Per an associated press story, posted today, Japan forgave 80% of Iraq's debt owed to Japan.
Japan is a member of the Paris Club of main creditor nations, which last year agreed to reduce by 80 percent the $38.9 billion Iraq owed to its member states.
The US has forgiven 100% of the Iraqi debt owed. While the US taxpayer has paid for this "debt forgiveness", it will aid Iraq in bringing their economy off the ground. Taxes in Iraq may be able to remain a little lower therefore leaving more money in the hands of Iraqi citizens.
Interesting tid-bit from the Associate Press article; Japan's constitution bans the use of force in settling international disputes...
Friday, November 25, 2005
Monday, November 21, 2005
History Will Not Be Rewrit
"This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety..." - Vice President, Dick Cheney
VP Dick Cheney today went on the obvious offensive. He did everything but recount the names of those congressman who first voted for the use of force in Iraq in 2002 and now are accusing the President of lying and suggesting a full US troop pullout of Iraq is necessary.
Senator Joe Biden is strattling the fence. He has announced his congruence with US forces remaining in Iraq, however he thinks the US goals should change.
All comments will be posted in Democrat Blue or Republican Red. According to a Fox News story;
"The president has to abandon his grandiose goals. Iraq will not become a model democracy anytime soon. We need to refocus our mission on preserving America's fundamental interests in Iraq..." - Senator Biden.
Senator Biden's three goals for Iraq ;
1) coming to a political settlement giving all of Iraq's major groups a stake in keeping the country together
2) strengthening the Iraq's government ability to deliver basic services and revamp reconstruction
3) speeding up the training of Iraqi security forces and transfer control to them.
It appears Senator Biden is not breaking any new ground here;
1) "All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected." - President Bush, February 26, 2003, speech to the American Enterprise Institute.
2) The second is vague and basic services are being met more everyday, and what is "revamp" reconstruction? "Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before, and the peace that followed a world war." -President Bush, (same speech)
3) Regardless of whether US forces were training 1 new Iraqi Security force per day or churning out 1000/day, Senator Biden may say the training needs to "speed up." A "pullout strategy" may be some democrats confusing their politics with intamacy issues and their partners.
The US public thanks Senator Biden for the specificity in his vagueness.
The three most important quotes from the article show the divide down party lines and what decisions should be made to shape how future history will look. Also from the same FoxNews article See who said what...
a) Rep John Murtha D- stated; ...in recent months he [Rep Murcha] has grown increasingly troubled with the direction of the war and with the administration's handling of it... "The public turned against this war before I said it.."
b) Former Sen. John Breaux, D-La, said "the argument should be discussing strategies on how to end the war in Iraq...We’re not getting anywhere by staying the course..."
c) VP Dick Cheney, "..A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists... and a terrible blow to the future security of the United States of America.."
It is comforting to know the President has already ruled out cutting and running from Iraq. What is good for Iraqi's is also good for the US. This mutual benefit is true for all countries when the subject is national security. The first countries to step up to the plate and start swinging; US, Britian, Australia will be written into history as the leading members of the war against terrorism. For the members of the US Congress and other nation governments who have been so against this war for all reasons, arguable or illegitimate, I hope they come on board sooner vs later. However, in the pages of history, if the US started the War on Terror on page 1, I hope it is duly recorded they entered on page 24.
I encourage all to read the entire speech by President Bush to the American Enterprise Institute.
This President should be, and will be seated among the greatest of US Presidents. He has led during the "worst of times and the best of times." His many successes have been quickly overshadowed by his next challenge. For his desire early in his first term to bring Democrats and Republicans onto common grounds to actually make decisions. Martin Van Buren would be proud. Then President Bush and his Reagan inspired tax cuts. Finally, the War on Terror, no less important and pivotal a time as the World Wars I and II. These are three issues of many. No President has had a flawless term.
There are three more years for problems to arrive and this President to make decisions. He is the CEO of the greatest country. The CEO is there to lookout for the shareholders. MoreThanCorn opines; "The President is looking out for all of our interests very well."
This, I am confident will be what my children read in their history class. If not, there father will.
VP Dick Cheney today went on the obvious offensive. He did everything but recount the names of those congressman who first voted for the use of force in Iraq in 2002 and now are accusing the President of lying and suggesting a full US troop pullout of Iraq is necessary.
Senator Joe Biden is strattling the fence. He has announced his congruence with US forces remaining in Iraq, however he thinks the US goals should change.
All comments will be posted in Democrat Blue or Republican Red. According to a Fox News story;
"The president has to abandon his grandiose goals. Iraq will not become a model democracy anytime soon. We need to refocus our mission on preserving America's fundamental interests in Iraq..." - Senator Biden.
Senator Biden's three goals for Iraq ;
1) coming to a political settlement giving all of Iraq's major groups a stake in keeping the country together
2) strengthening the Iraq's government ability to deliver basic services and revamp reconstruction
3) speeding up the training of Iraqi security forces and transfer control to them.
It appears Senator Biden is not breaking any new ground here;
1) "All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected." - President Bush, February 26, 2003, speech to the American Enterprise Institute.
2) The second is vague and basic services are being met more everyday, and what is "revamp" reconstruction? "Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before, and the peace that followed a world war." -President Bush, (same speech)
3) Regardless of whether US forces were training 1 new Iraqi Security force per day or churning out 1000/day, Senator Biden may say the training needs to "speed up." A "pullout strategy" may be some democrats confusing their politics with intamacy issues and their partners.
The US public thanks Senator Biden for the specificity in his vagueness.
The three most important quotes from the article show the divide down party lines and what decisions should be made to shape how future history will look. Also from the same FoxNews article See who said what...
a) Rep John Murtha D- stated; ...in recent months he [Rep Murcha] has grown increasingly troubled with the direction of the war and with the administration's handling of it... "The public turned against this war before I said it.."
b) Former Sen. John Breaux, D-La, said "the argument should be discussing strategies on how to end the war in Iraq...We’re not getting anywhere by staying the course..."
c) VP Dick Cheney, "..A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists... and a terrible blow to the future security of the United States of America.."
It is comforting to know the President has already ruled out cutting and running from Iraq. What is good for Iraqi's is also good for the US. This mutual benefit is true for all countries when the subject is national security. The first countries to step up to the plate and start swinging; US, Britian, Australia will be written into history as the leading members of the war against terrorism. For the members of the US Congress and other nation governments who have been so against this war for all reasons, arguable or illegitimate, I hope they come on board sooner vs later. However, in the pages of history, if the US started the War on Terror on page 1, I hope it is duly recorded they entered on page 24.
I encourage all to read the entire speech by President Bush to the American Enterprise Institute.
This President should be, and will be seated among the greatest of US Presidents. He has led during the "worst of times and the best of times." His many successes have been quickly overshadowed by his next challenge. For his desire early in his first term to bring Democrats and Republicans onto common grounds to actually make decisions. Martin Van Buren would be proud. Then President Bush and his Reagan inspired tax cuts. Finally, the War on Terror, no less important and pivotal a time as the World Wars I and II. These are three issues of many. No President has had a flawless term.
There are three more years for problems to arrive and this President to make decisions. He is the CEO of the greatest country. The CEO is there to lookout for the shareholders. MoreThanCorn opines; "The President is looking out for all of our interests very well."
This, I am confident will be what my children read in their history class. If not, there father will.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Time "Brain Drain Europe" (article link only)
Time Europe wrote article "How to Plug Europe's Brain Drain". Found article linked by heydudewhoa. Will read this evening and comment tomorrow.
.... 11/21 addition to post, have not met own timeline... will post comments on article soon.
.... 11/21 addition to post, have not met own timeline... will post comments on article soon.
Friday, November 11, 2005
President moves from Defense to Offense
As late as September 10, 2001, our country was on defense, back on our heals, regarding terrorism and the growing danger. The War on Terror has been one of offense since September 14, 2001, when President Bush spoke from the National Cathedral in Washington and made a vow to bring to justice, those who caused so many to die.
"Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not have the distance of history, but our responsibility to history is clear. That responsibility is to answer these attacks, and rid the world of evil." - President Bush, Washington National Cathedral, Sept 14, 2001.
It may be in short order, one may look back and see the Veteran's Day speech by President Bush as the speech turning his political opponents onto their heals. After about 2 years of accusations by Senators Chuck Schumar of NY , John Kerry & Ted Kennedy of MA and others in the house and senate, the President may have reached his limit with what he has heard and the apparent effects it is having on public opinion of the war, troop morale and the "writing of history."
The President today went on the offense. Read the President's Veterans Day speech from Pennsylvania and read an article from CNN.
The MSM and Harry Reid have decided the President's speech today is purely politically driven and feels it was done because Bush's approval ratings are heading down. Maybe Harry Reid wants the approval rating of the President to continue to drop. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer have something to gain directly from the President being discreditted, rightfully or not.
"Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not have the distance of history, but our responsibility to history is clear. That responsibility is to answer these attacks, and rid the world of evil." - President Bush, Washington National Cathedral, Sept 14, 2001.
It may be in short order, one may look back and see the Veteran's Day speech by President Bush as the speech turning his political opponents onto their heals. After about 2 years of accusations by Senators Chuck Schumar of NY , John Kerry & Ted Kennedy of MA and others in the house and senate, the President may have reached his limit with what he has heard and the apparent effects it is having on public opinion of the war, troop morale and the "writing of history."
The President today went on the offense. Read the President's Veterans Day speech from Pennsylvania and read an article from CNN.
The MSM and Harry Reid have decided the President's speech today is purely politically driven and feels it was done because Bush's approval ratings are heading down. Maybe Harry Reid wants the approval rating of the President to continue to drop. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer have something to gain directly from the President being discreditted, rightfully or not.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Amman Bombings
Detailed and hear-wrenching article by Washington Post about Amman, Jordan suicide bombings by al Queda.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Philadelphia Union, Helping or Hurting Economy?
The Philadelphia Transit union folks are on strike. This is effecting 920,000 rides per weekday per the article. If a person goes to a destination, then at the end of the day the get home probably using the Transit system again. This number could probably be divided in half. About 460,000 people are advsersley effected by the strike.
Per the AP article, the president of the local union stated the following, justifying the order to strike;
"Members of Transport Workers Union Local 234 have not had a raise since December 2003. SEPTA is the fifth-largest transit agency in the country but workers' wages rank 20th, according to TWU president Jeff Brooks."
Is Jeff Brooks suggesting the fifth largest transit agency should be ranked fifth in wages? If the previous was truly the relationship (wage relative to transit membership size), then I as a union member would find out, "Which city has the largest transit authority? They must pay the most!"
Union leaders also rejected a 9 percent pay increase over three years... "They did offer the raise with one hand and then withdrew it with the other hand," Bedard (TWU spokesman) said. "Under their health care proposal, if you or your spouse or kid ended up having to go to the hospital for five days, you'd spend your whole raise."
The union currently pays 0% of their health care premium. They are being asked to pay for 5% under the new contract. The argument by Bedard above appears purely emotional. If MoreThanCorn spends 5 days in the hospital, the amount spent would erase much of his last raise as well. The raise is a "free 5 days in the hospital" from the employer. But if no one goes to the hospital, the union member gets to pocket it. It still sounds like a raise to me. Everyone has to spend something when they go to the hospital...except the poorest of our nation and illegal immigrants.
On the TWU Local 234 website in Philadelphia, one can read; union President, Jeff Brooks had recently been appointed to PA Transportation Funding and Reform Commission. President Brooks is quoted as saying, “The Commission provides an historic opportunity to make a positive impact for the environment, the economy and in the daily lives of the millions of people who depend on public transit to get to work, to attend school, to shop and to worship."
Tomorrow morning, TWU local 234 members will not be at work, or on the picketting line. The rest of the "Commonwealth" will be walking or finding a ride to work.
Per the AP article, the president of the local union stated the following, justifying the order to strike;
"Members of Transport Workers Union Local 234 have not had a raise since December 2003. SEPTA is the fifth-largest transit agency in the country but workers' wages rank 20th, according to TWU president Jeff Brooks."
Is Jeff Brooks suggesting the fifth largest transit agency should be ranked fifth in wages? If the previous was truly the relationship (wage relative to transit membership size), then I as a union member would find out, "Which city has the largest transit authority? They must pay the most!"
Union leaders also rejected a 9 percent pay increase over three years... "They did offer the raise with one hand and then withdrew it with the other hand," Bedard (TWU spokesman) said. "Under their health care proposal, if you or your spouse or kid ended up having to go to the hospital for five days, you'd spend your whole raise."
The union currently pays 0% of their health care premium. They are being asked to pay for 5% under the new contract. The argument by Bedard above appears purely emotional. If MoreThanCorn spends 5 days in the hospital, the amount spent would erase much of his last raise as well. The raise is a "free 5 days in the hospital" from the employer. But if no one goes to the hospital, the union member gets to pocket it. It still sounds like a raise to me. Everyone has to spend something when they go to the hospital...except the poorest of our nation and illegal immigrants.
On the TWU Local 234 website in Philadelphia, one can read; union President, Jeff Brooks had recently been appointed to PA Transportation Funding and Reform Commission. President Brooks is quoted as saying, “The Commission provides an historic opportunity to make a positive impact for the environment, the economy and in the daily lives of the millions of people who depend on public transit to get to work, to attend school, to shop and to worship."
Tomorrow morning, TWU local 234 members will not be at work, or on the picketting line. The rest of the "Commonwealth" will be walking or finding a ride to work.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
The Importance of Being News
The announcement the Iraq Consitution passed by more then 3/4 of the Iraqi public who voted, is a landmark by many standards. Over 9 million Iraqis showed up to cast their ballot. Over 3 to 1 in favor of the new Constitution.
First, by any election or voting standards, for 3/4 of the voting public to concur is nothing less then a landslide. It answers unequivocally what the "mainstream" of Iraq wants for themselves. It is safe to venture, for most of these 78% who voted for the new constitution, they are motivated by either or both; a) A free, democratic Iraq or b) Anything other then a Totalitarian Dictatorship.
Second, this could be a point where support for the Iraqi democracy and inseperable issue of the war on terror (being centrally waged in Iraq) could begin to flow in favor, after ebbing out of favor for so long.
First, by any election or voting standards, for 3/4 of the voting public to concur is nothing less then a landslide. It answers unequivocally what the "mainstream" of Iraq wants for themselves. It is safe to venture, for most of these 78% who voted for the new constitution, they are motivated by either or both; a) A free, democratic Iraq or b) Anything other then a Totalitarian Dictatorship.
Second, this could be a point where support for the Iraqi democracy and inseperable issue of the war on terror (being centrally waged in Iraq) could begin to flow in favor, after ebbing out of favor for so long.
Per a FoxNews article posted 10/25, the perennial supporters for both Iraq democracy and the war on terror, the US, UK and Italy have voiced their approval and support. Australia was not quoted.
"It's a landmark day in the history of Iraq," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
"We congratulate the Iraqi people. ... The political process is continuing to move forward in Iraq, and it is an encouraging sign to see more and more people participating in the process."
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Iraqis "have shown again their determination to defy the terrorists and take part in the democratic process."
Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini also welcomed the results, saying Italy would keep supporting the political process in the country.
Third, Afghanistan was the first country to choose democracy in a new "era" of democracies. Iraq is the second. The opposition to the Iraq war was overwhelming if strictly nation governments are counted. Counting rearward in time of wars past, all successful wars in which the US was central in the war effort, garnered strong support of US citizenry and of world nations. Vietnam was the only problem war. As US support waned, we pulled out.
The pessimism and, at best, lukewarm opinions (opposition) toward the war by countries such as Russia, Spain, France and Germany, may soon have little or no justification because of continued success in the new Iraq. After 8 million Iraqi ballets were cast for the intial Parliamentary elections and now a (9+ million) 78% voter approval of the constituion, it is apparent the citizens of Iraq are more determined to gain their own democracy then the insurgents are at impeding it.
Fourth, As the US started with the toppling of the brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, and continued taking the war on terror to the middle east, the US and allies are making progress. It is apparent Al Queda and the "insurgents" no this as well. Bombs and body counts are focused on Iraqi citizenry more now then US soldiers. It may be 30 or 40 Iraqi citizens killed by the terrorists for every US soldier taken. The strategy of the terrorists have appeared to change. Their desperation is apparent.
Fifth, As the president may have encouraged in his second inagural address.; With the democratizing of both Afghanistan, Iraq this is encouraging a movement in the entire middle east for the young members of Muslim countries to call for more freedom. On the horizon we see a new democratic Palestine, possibly Syria and Iran, Eastern European.
The battle is still on for support for the war on terror and the spread of democracy. The biggest enemy may be hear at home, the American Media. Why? Because whomever shapes the support of the US public, has the wild card and maybe the most power.
CNN's top story on 10/25 was about the death of the 2000th soldier. No where to be found was a link for the voting outcome of the Iraqi referendum. This is why the 2000th soldier has died. For a cause. James Kinlow of Georgia.
There is little or no mention of the referendum passing in any of these articles;
10/25/2005
WashingtonPost.com, (2000th)
ABCNews.com a top story (2000th).
While Al Jazeera.com has articles which are eerily similar to articles read recently on CNN, MSNBC, ABC and CBS.
10/26/2005
ABC News.com story; (2001st)
USA Today; (2000th)
10/27/2005
NewsDay article; (2000th)
Village Voice; (2000th)
A list is also being kept of the articles which appear to be supportive Iraq democracy and War on Terror. The list is one. The author, may not be a suprise.
Michelle Malkin (2000th).
Thursday, October 13, 2005
"Zawahiri's Lament", from Wall Street Journal online
Opinion Journal posted an article today in Review & Outlook, "Zawahiri's Lament". Be sure to click to read Zawahiri's letter (possibly from Pakistan) to Zarquawai (in Iraq).
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Free Health Care
Finish what you are eating and have seat prior to reading this article. Subject; Russian and North Korean health care. Found the article care of HeyDudeWhoa who truly finds the most interesting articles.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Oil For Food - Another Arrest
Per the Foxnews article posted today, a French citizen, formerly Under Secretary General has been arrested by French Police in connection with possible Oil For Food issues.
George Washington Univ Student to Serve, Again
HeyDudeWhoa posted an article found about a student trying to graduate from college, however he has already served 2 tours in Iraq, maybe starting his 3rd. It appears the student has no qualms about going again. He is ready to serve because he believes in the cause.
Very inspiring story. Well written article by the GW Newspaper. The George Washington Hatchett. If this article is a representation of the paper, the writing and editting staff are some professional young folks. The GW Hatchett spares us the banality of large newspapers.
Very inspiring story. Well written article by the GW Newspaper. The George Washington Hatchett. If this article is a representation of the paper, the writing and editting staff are some professional young folks. The GW Hatchett spares us the banality of large newspapers.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Washington Post Op-Ed, Definately "Opinion"
Bill Bennett is quoted by many articles and pundit’s recently as saying, “You could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” This comment appears to be vial and immoral when read. However, it is the opinion of MoreThanCorn Bill Bennett has had his name tarnished by a few who have “selectively quoted” him. This one sentence by Former Education Secretary Bennett was preceded and followed by other dialogue between him and a caller. It may be important to read what was said, the entire dialogue, before making a judgement on Bill Bennett.
William Raspberry, Op-Ed Columnist for the Washington Post, wrote an article published today; A Better Cure Than Abortion Mr. Raspberry has earned the respect of MoreThanCorn with his past writing. As of the above article, Mr. Raspberry’s respect has taken a misstep and fell into libel with the article being published. He has not done his research on Bill Bennett’s statement. Without Mr. Bennett being readily available to retort, this could loosely be considered slanderous.
Will Raspberry should look no further then fellow Washington Post Op-Ed Columnist, Richard Cohen and the article he wrote on Oct 4, 05, This Is the Free-Speech Party? An important point Mr Cohen makes in paragraph 5 & 6;
[Bill Bennett] “Responding to a caller who argued that if abortion were outlawed the Social Security trust fund would benefit -- more people, more contributions, was the apparent (idiotic) reasoning -- Bennett said, sure, he understood what the fellow was saying. It was similar to the theory that the low crime rate of recent years was the consequence of high abortion rates: the fewer African American males born, the fewer crimes committed. (Young black males commit a disproportionate share of crime.) This theory has been around for some time. Bennett was not referring to anything new.
But he did add something very important: If implemented, the idea would be "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do."
MoreThanCorn summation; If those on the William Raspberry and Nancy Pelosi bandwagon would slow their rhetorical comments long enough to listen to the entire recording, they would both see the benefits of such constructive (and philosophical) arguments. Raspberry, Pelosi and others could focus their energies on debate on how to fix the true crime of Fatherless Black Children.
A footnote to William Raspberry and the Washington Post; your article is well written and enjoyable to read. Your ability to write and provoke thought is now tradition. Those who write well, provoke thought and have the medium for publishing their views also have a moral obligation to be objective and fair.
William Raspberry, Op-Ed Columnist for the Washington Post, wrote an article published today; A Better Cure Than Abortion Mr. Raspberry has earned the respect of MoreThanCorn with his past writing. As of the above article, Mr. Raspberry’s respect has taken a misstep and fell into libel with the article being published. He has not done his research on Bill Bennett’s statement. Without Mr. Bennett being readily available to retort, this could loosely be considered slanderous.
Will Raspberry should look no further then fellow Washington Post Op-Ed Columnist, Richard Cohen and the article he wrote on Oct 4, 05, This Is the Free-Speech Party? An important point Mr Cohen makes in paragraph 5 & 6;
[Bill Bennett] “Responding to a caller who argued that if abortion were outlawed the Social Security trust fund would benefit -- more people, more contributions, was the apparent (idiotic) reasoning -- Bennett said, sure, he understood what the fellow was saying. It was similar to the theory that the low crime rate of recent years was the consequence of high abortion rates: the fewer African American males born, the fewer crimes committed. (Young black males commit a disproportionate share of crime.) This theory has been around for some time. Bennett was not referring to anything new.
But he did add something very important: If implemented, the idea would be "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do."
MoreThanCorn summation; If those on the William Raspberry and Nancy Pelosi bandwagon would slow their rhetorical comments long enough to listen to the entire recording, they would both see the benefits of such constructive (and philosophical) arguments. Raspberry, Pelosi and others could focus their energies on debate on how to fix the true crime of Fatherless Black Children.
A footnote to William Raspberry and the Washington Post; your article is well written and enjoyable to read. Your ability to write and provoke thought is now tradition. Those who write well, provoke thought and have the medium for publishing their views also have a moral obligation to be objective and fair.
Friday, October 07, 2005
T-Shirt Lady
HeyDudeWhoa has an Oct 7 post worth reading on the subject of the Washington lady wearing her expletive intensive t-shirt on the airline; http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/06/D8D2NNROD.html.
Not only is she wearing a t-shirt with offensive language... justifying the wearing of the shirt by stating family are in Iraq fighting... but two of the key facts here are; 1) she is 32 years old and 2) a lumber salesman per the article.
Paint the picture of who this person may be; young, but old enough to be a professional. Is it safe to conclude since her husband was sitting with her on the flight, he condones his wife's behavior and fashion sense? For there 15 minutes of fame, I think they failed. My first impressions of these two people, also a failure.
Be sure to read the bottom of the article;
"McInnis said Southwest rules allow the airline to deny boarding to any passenger whose clothing is "lewd, obscene or patently offensive."
But Allen Lichtenstein, lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union in Las Vegas, said it "might be problematic" that the airline "changed rules in the middle of a flight.""
Mr Lichtenstein is suggesting the airline changed the rules in mid-flight. Apparently the ACLU would not have a problem with the airline, if upon realizing the lewd t-shirt made it past boarding, the stewards(ess'es) could have thrown a parachute on Lori Heasley and asked to her to get off the plane.
Her name is Lori Heasley. And she is proud to be an American.
Not only is she wearing a t-shirt with offensive language... justifying the wearing of the shirt by stating family are in Iraq fighting... but two of the key facts here are; 1) she is 32 years old and 2) a lumber salesman per the article.
Paint the picture of who this person may be; young, but old enough to be a professional. Is it safe to conclude since her husband was sitting with her on the flight, he condones his wife's behavior and fashion sense? For there 15 minutes of fame, I think they failed. My first impressions of these two people, also a failure.
Be sure to read the bottom of the article;
"McInnis said Southwest rules allow the airline to deny boarding to any passenger whose clothing is "lewd, obscene or patently offensive."
But Allen Lichtenstein, lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union in Las Vegas, said it "might be problematic" that the airline "changed rules in the middle of a flight.""
Mr Lichtenstein is suggesting the airline changed the rules in mid-flight. Apparently the ACLU would not have a problem with the airline, if upon realizing the lewd t-shirt made it past boarding, the stewards(ess'es) could have thrown a parachute on Lori Heasley and asked to her to get off the plane.
Her name is Lori Heasley. And she is proud to be an American.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Bill Bennett, Media & Kennedy Attempt to Destroy His Name
MoreThanCorn often listens to Bill Bennett’s “Morning in America”. While this show was not heard in person, I do no how very careful Mr Bennett is when discussing any issue which could flare up. He chooses his words carefully and simply speaks for academic thought.
Read the article;
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170840,00.html
There are quotes from the show. Decide for yourself. It appears to MorethanCorn, this was an honest dialogue with a caller, taken out of context and now is being used by Nanci Pelosi and others to make their civil rights stand, try to be seen as a racial hero, show America their caring and Bill Bennett’s uncaring.
This kind of attacking to make a political statement or to destroy the name of a great American is what is reprehensible. All this attacking will do, is lessen the opportunities for publicly debating tough issues. More people will not want to bring up issues for discourse for they are afraid of how their monologue will be taken. A shame.
Listen to his show yourself. He is on early. Mr Bennett has the MoreThanCorn support.
Read the article;
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170840,00.html
There are quotes from the show. Decide for yourself. It appears to MorethanCorn, this was an honest dialogue with a caller, taken out of context and now is being used by Nanci Pelosi and others to make their civil rights stand, try to be seen as a racial hero, show America their caring and Bill Bennett’s uncaring.
This kind of attacking to make a political statement or to destroy the name of a great American is what is reprehensible. All this attacking will do, is lessen the opportunities for publicly debating tough issues. More people will not want to bring up issues for discourse for they are afraid of how their monologue will be taken. A shame.
Listen to his show yourself. He is on early. Mr Bennett has the MoreThanCorn support.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Gay Support Should Come From Voters
Governor Swarzenegger vetoed today “California’s Gender-Neutral Same-Sex Marriage Bill (AB 849)”. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/glrts/caab849.html
MoreThanCorn does support many gay causes. What is not acceptable is the use of the courts to move the agenda forward. The California Legislature introduced the bill with the following:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act."
As MoreThanCorn has written regarding “changing minds”; As the older generations who are less inclusive, are replaced by younger generations, the anti-homosexual crowd will dwindle in numbers. Inclusion is a Christ like quality. As a man of faith it appears to MoreThanCorn there should not necessarily be acceptance of the life style, however acceptance of the person. One can disagree with a life style and still accept the individual.
Marriage is not a “State Institution” it is a religious institution supported by the state. MoreThanCorn, while not versed well in law, has the previous opinion. The Act proposed by
California made a couple points worth arguing against;
(c) In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage. It was the only state supreme court to do so before the United States Supreme Court invalidated all those laws in 1967. The California Supreme Court held that "marriage is . . . something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men...Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws" (Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 714-15).
It appears to be inappropriate to compare a race based issue with a gay marriage subject. I would be offended if I were a man of color.
It was also troublesome to read the California Legislature decided it necessary to add to the bill, the decisions Canada has made with regard to gay marriage.
(e)…The highest courts in seven Canadian provinces have similarly ruled that marriage laws that discriminate in favor of different-sex couples to the exclusion of same-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples and cannot stand.
Does the California Legislature always look to other countries to justify there own opinions? The United States should have stopped making decisions based on laws from other countries after the late 1700’s. Many of our own laws have grown out of British Common law and there were adoptions of others for sure, however to continue this trend in 2005 would be a step rearward.
Now it appears from the article on Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170835,00.html) the decision will be made by either the voters in California or the California Supreme Court. I hope it is the voters who decide what to do with the future of marriage. Many like to throw around “equal opportunity” and “civil rights.” These phrases help describe what is fair. How fair would it be for the California voters to not have a decision in the definition of marriage? We shall see the side The Civil Liberties Union will take on this case. History shows support for judicial decisions.
MoreThanCorn does support many gay causes. What is not acceptable is the use of the courts to move the agenda forward. The California Legislature introduced the bill with the following:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act."
As MoreThanCorn has written regarding “changing minds”; As the older generations who are less inclusive, are replaced by younger generations, the anti-homosexual crowd will dwindle in numbers. Inclusion is a Christ like quality. As a man of faith it appears to MoreThanCorn there should not necessarily be acceptance of the life style, however acceptance of the person. One can disagree with a life style and still accept the individual.
Marriage is not a “State Institution” it is a religious institution supported by the state. MoreThanCorn, while not versed well in law, has the previous opinion. The Act proposed by
California made a couple points worth arguing against;
(c) In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage. It was the only state supreme court to do so before the United States Supreme Court invalidated all those laws in 1967. The California Supreme Court held that "marriage is . . . something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men...Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws" (Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 714-15).
It appears to be inappropriate to compare a race based issue with a gay marriage subject. I would be offended if I were a man of color.
It was also troublesome to read the California Legislature decided it necessary to add to the bill, the decisions Canada has made with regard to gay marriage.
(e)…The highest courts in seven Canadian provinces have similarly ruled that marriage laws that discriminate in favor of different-sex couples to the exclusion of same-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples and cannot stand.
Does the California Legislature always look to other countries to justify there own opinions? The United States should have stopped making decisions based on laws from other countries after the late 1700’s. Many of our own laws have grown out of British Common law and there were adoptions of others for sure, however to continue this trend in 2005 would be a step rearward.
Now it appears from the article on Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170835,00.html) the decision will be made by either the voters in California or the California Supreme Court. I hope it is the voters who decide what to do with the future of marriage. Many like to throw around “equal opportunity” and “civil rights.” These phrases help describe what is fair. How fair would it be for the California voters to not have a decision in the definition of marriage? We shall see the side The Civil Liberties Union will take on this case. History shows support for judicial decisions.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Media Overstatement of Katrina Disaster
Matt Drudge links an article from the LA Times today;
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rumors27sep27,0,5492806,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
I have been hearing more and more reports about the media and the mistatements of food supplies to body counts. The level of helplessness the media portrayed regarding those at the convention center and neighborhoods surround downtown New Orleans, may have contributed to the panic of millions of Houstonians for Rita.
These inaccuracies in reporting and what appears to be purposefully misleading statements appear to be motivated by a reporter wanting to get the biggest story and monumental footage.
Consider a situation;
Reporter Charlie works for a national affiliate for a national media company. He is sent out to cover the already hyped Katrina hurricane as it approaches the gulf coast. He is just south of the eye of the hurricane and getting pummelled by wind and rain. He issues a couple live reports showing the heavy winds and rain. Picture his wet face being buffetted by the winds and Charlie trying theatrically to both stay upright and hold his hood on his head.
Once the rain subsides he sees the aftermath of the hurricane in his area of the coast. It really is not very damaged. Branches and leaves from trees strewn everywhere. Some broken windows of a house and others have shingles missing (probably leaking water in the atticks). The is a low lying street just off the beach which is flooded up to the middle of car Ford Escort parked, left abandoned on the side of the empty street.
Yes, there is damage, however there is really only pretty standard information to report. Nothing absolutely rivetting or disastrous. Charlie probably feels pressure to get the breaking story and forward it to home base for broadcast. Charlie is faced with two choices. The first is to report everything how it is; some damage to homes, cars, trees, beach front... roads flooded, power out, and the city is empty. With this realistic picture of his assigned area, the storm did not cause a lot of relative damage compared to the hype prior to the storm hitting land. His reporting would be something like "This area faired pretty well. Damage is mainly what would be expected for a hurricane."
Or, the second is he could stand in the street which is flooded, with water up over his knees, show very close up footage of a large branch leaning against a house with part of the roof damaged, a front window blown out and someones dog roaming the streets wet and chilled. His reporting could be something like "Houses damaged, power out for unknown city blocks, trees felled, city streets are flooded and unnavigable." The two descriptions of the same scene are much different. Which of the reports would have been more likely to be aired by his employing affiliate or news company?
When you add pictures of corpses floating in water, a few leuters, and un-verified stories of rapes and robbings, killings and etc... occurring in the New Orleans Superdome, the picture can get very bleak, in hurry to the viewer. This hype could have easily spilled into Rita preparations by those in Texas.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rumors27sep27,0,5492806,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
I have been hearing more and more reports about the media and the mistatements of food supplies to body counts. The level of helplessness the media portrayed regarding those at the convention center and neighborhoods surround downtown New Orleans, may have contributed to the panic of millions of Houstonians for Rita.
These inaccuracies in reporting and what appears to be purposefully misleading statements appear to be motivated by a reporter wanting to get the biggest story and monumental footage.
Consider a situation;
Reporter Charlie works for a national affiliate for a national media company. He is sent out to cover the already hyped Katrina hurricane as it approaches the gulf coast. He is just south of the eye of the hurricane and getting pummelled by wind and rain. He issues a couple live reports showing the heavy winds and rain. Picture his wet face being buffetted by the winds and Charlie trying theatrically to both stay upright and hold his hood on his head.
Once the rain subsides he sees the aftermath of the hurricane in his area of the coast. It really is not very damaged. Branches and leaves from trees strewn everywhere. Some broken windows of a house and others have shingles missing (probably leaking water in the atticks). The is a low lying street just off the beach which is flooded up to the middle of car Ford Escort parked, left abandoned on the side of the empty street.
Yes, there is damage, however there is really only pretty standard information to report. Nothing absolutely rivetting or disastrous. Charlie probably feels pressure to get the breaking story and forward it to home base for broadcast. Charlie is faced with two choices. The first is to report everything how it is; some damage to homes, cars, trees, beach front... roads flooded, power out, and the city is empty. With this realistic picture of his assigned area, the storm did not cause a lot of relative damage compared to the hype prior to the storm hitting land. His reporting would be something like "This area faired pretty well. Damage is mainly what would be expected for a hurricane."
Or, the second is he could stand in the street which is flooded, with water up over his knees, show very close up footage of a large branch leaning against a house with part of the roof damaged, a front window blown out and someones dog roaming the streets wet and chilled. His reporting could be something like "Houses damaged, power out for unknown city blocks, trees felled, city streets are flooded and unnavigable." The two descriptions of the same scene are much different. Which of the reports would have been more likely to be aired by his employing affiliate or news company?
When you add pictures of corpses floating in water, a few leuters, and un-verified stories of rapes and robbings, killings and etc... occurring in the New Orleans Superdome, the picture can get very bleak, in hurry to the viewer. This hype could have easily spilled into Rita preparations by those in Texas.
Monday, September 26, 2005
The Poor & Single Mother
William Raspberry writes a brief article on some observations regarding the subject of poor, single moms.
"Poor Women's 'Magical Outlook'"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092600294.html
"Poor Women's 'Magical Outlook'"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092600294.html
Friday, September 23, 2005
Hamas and the Self Inflicted Casualty
Hamas is being faced with ramifications of "flaunting" homemade rockets at a rally in Gaza. The mishandling of the rockets has killed and wounded their own. The militant group who survives on the continued recruitment of impressionable Palestinian youth, has killed their own future members.
The most descriptive portion of the article is below. It shows the reader how counter productive the Hamas movement appears to be. Hamas really does not want peace. They only want to push Israel out of the Middle East and kill Jewish people.
Nearly 100 Casualties at Gaza Hamas Rally
Friday, September 23, 2005
Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170237,00.html
The rally was held in the Jebaliya refugee camp, one of the last military-style parades before a ban on flaunting weapons in public — agreed to by all militant groups — takes effect Saturday evening.
Witnesses said participants, including children, crowded around the pickup truck just before the explosion. The witnesses said the truck carried two homemade rockets.
One man, who only gave his first name, Hussam, said he helped pull three men out of the pickup, two of them dead and one still alive. The side of the pickup was charred.
The witness said he saw five dead children nearby. Dozens more were wounded. The Hamas military wing, Izzedine al Qassam, is popular with youngsters and when the pickup with the gunmen arrived at the rally, many crowded around the vehicle.
Also read the op-ed piece by Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post regarding a similar topic; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501617.html
The most descriptive portion of the article is below. It shows the reader how counter productive the Hamas movement appears to be. Hamas really does not want peace. They only want to push Israel out of the Middle East and kill Jewish people.
Nearly 100 Casualties at Gaza Hamas Rally
Friday, September 23, 2005
Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170237,00.html
The rally was held in the Jebaliya refugee camp, one of the last military-style parades before a ban on flaunting weapons in public — agreed to by all militant groups — takes effect Saturday evening.
Witnesses said participants, including children, crowded around the pickup truck just before the explosion. The witnesses said the truck carried two homemade rockets.
One man, who only gave his first name, Hussam, said he helped pull three men out of the pickup, two of them dead and one still alive. The side of the pickup was charred.
The witness said he saw five dead children nearby. Dozens more were wounded. The Hamas military wing, Izzedine al Qassam, is popular with youngsters and when the pickup with the gunmen arrived at the rally, many crowded around the vehicle.
Also read the op-ed piece by Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post regarding a similar topic; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501617.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
