the expectant parents if they are hoping to have a baby. But has a person really died? Or has nature merely taken its common course of not developing a fertilized egg to fruition? Sadly for the expectant mother and father, it was simply not meant to be.

I certainly don't believe that abortion is a choice that should be made without great thought. And I don't believe that people should have un-safe sex and then use abortion as a contraceptive. Abortion has proven to be psychologically damaging on many who choose it, and therefore great care must be taken to prevent uneccesary abortions. But that doesn't mean those who are unwilling (or simply unable) to care for a child should be forced to allow that fertilized egg to develop into a person who needs care.

I, and a majority of Libertarians (although certainly not all--see Libertarians for Life), believe that government should stay out of this issue. This means not only should it not ban abortions (or, God forbid, mandate them--see China), but it should not be in the business of paying for them. We understand that good people can disagree on this issue, and it is particularly harsh to force taxpayers who do believe that abortion is murder to pay for it.
>> Permanent Link >>

Eisenhower Son Endorses Kerry

JohnnaRyry's Soapbox: Eisenhower on Kerry...: "I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one's parents or of our own ingrained habits."

I also urge everyone to avoid voting for a ticket mereley because it carries the label of the party of one's parents or of our own ingrained habits. However, I take it one step further and ask that people quit thinking in the box that says we must vote for either a Republican or a Democrat. In exit polling in 1992, a majority of people said they would have voted for Ross Perot, if they thought he had a chance of winning. I'm no Perot fan, but if that is what the majority wanted, it's what should have happened. If everyone would quit being so concerned with "wasting their vote" on a third party, third (and maybe fourth and fifth) parties would change politics from the mind numbing Republicrats. Think about it.
>> Permanent Link >>