21 Temmuz 2004 Çarşamba
Yet Moore Lies
More evidence that Michael Moore is willing to do anything to oust Bush. Will it never end?
Arafat Losing His Grip on Power
CNN is reporting that Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority is continuing to implode in the face of Israel's wall. Now, the PA's Prime Minister - hand-picked by Arafat - has resigned, but the long-time Palestinian leader refuses to accept it.
It seems as the Wall continues to prevent further steps in the Intifada, the Palestinians are forced to turn from pursuing terrorism and face the fact of their own corrupt and ineffective governance. And the more they look within, the less satisfied they are with Mr. Arafat. For years, he has been honored as the face of resistance, but with no more real chance to resist he is revealed for what he is: a self-serving political hack with no moral center. Surprise, surprise.
It seems as the Wall continues to prevent further steps in the Intifada, the Palestinians are forced to turn from pursuing terrorism and face the fact of their own corrupt and ineffective governance. And the more they look within, the less satisfied they are with Mr. Arafat. For years, he has been honored as the face of resistance, but with no more real chance to resist he is revealed for what he is: a self-serving political hack with no moral center. Surprise, surprise.
20 Temmuz 2004 Salı
Giving Single Fathers a Bad Name
According to Yahoo! News, Michael Jackson is about to become a father to 4 more children, even as he faces child molestation charges. Who is the "lucky" lady, you may ask? No one Michael knows. Turns out he hired a surrogate mother!
What is the one thing more likely to terrify a child court judge than a father of 3 facing child molestation charges? Oh, I know! How about a father of 7 facing child molestation charges.
They say truth is stranger than fiction. In Michael Jackson's case, truth is even stranger than BAD fiction!!!
Michael Jackson has officially denied this story. Updated 7/21/04 at 4:49 pm
The magazine which put out the original story is standing by its report. Updated 7/21/04 at 7:12 pm
What is the one thing more likely to terrify a child court judge than a father of 3 facing child molestation charges? Oh, I know! How about a father of 7 facing child molestation charges.
They say truth is stranger than fiction. In Michael Jackson's case, truth is even stranger than BAD fiction!!!
Michael Jackson has officially denied this story. Updated 7/21/04 at 4:49 pm
The magazine which put out the original story is standing by its report. Updated 7/21/04 at 7:12 pm
Election Day Is Election Day Even in the Face of Terrorism
CNN is reporting that the idea floated a week or so back of authorizing a federal election commission to postpone the November presidential election in case of terrorism is now DOA. Lawmakers are livid over the idea, pundits are sputtering, and the Bush administration denies ever having planned to push the proposal in the first place.
This is the right choice, but it is important for folks to realize why this idea was brought up when there was pretty much no chance of it passing through Congress. (After all, we had elections during the Civil War when there was the real possibility of Southern sabotage at the polls, during both world wars when bombings were a real possibility, and during the Cold War when we knew Soviet agents wanted to skew election results.) This idea had to be brought up now - and widely rejected by Democratic and Republican sources - so that if a terrorist attack DOES happen on election day, no one can question the results. This goes a long way toward avoiding a protracted Florida-style legal battle by the loser in a close race if this were to happen.
Let us consider this hopefully-unlikely scenario. Bush and Kerry are neck and neck coming into the last days of the campaign. Statistically in a dead heat, with only a few battleground states left, both candidates, along with the wives, children, and handlers are appearing everywhere. It becomes clear that the election will come down to a single state - let's say Rhode Island. Suddenly, the morning of Election Day, white powder is found on the floor of a voting precinct in Providence, Rhode Island. Initial results are inconclusive, but it is the right consistency to be anthrax. All over the state, Rhode Islanders decide to stay home, rather than risk exposure and possible illness. We learn the next day that President Bush has won the state by only 100 votes, all cast at the Providence Rhode Island precinct where the anthrax was found. What would have happened? Al Gore showed us what probably would have happened if this scenario had not been talked out, and a consens!
us reached: lawsuit after lawsuit from John Kerry charging that "the people had not been fairly represented" and that a new election should be held. "They should have postponed the election until this issue was cleared up," partisans would have screamed. "But the Bush administration knew that terrorist attack would help themselves, so they did nothing!"
But now, the issue has been discussed. The Congress is in the process of drafting a resolution specifically forbidding the moving of Election Day without its own express approval. No matter what happens, our course is set. And hopefully, we will be spared this kind of nightmare. Then again, we were all praying that kind of nightmare would be spared us, anyway.
This is the right choice, but it is important for folks to realize why this idea was brought up when there was pretty much no chance of it passing through Congress. (After all, we had elections during the Civil War when there was the real possibility of Southern sabotage at the polls, during both world wars when bombings were a real possibility, and during the Cold War when we knew Soviet agents wanted to skew election results.) This idea had to be brought up now - and widely rejected by Democratic and Republican sources - so that if a terrorist attack DOES happen on election day, no one can question the results. This goes a long way toward avoiding a protracted Florida-style legal battle by the loser in a close race if this were to happen.
Let us consider this hopefully-unlikely scenario. Bush and Kerry are neck and neck coming into the last days of the campaign. Statistically in a dead heat, with only a few battleground states left, both candidates, along with the wives, children, and handlers are appearing everywhere. It becomes clear that the election will come down to a single state - let's say Rhode Island. Suddenly, the morning of Election Day, white powder is found on the floor of a voting precinct in Providence, Rhode Island. Initial results are inconclusive, but it is the right consistency to be anthrax. All over the state, Rhode Islanders decide to stay home, rather than risk exposure and possible illness. We learn the next day that President Bush has won the state by only 100 votes, all cast at the Providence Rhode Island precinct where the anthrax was found. What would have happened? Al Gore showed us what probably would have happened if this scenario had not been talked out, and a consens!
us reached: lawsuit after lawsuit from John Kerry charging that "the people had not been fairly represented" and that a new election should be held. "They should have postponed the election until this issue was cleared up," partisans would have screamed. "But the Bush administration knew that terrorist attack would help themselves, so they did nothing!"
But now, the issue has been discussed. The Congress is in the process of drafting a resolution specifically forbidding the moving of Election Day without its own express approval. No matter what happens, our course is set. And hopefully, we will be spared this kind of nightmare. Then again, we were all praying that kind of nightmare would be spared us, anyway.
Ronstadt II
Thanks to the Drudge Report for finding this interview. It's a pretty normal interview until she gets near the end where she lets this go,
"This is an election year, and I think we're in desperate trouble and it's time for people to speak up and not pipe down. It's a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I'd rather not know."I see. So it's okay to force your opinion on others while you're performing, just as long as they don't get to force their opinion back on you. She'd rather not know if someone is a Christian or a Republican but she thinks it's okay to make her own preferences known even after someone has paid to hear her crappy music. After all, we're all clamoring for has-been musicians to tell us what to think. Obviously, we all would love to hear her views even if she has no respect for our own. The joys of the lunatic left.
For A Laugh
This is just too funny. Be warned, it's about 3.7mbs so it's not for a slow connection. But if you're lucky enough to live around a good speed network, you should check it out.
The Battle for Education Continues
There's an article today at CNN dealing with the origins of "No Child Left Behind" that gives us a view of a group of professors supposedly influential to President Bush. It would be interesting to know how influential their ideas really were. I don't know of any links between anyone in the administration and the schools but several mentioned are big enough that it's not impossible to imagine. The ideas are certainly similar, but then the idea of testing students isn't exactly a novel idea. I mean, I grew up being tested in my classes. It wasn't until I arrived at Grad School that I found out that tests were not popular anymore.
The teachers I know tend to be down on the President's plan. They argue that the testing doesn't reflect what students have learned. There is certainly truth to that, we all know people who are very smart but poor test takers. And my experience (and it is admittedly limited) is that the process is flawed. I am all for teaching reading and math primarily, but high school students back home now have a math class and then they are taught math a second time during a period that used to be dedicated to another subject. It's a shame that we have to take away other knowledge to make sure our kids can add. My hometown school has scored among the highest in the state since the testing began and Delaware is doing pretty well in the testing ranks nationally. Yet, we still have to have our kids do extra math just to stay ahead. There is also another issue that teachers have complained about, the issue of the rising bar. Since my old high school rated so well, they are now expected to do even better the next year. If they fail to perform better, then they risk becoming a "troubled" school and face a number of challenges. That seems unfair and unrealistic.
There must be a balance somewhere between testing kids to death and letting them go without requiring anything. Rather we like it or not, testing is the most accessible way to monitor how children are learning. But it is also undeniable that treating school like a mill won't solve the problem either. We could surely use some more creativity not only in the discussion but in the class room as well to solve this problem.
The teachers I know tend to be down on the President's plan. They argue that the testing doesn't reflect what students have learned. There is certainly truth to that, we all know people who are very smart but poor test takers. And my experience (and it is admittedly limited) is that the process is flawed. I am all for teaching reading and math primarily, but high school students back home now have a math class and then they are taught math a second time during a period that used to be dedicated to another subject. It's a shame that we have to take away other knowledge to make sure our kids can add. My hometown school has scored among the highest in the state since the testing began and Delaware is doing pretty well in the testing ranks nationally. Yet, we still have to have our kids do extra math just to stay ahead. There is also another issue that teachers have complained about, the issue of the rising bar. Since my old high school rated so well, they are now expected to do even better the next year. If they fail to perform better, then they risk becoming a "troubled" school and face a number of challenges. That seems unfair and unrealistic.
There must be a balance somewhere between testing kids to death and letting them go without requiring anything. Rather we like it or not, testing is the most accessible way to monitor how children are learning. But it is also undeniable that treating school like a mill won't solve the problem either. We could surely use some more creativity not only in the discussion but in the class room as well to solve this problem.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)