More media bias?

Here is an excerpt from the interview Tom Brokaw did with John Kerry a few days ago:

Brokaw: "Someone has analyzed the president's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do."

Kerry: "That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it."

Pretty standard throw-away question with a typical answer. No big deal, right?

Well, the problem is that the answer Kerry gave to that question was actually this:

Kerry: That’s great. More power. I don’t know how they’ve done it, because my record is not public. So I don’t know where you’re getting that from. (Emphasis mine -RR)

This is a big deal because Kerry claims to have made all his military records available online. However, unlike Bush, he has not signed the standard form 180 that authorizes complete release of his records and there are reportedly between 30 and 100 pages of records that have been withheld by the Navy.

Whether or not these pages contain anything of note is not the issue I'm addressing here but rather MSNBC's editing of the transcript for this article. Interestingly, an older article contains the complete quote so it's not like they went through and removed all instances. There are also other significant differences between the two articles. For example, after the truncated answer, the first article concludes with this:

Brokaw: "Do you think too many people in your party underestimate?"

Kerry: "I think people have always underestimated President Bush. But I'm proud that in those debates, I didn't underestimate him. I like the President. I just disagree with his choices. He chose not to give health care to Americans when he could have. He chose to block people importing drugs from Canada, when he could have done otherwise. He chose to create the biggest deficit in American history, so wealthy Americans could get a tax cut. I disagree with that value system. That, to me, represents the wrong choices for our country."

Brokaw: "Vice President Cheney says it's going to be 52-47 for their ticket. What do you say?"

Kerry: "You know, that's bravado. Here's what I'll say about Tuesday. I hope America comes out and votes in record numbers, because this is the most important election of our lifetime. And I believe America can do better. We can go to work. We can be stronger at home. We can regain our respect in the world. And I hope Americans will give me the chance to make them proud."

The older article containing the full answer follows it with this conclusion:

Brokaw: Do you think he's a smart man?

Kerry: I do. Yes, I do think he's a smart man.

Brokaw: Do you think too many people in your party underestimate?

Kerry: I think people have always underestimated President Bush. But I'm proud that in those debates, I didn't underestimate him.

Brokaw: Senator, I'm going to see the President over the weekend. Anything you want me to convey to him?

Kerry: Just say hello to him, and we'll chat on Tuesday.

Brokaw: I'll say to him what I'm going to say to you. Good luck.

Kerry: Thank you, sir.

Brokaw: Thank you.

It's somewhat suspicious that this one particular sentence was deleted, as it is potentially damaging to Kerry. The other edits tend to support the theory that it was just being edited for brevity and readability. Or the other edits could have been done to make this one seem less suspicious. The reasoning is circular and in the end there's really no way to know short of finding out who did it and asking him or her.

Hat tip to Charles at lgf. He seems more sure of the reason this edit was done, but then he has good cause to be.

Tax Rant by Proxy

A coworker of mine sent me an article about how the IRS is telling a church that they can't pray for a Bush victory next Tuesday. In response to that, I emailed him back with this:

It’s totally a violation of the First Amendment.

I’m leaning toward the opinion that we shouldn’t have tax-exempt religious institutions in the first place. How about this: Anything a church brings in in the way of donations is income. They are taxed on it as is any business. Any money that is spent on the kinds of things that you can deduct for they get to deduct. Since churches probably spend a much larger percentage of their income on such things, their income tax will probably be rather small, if not zero.

This would also free up churches to do whatever you and I can do when it comes to politics.

Anyone have any thoughts on that? Please comment.

In response to my response, he sent me the following email. I've made some edits to remove the company's name and any other identifying information:

It’s easy enough to invent a religion for the sole purpose of making money and that is not fair to the rest of us. I’m not sure about taxation the way it exists anyways.

<TaxRant>

Do you realize that 60 years ago the average person paid 3% in taxes? Now it is about 30%, and getting worse. I mean c’mon, taxing me based on how much I make? Where is the incentive to succeed?

I have to say that during the [company charity drive], I was constantly being plagued by the fact that I give every single time I get paid or buy something I get taxed. Here’s what I mean:

1. I pay income taxes


2. I pay sales taxes (sometimes on used goods, like vehicles)


3. I pay gas taxes


4. I pay property taxes (yeah, I’ll never own my house or the property it sits on)


5. I pay social security


6. I pay taxes indirectly when I buy goods, since the company that manufactures them has to pay taxes and must absorb the cost.


7. I give to charity whenever I buy a lottery ticket


8. I pay taxes on alcohol every time my wife buys a drink


9. I pay (ok [the company] pays) higher medical bills so that people that aren’t insured get medical help and so that people can continue suing doctors without bounds. It is still part of my compensation at [the company], so it counts.


10. I pay electric taxes, phone taxes, natural gas taxes, water taxes, sewer taxes, garbage taxes


11. Car taxes


12. Hunting taxes


13. I also give cash to charity on top of all that


14. Blah, blah, blah, bend over.

I’m sure there is more. When will it end? I realize that several of these items are voluntary on my part and not all of the taxes collected go to charity (or what I consider charity), but I do know that a lot is collected and it isn’t a good thing. I bet you’d be surprised if you sat down and figured out how much per year you spend on taxes.

Now days I almost always vote no on any initiative that would result in tax hikes and I’ll continue to do so until I’m dead. If the government wants to act like a massive corporation then it needs to work smarter. Of course, I don’t ever see that happening since the government has no competition.

Sorry to change the subject, but once I started I couldn’t stop.
;-)

</TaxRant>

Amen.

The real lesson of Vietnam

I'm sure this is nothing new but I wanted to contribute my take on it. First of all, let's ask the question of why we lost the war in Vietnam. The reason is that we, as a nation, lacked the political will to do what was required to achieve victory. The Tet Offensive was a disaster for the North Vietnamese and the war would likely have been over shortly after except that the enemy was given new hope. This came largely from two events: Walter Cronkite told the nation that the war was unwinnable, and folks like John Kerry and Jane Fonda were falsely painting our soldiers as war criminals. The enemy knew that they would never win the war militarily and that the only way they would win was for the American people to become so opposed to the war that the administration would have no choice but to pull the troops out. That is exactly what happened. A related effect was that American POW's were held considerably longer than they probably would have been otherwise and some didn't return alive at all.

The lesson was reinforced in Somalia with the "Black Hawk Down" incident. We were so used to overwhelming military superiority that we expected any conflict we fought to be virtually casualty-free. Once that event happened, and we were reminded that even US soldiers can still die in battle, the country and the administration in particular lost its will to continue the fight and we pulled out. The after effects of both Vietnam and Somalia are still felt today.

Now we find ourselves in Iraq and, once again, we're reminded that our troops aren't invulnerable. Certainly they are vastly more capable than the enemy they face, both through training and technology, but there are still casualties. While every death is painful, keep in mind that the number of killed is only a fraction of a percent of the total troops we have over there, a casualty rate any commander from any previous major war before Desert Storm would have sold his soul to achieve. And, although you don't generally hear about it on the news, our troops are killing their enemies in much larger numbers.

Once again John Kerry, with the assistance of the media, is trying to turn Iraq into a repeat of Vietnam and Somalia. Via Mike at Cold Fury comes this article in the New York Post:

Soldiers don't beg. But an old friend of mine who's still in uniform came close the other day. He badly wanted me to write another column before Election Day stressing that our troops are winning in Iraq.

He's an Army veteran of three wars. Now he's working to help Iraq become a democratic model for the Middle East. And he's worried.

Not about terrorists or insurgents. He's afraid John Kerry will be elected president.

And that is precisely what the terrorists and insurgents our troops are fighting are hoping for. They're hopelessly outclassed but they hang on because they know that, just as with Vietnam and Somalia, they can still win if the American people lose the will to carry through to victory.

"Kerry's rhetoric is giving the bad guys a thread to hang on," he wrote. "They're hoping we lose our nerve. They're more concerned with the U.S. elections than with the Iraqi ones."

My pal has been involved in every phase of our Iraq operations — dating back to Desert Storm. And he's convinced that the terrorists have risked everything to create as much carnage as they can before Nov. 2. Our troops are killing them left and right. The terrorists are desperate. They can't sustain this tempo of attacks much longer.

But Sen. Kerry insists that we're losing — giving our enemies hope that we'll pull out. No matter what else John Kerry may say, the terrorists only hear his criticisms of our president and our war.

It's the same old game. Emphasize the negative and ignore the positive. The truth is that we're winning over there and the terrorists know it. Kerry and his allies in the media know it, too, and their only hope is to paint as grim a picture as they can because success in Iraq can only look good for Bush. Success like this:

Every day, Iraqis are more engaged in defending their own country. Elections are still on track. The suicide bombings continue, but they haven't deterred Iraq's new government. Nor have they been able to stop the Coalition and Iraq's expanding forces from cleaning out one terrorist rat's nest after another.

Muqtada al-Sadr is quiet as a mouse. Najaf is being rebuilt. Two-thirds of Iraq's provinces are quiet. We never see any headlines about our Kurdish allies in northern Iraq — because they're building a successful modern society in the Middle East. Good-news stories aren't welcome in our undeniably pro-Democratic media.

Go read the whole thing. And remember that, as the author says, "Terror's appetite is only whetted by weakness." Kerry can talk tough all he wants but the truth is that his record belies his claims. Mike has said on several occasions that, even though he's actually going against the party line in his statements about how he will pursue the terrorists and kill them before they have a chance to kill us, his supporters will vote for him because they simply don't believe him. "Actions speak louder than words" is a cliché for a reason and Kerry's record in the Senate, and his actions as a member of VVAW, drown out his current rhetoric in a painful roar. Mike doesn't believe him and I don't believe him. And you can bet the terrorists don't believe him either.

I've said before that I don't believe Kerry will up and pull the troops out of Iraq as soon as he is elected. But his election will inject new hope into the terrorists' black hearts and, even if Iraq doesn't end like Vietnam did, I think it will share with that earlier war the distinction of dragging on longer and costing more lives and treasure than it would if Bush is elected. I don't believe Kerry will do nearly as effective a job in the overall war against terrorists and those who facilitate their actions. I believe that electing Kerry will be seen as capitulation by the terrorists just as surely as what Spain and the Phillipines did after they were treated to the horror of modern terror.

Does Kerry have some sort of strange, selective amnesia?

As my two or three regular readers probably know by now, the Bush administration is planning on asking for $70 billion more to fund the war in Iraq and activities in Afganistan next year. Kerry, predictably, had some choice words to say in response:

"We have learned that the president wants an additional 70 billion dollars of your money by early next year for Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the total cost to 225 billion dollars.

"Mr. President, what else are you being silent about? What else are you keeping from the American people? How much more will the American people have to pay?" Kerry said.

I went ahead and linked to the article at Al Jazeera since I wasn't able to find the entire quote on Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC. Hat tip to Misha for the link.

The subject of this post refers to this conversation Kerry had with NBC's Tim Russert:

TIM RUSSERT: "Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?"
SEN. JOHN KERRY: "No. I think we should increase it."
RUSSERT: "Increase funding?"
KERRY: "Yes."
RUSSERT: "By how much?"
KERRY: "By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim."
-- NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/31/03

Oh, that's right. I forgot how it works. Spending money on a war is only good if a Democrat is President. Nevermind that funding a war is one of the few legitimate government expenses, unlike most of what the federal government is currently spending vast sums on.

And note how, in the first excerpt, Kerry refers to it as "your money." To Democrats, the money belongs to you and me only when they disagree with what it's being spent on. Otherwise it's the government's money. For example, Democrats often say that tax cuts "cost" the government. The unspoken implication is that the government is paying you as a result of the tax cut instead of simply not confiscating as much as before. In business, a reduction in revenue is not a cost. So it is with the government. Even though he's not trying to rein in spending like a true conservative would, Bush at least understands that it's your money to begin with and that tax cuts allow you to keep more of it, as opposed to forcing the government to give up some of it's money.

Candid truth

Via Drudge comes a short report of comments Elizabeth Edwards made to a supporter yesterday in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:

Supporter: Kerry's going to take PA.

Liz Edwards: I know that.

Supporter: I'm just worried there's going to be riots afterwards.

Liz Edwards: Uh.....well...not if we win.

The article also has a link to a short audio clip of the exchange.

Let's think about the implications of this for a moment. In a candid conversation, Mrs. Edwards has basically summarized what I've considered to be likely to happen after the election depending on who wins.

Though there has been harassment and intimidation on both sides, it's more prevalent on the part of Kerry supporters/Bush opponents and the magnitude of their actions is generally greater as well. Vandalism and assault are standard operating procedure for the more extreme among them. Should Bush win the election, I believe there will be considerable civil unrest, probably outright rioting. I think it likely there will be blood and almost certainly considerable property damage. This is on top of the flood of lawsuits that will certainly be filed by Democrats and their lawyers in a nationwide effort to overturn the results of the election. It will be especially bad if, as in 2000, Bush wins the electoral vote but not the national popular vote. Should that happen, look for Democrats to vigorously advocate for the elimination of the electoral college and a switch to a direct popular election.

If Kerry wins, there will be a lot of grumbling, and there will probably be some lawsuits filed as well. However, it won't be near the magnitude of the legal onslaught the Democrats will wage if Bush wins. Also, there won't be rioting, unless it's done by Kerry supporters/Bush opponents who are out celebrating and take it too far. Should Kerry win the electoral vote but not the electoral college popular vote (corrected 10/21/2008), look for those who advocated doing away with the college after the 2000 election to be suddenly silent on the topic. Some Bush supporters might express their desire for a change to a direct election but most if not all will be those who have long advocated such change.

One final thought. To anyone who thinks it will be a good idea to assault Bush supporters during or after the election I have one question: Which candidate's supporters do you think are far more likely to be armed and ready to defend themselves?

It is done

Here in Washington State, you can request permanent absentee votor status and you will receive a ballot in the mail for every election. Yesterday, I filled out my ballot and mailed it in this morning. For the first time in a few years I did not vote for the Libertarian candidate when one was available. I pretty much voted a straight Republican ticket except for one race where I voted Libertarian. In that case, I personally know the candidate and think she'd do a good job, at least as good as either the Republican or Democrat candidates.

I voted the way I did because, this time around, I think there's a chance the Republicans could win at least some of the races. For example, Republican George Nethercutt is running against Democrat Patty Murray for Senate. Nethercutt has been a member of the House of Representatives for several years and is the one who defeated Tom Foley, at the time Speaker of the House, back in 1994. He ran on a platform that included term limits and vowed to serve only three terms. He hasn't kept that promise, obviously, and I'm disappointed in that. However, Patty Murray would, if given the chance, strike the Second Amendment from the Constitution and that is an unforgivable sin. To be honest I still think Murray will win, but I'm hoping that it's at least a close race.

Unlike past elections, this time I believe that it's more important to vote for the viable candidate who most closely matches my views than to vote for a non-viable candidate that is the closest match of all. This election is going to set the tone for the next four years, and probably longer. It's important that this tone is at least palatable because the alternative certainly isn't.

I must be doing something right (part 2)

So, a few days back, this comment shows up in response to an earlier post. Unfortunately, Haloscan doesn't have an easy way to tell you which post a comment was in response to and I don't feel like searching for it. In any case, the comment has nothing to do with the post anyway, but is merely a poor lost little troll who thinks he is being clever. The post was made under the name "your enemy" and no email address or URL was provided. He or she writes:

Are you fat radar rider? You remind me of someone I knew once. He was a very lonely, perverted individual, who got his kicks by hitting on my little sisters (ages 13 and 15 years old). He started them on a path to destruction, and I hold him responsible. Are you that person radar rider?

This would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic. One cool thing about Haloscan is that it records the IP address of each commenter. The address this comment was made from is 62.225.112.236. A reverse DNS lookup reveals this information:

OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre
OrgID: RIPE
Address: Singel 258
Address: 1016 AB
City: Amsterdam
StateProv:
PostalCode:
Country: NL

ReferralServer: whois://whois.ripe.net:43

NetRange: 62.0.0.0 - 62.255.255.255
CIDR: 62.0.0.0/8
NetName: RIPE-C3
NetHandle: NET-62-0-0-0-1
Parent:
NetType: Allocated to RIPE NCC
NameServer: NS-PRI.RIPE.NET
NameServer: SEC1.APNIC.NET
NameServer: SEC3.APNIC.NET
NameServer: NS2.NIC.FR
NameServer: SUNIC.SUNET.SE
NameServer: AUTH03.NS.UU.NET
NameServer: TINNIE.ARIN.NET
Comment: These addresses have been further assigned to users in
Comment: the RIPE NCC region. Contact information can be found in
Comment: the RIPE database at http://www.ripe.net/whois
RegDate: 1997-04-25
Updated: 2004-03-16

It looks like RIPE is not itself an ISP, but rather a coordination center that allocates Internet resources like IP addresses and such to ISP's and others. I can't tell if the commenter was posting from RIPE itself or from an ISP who receives addresses from RIPE. In any event, since RIPE is in Amsterdam, it's a pretty good bet "your enemy" is somewhere in Europe.

To answer the question: Much as I would have liked to have corrupted your sisters by making them realize that socialism is a failed ideology and that American-style capitalism is the one true way, it wasn't me. Sorry to disappoint you. However, if you provide me with their email addresses, I'll be sure to rectify the situation.

Another washed-up artist misses an opportunity

According to the Drudge report, Cher had this to say:

"All the gay guys, all my friends, all my gay friends, you guys you have got to vote, alright? Because it would only be a matter of time before you guys would be so screwed, I cannot tell you. Because, you know, the people, like, in the very right wing of this party, of these Republicans, the very very right wing, the Jerry Falwell element, if they get any more power, you guys are going to be living in some state by yourselves. So, I hate scare tactics, but I really believe that that's true."

"I think that as Bush will, if Bush gets elected, he will put in new Superior Court judges, and these guys are not going to want to see gay pride week."

This, of course, is pure fear-mongering. While it's no secret that Bush opposes gay marriage, the idea that all gays would be rounded up and placed in a single state is over the top. It's like me saying something like this:

"All the gun rights supporters, all my friends, all my gunny friends, you guys you have got to vote, alright? Because it would only be a matter of time before you guys would be so screwed, I cannot tell you. Because, you know, the people, like, in the very left wing of this party, of these Democrats, the very very left wing, the Diane Feinstein element, if they get any more power, you guys are going to be living in prison. So, I hate scare tactics, but I really believe that that's true."

"I think that as Kerry will, if Kerry gets elected, he will put in new Superior Court judges, and these guys are not going to want to see people able to defend themselves from criminals or their government."

Actually, on second thought, that's entirely plausible. Certainly more so than what Cher is shoveling.

So, once again, we have some "star" that feels she has to inject her political opinion into her art and believes that her celebrity somehow imbues her words with greater veracity. Well, she has that right, and many have died to ensure that she retains that right. And I have the right to say that I think she should have taken this opportunity to shut up about politics and just sing her songs. Because she didn't, I will exercise my right not to listen to her music, buy her cd's, or contribute financially to her in any way, shape, or form. In the words of Alice Cooper, she's yet another treasonous moron (traitor to Rock and Roll, that is, for those who don't feel like clicking the link). Perhaps now that her career is winding down she's doing this in a desperate attempt to remain relevant. Nice try.

Saddam was a sponsor of terror

I don't normally write posts that are mainly links to news articles or posts on other blogs. I prefer posting links only when I have something substantial to contribute to the discussion. However, this is important enough that I'm going to link to it with minimal comment.

To all those that think Saddam had no ties to terrorists: Think again.

This article, complete with footnotes and links to external documentation, makes the case that Hussein's government not only supported terrorists, but terrorists that killed Americans, terrorists that attacked the US directly, and Al Qaeda in particular.

If even half this stuff is true, it still justifies taking him down.

Attitude problem

Last night during the debate, John Kerry said:

But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people.

This was part of his response to how Bush answered a question regarding gay marriage and whether or not he believed homosexuality is a choice. But the question is not the issue I'm addressing here. Take a look at that paragraph and tell me if you can spot what's wrong with it. It will be obvious to some, less so to others. Take your time....




Didja catch it? The key phrase is "rights that we afford people." Neal Boortz writes:

The dictionary defines the word as "to make available, to provide." So now we know that John Kerry believes that our rights are provided to us by some "we" out there. The great "we" made those rights available to us. How grand. How grateful we are to the grand Imperial We.

Boortz has already said pretty much what I'm going to say, and probably did it better, but this is such a fundamental issue that I felt I had to post something about it.

The rights that are enumerated in the Constitution are just that: enumerated. That means that the Constitution lists them out, but they are assumed to be pre-existing rights. We have these rights simply by virtue of our existence, not because somebody gave them to us (unless that somebody is God, depending on your beliefs, hence the phrase "God-given right"). Kerry, and I would say Democrats and liberals in general, don't see these rights that way. To them, these rights are granted by the government in the form of the Constitution. The implication is that the government can then revoke those rights if it so chooses. In reality, the government is charged by the Constitution to protect these rights that are inherent in our existence as humans and is enjoined from ever infringing upon those rights.

Time for a bit of history. The reason the Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the Constitution, instead of being in the main body, is that the authors of the original document believed that these rights were so obvious that they did not need to be listed. Of course we had the right to free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be secure in our homes and persons from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. Everyone knows that! Why do we need to put them in there? But several states insisted that these rights be spelled out, i.e. enumerated, before they would ratify the Constitution. It's a good thing they did because now far too many people believe that, rather than something being a right by default, it's only a right by grant. If the Second Amendment wasn't a part of the Bill of Rights, and assuming it hadn't been added as an amendment sometime before the start of the 20th century, there would very likely be a regime of strict gun control today along with the disarmament of law abiding citizens and the vast empowerment of criminals that would go along with it. In short, we'd be much the same as Great Britain in that regard.

Remember folks, people (i.e. you and I) have rights. Government has powers and only those granted to it by the people. The government doesn't have the "right" to do anything nor does it grant rights. Anytime someone says it does, it just shows that they don't understand the true foundation of this country. Just like John Kerry.

If Kerry should win

If Kerry wins the election, I don't think it's necessarily going to be an unmitigated disaster. Listening to him talk about Iraq in the debates, I think that he realizes that we really do need to succeed in Iraq and in the larger War on Terror™. I think he's in for a rude awakening when he tries to get countries like France and Germany to come on board. Russia, given what happened in Beslan, still probably won't send troops to Iraq but they might, and I'm hopeful that they will be taking a more active role in the larger conflict. As far as domestic policies, he's promising the moon, or at least a bigger chunk of it than Bush is, and he won't be able to deliver it. If he has his way, I do think that taxes will go up and not just on those making more than 200 grand a year. Fortunately, the President doesn't get to make that decision. It's still ultimately up to Congress to set tax levels and determine spending.

What scares me is the thought of the Democrats gaining control of both the Oval Office and the Congress. If that happens, watch out. Socialized medicine will likely be one of the first things they implement. Then they'll start methodically trying to dismantle our right to keep and bear arms. Should that day come, I will immediately start buying more guns and ammunition in preparation. A semi-auto battle rifle, a shotgun, and a hunting rifle will be the first to join my currently modest collection and more will likely follow as long as I can still buy them.

However, I seriously doubt that they will gain control of Congress in this election. If it happens at all it probably won't be for a while. A Republican congress with a Democrat as President could make for a government that doesn't do very much, which is a good thing. I just hope that Republicans hold a sufficient majority in the Senate to block any ultra-liberal Supreme Court nominees that Kerry will try to appoint should any of the current justices retire or pass away.

Undermining the process

Stephen Green at Vodkapundit has some comments about a recent Drudge Report article:

To these guys, winning office is more important than the sanctity of elections. Holding power is more important than the Constitution. Much as I despise at least half of what most Republicans stand for, they don't seem nearly as willing to trash the system they're trying to run. Too many Democrats, especially at the national level, just don't care that our system, our nation is far more important than any single election.

...

I don't mean to say that Republicans haven't used dirty tricks, or won't in the future. But I have yet to see them pull anything as crass as replacing a losing candidate with a more-popular one just weeks before election day, and in violation of state law. I have yet to see Republicans calling on the world's most corrupt international organization, run largely by apparatchiks from the world's most brutal dictatorships, to pass judgment on how we run our elections. I have yet to see the Republicans encouraging their own to commit fraud by shouting "Fraud!" where none yet exists, putting at risk everything we've built here in the last 228 years.

...

Now, I know this is an angry essay. However, I don't mean to imply that all Democrats are evil and all Republicans are sweetness and light. Far from it. But for the first time in 16 years, I'm going to vote Republican straight down the line. If I have to punish a couple of local Democrats I'm fond of, then so be it, but I have to try to get a point across: The national Democratic Party is bad for this country.

Now there have also been reports of voter registration problems/fraud on the part of Republicans. See here. However, this "Election Day Manual," if it's authentic, would represent a systematic, nationwide, centrally-coordinated effort on the part of the Democratic Party to undermine the electoral process. When you combine it with the other activities listed by Green in his post, as well as the incidents of vandalism and thuggery against Bush supporters by union members and others that support Kerry, it paints a picture of a national organization that is willing to stoop as low as it takes to gain power. They're so convinced that they're right that the ends justify any means.

Let's move out!

Last Thursday, when it became available, I purchased the Silver Half-Life 2 package via Valve's content delivery system, Steam. Right now, the only part of that package that is available is CounterStrike: Source, a conversion of the wildly popular CounterStrike multiplayer online game to the new Source game engine used for HL2. Here are my first impressions.

The first thing I did was crank up my own server so I could explore a couple of maps by myself without having to worry about getting shot in the head. They look a lot like the maps from the original game, although they've been expanded and touched up to take advantage of the new engine's capabilities. A good analogy would be the difference between the appearance the Massassi temple on the fourth moon of Yavin in the original Star Wars, and its appearance in the 1997 Special Edition. The overall shape is the same, but it now looks much more realistic and aged. While walking along, I noticed better lighting and shadows, partical effects used for dust floating in the air, and light reflecting from smooth tile surfaces. The player models are considerably more detailed as well. though currently there is only one model for each side. It would not surprise me if more are made available later on.

Although the maps have always been about gameplay rather than just looking cool, I did notice some interesting attention to detail. Perhaps the biggest example of this is in the Office map. Along with other objects, there are several computers, with monitors, keyboards, and mice located at various places. The computers themselves, if you shoot them repeatedly, can be disassembled down to their component parts. The case, motherboard, power supply, hard drives, CD drive, video card, sound card, memory chips, and CPU with cooler are all separate objects that have been assembled together to form the computer. All can be shot away.

After exploring a few levels, I then joined a server and started playing. I hadn't played in a while, so I was a bit rusty, but it didn't take long for some of the skills to come back.

It's really kind of interesting. I was never a CounterStrike fanatic. In fact, in it's first incarnation, it was one of the most frustrating multi-player games I've ever played. This was mainly due to how the physics of gunfire worked in the game. It seemed like I could pour round after round into an opponent and he would still be able to take me out with one or two shots. The idea was to model, at least to a degree, how weapons on full automatic fire, or on semi-auto but fired rapidly, are less accurate due to recoil. I remember one time I was playing on a very small map where the objective was simply to eliminate all members of the opposing team. You started out with nothing and there were a bunch of rifles, shotguns, and pistols laying around. You basically took the first one you walked over and tried to do your best with it. I was at point-blank range from an opponent with a heavy machine gun. I must have fired ten rounds or more before he started shooting back. Every single round I fired missed, even though my target reticle was centered on his chest. He gunned me down with at most two shots.

I can't say for sure yet, but CounterStrike: Source seems to do a better job of this. You still won't hit much if you just spray and pray. You still want to use short, controlled bursts. But I generally do at least some damage if I'm firing at someone, even if they end up taking me out. As before, though, the secret is to become the master of the head shot.

One thing I'm kind of surprised about is that the game doesn't appear to model the actual projectiles. Many games nowadays do that. Max Payne was the first one I played that did so. In CS:S, as with the original, the bullets appear not to be modelled individually but rather cross the distance in zero time and use old-fashioned aim-based hit detection. I do know that for at least some of the weapons in Half-Life 2 the individual projectiles are modelled. This is obvious from some of the gameplay videos. I'm guessing that they just didn't want to go through all the work to convert CounterStrike: Source to that model. Perhaps they will do it at some future time.

I'm still not a CounterStrike fanatic, and I doubt I ever will be. It's fun, but as big a reason for getting it now was so that I could find out how well the new engine performs on my system. When it comes to game performance, it's the same as when I bought it in April of 2003. I bought that rig in anticipation of Half-Life 2 which, of course, saw a couple really long delays. I'm happy to report that the game runs buttery smooth, even at 1280x1024 with all effects turned up to the max and with anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering turned on (though not maxed). With those settings it averages over 40 fps in the video stress test included with CS:S. With the defaults (1024x768, all effects maxed, but no aa or af) it averages over 90. Half-Life 2 itself may push the envelope a bit more; it seems to me like there will probably be more objects in the environment as they play a much larger role, but I expect that I'll be able to maintain these settings and still have a high enough framerate that it will still appear smooth. We'll see.

The meaning of it all

My one or two faithful readers (yeah, right, I wish I had that many) have probably noticed that I haven't been posting as often as in times past. The reason for this is that I'm getting sorta burned out on the whole political thing. I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall. There was a part of me that thought I could present valid, coherent arguments which would at least make those who hold vastly differing opinions from mine re-evaluate their positions.

For the most part that is, of course, total folly.

By now most people have probably already decided who they are going to vote for and nothing that either candidate says or does, or that any blogger says, has much chance at all of changing their minds. This includes me. I personally can't think of Bush saying or doing anything, at least anything that isn't totally at odds with the man I believe him to be, that is going to change my opinion that there's no way he can be worse than Kerry. I disagree with Bush on several issues, but I disagree with Kerry on far more. I'd probably vote for Bush even if Kerry wasn't a political see-saw who sacrificed his own honor, and that of his fellow soldiers, to advance his political career.

There's also the whole time factor. I sometimes get so caught up in reading other blogs and posting to this one that I worry about spending enough time on the rest of my life, like doing the job I'm being paid to do. I could easily spend many hours each day reading the words of other bloggers. Instead, I've lately tapered off quite a bit and reduced my regular blogs to about five or so.

I don't know how long this will last. Once the election happens, the dynamic of the blogosphere is going to change dramatically, regardless of who wins. Perhaps then I'll have a lot more to say since we'll be dealing with the actions of the president-elect and no longer rehashing the candidates' pasts. I'm also considering changing the name of the blog to something I hope will be a bit more clever. "Musings of a Techno-Geek" was something that I came up with off the cuff without much thought and, especially after reading Harvey's words on the subject, I think I want a name that I've put more thought and effort into creating. We'll see. I have a couple of ideas; I just don't know of any of them are "it."

I promise I'm not going to go away. I just won't be popping my head up as often as I used to.

(Of course, now that I've written this, I'll probably get several bugs up my butt and engage in a posting frenzy.)

Bush's hometown newspaper endorses Kerry

As you've doubtless heard, the local newspaper of Bush's hometown of Crawford, TX, has endorsed Kerry for President. I was going to deconstruct the editorial in which the editorial board of the Lone Star Iconoclast presented its endorsement but I've decided to do something else.

On the way to work this morning I was listening to The Bob Rivers Show on the Seattle radio station KZOK (102.5 FM). They had a phone interview with W. Leon Smith, the editor of the paper. At least I'm pretty sure that was his name. There's a link to the interview in Windows Media format on the Bob Rivers Show website but it doesn't appear to be working right now or else I'd check for sure.

During the interview, there were three points which, taken together, led me to conclude that this guy had no credibility whatsoever. Again, as I can't listen to the replay I'll have to paraphrase.

First, he seemed to confuse the national debt and the deficit. He basically said that there was no debt before Bush took office. This may have been a simple mistake, and what he said after that indicates that it probably was. But what if it wasn't? This is a minor quibble. The others are much worse.

Second, he criticized President Bush's work ethic. He didn't give any details but I'm assuming he's referring to Bush taking working vacations at his Crawford ranch. Note the key word here: working. Just because he's not in the White House doesn't mean he's kicking back. And do you think Kerry is going to be any better? How many times has he attended meetings of the Senate Intelligence Committe, of which he is a member? (Answer: at most 24%) How many votes has he shown up for since he announced his candidacy? True, he does have to concentrate on the campaign but the people of Massachusetts hired him to do his job in the Senate and he should at least make an effort to be there part of the time. How many pieces of legislation have his name on them? As I recall, only a couple (although, based on your viewpoint, that's not necessarily a bad thing).

Third, like many critics of the President, he misinterpreted the First Amendment. He was complaining that people had written and called to criticize the editorial, and I think there was also something about contacting advertisers. Bob, who is a pretty sharp interviewer, called him on it and brought up the tried and true example of the Dixie Chicks. Leon backed off some but wasn't completely mollified.

I feel compelled to degress slightly here. The First Amendment basically means this:

• The Congress of the United States can't pass any laws infringing on your right to free speech. (The general interpretation is that state and local governments are similarly enjoined, although this is usually if not universally incorporated into state constitutions.)


• Neither the government nor anyone else is obligated to facilitate your speech.


• How people react to what you say, provided they don't break the law, is entirely your problem. In fact, that reaction is likely speech protected under the First Amendment.

The impression that I got from the way Bob ended the interview and the comments he and the other members of the show made afterward was that they weren't very impressed with W. Leon Smith. I certainly wasn't.

Oh, what the hell. I'll go ahead and address some of the statements made in the editorial.

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:
• Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
• Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay.
• Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
• Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
• Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
• Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
• Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

I can't speak directly to the accusation regarding Social Security except to say that borrowing against the Social Security fund is not an invention of the Bush Administration. Also, remember, the President doesn't set fiscal policy, the Congress does. The editorial also criticizes Bush's plan to privatize Social Security at least partially. Let's just say that experts' opinions differ on whether or not that's a good thing. I tend to think it is, but I'm not an expert. I'm willing to bet that none of the Iconoclast's editorial board are experts either.

What I know about Medicare is that a huge prescription drug benefit was passed by Congress and signed by the President. I also refer you this article at FactCheck.org which states, in part:

Indeed, most seniors stand to gain a good deal financially from the measure. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, the average drug bill for seniors is expected to be $3,160 in the year 2006, when the new drug benefit will go into effect. The new benefit will pay more than half of that, and even after deducting an estimated $35 per month in premiums to purchase the coverage, seniors with that average drug bill will be $1,080 ahead.

To be fair, it does also say:

For those with roughly $800 or less in drug costs the benefit won’t equal the costs of premiums, deductibles and co-payments, though seniors will still have the comfort of being protected should their drug costs unexpectedly rise. And an unknown number of low-income persons who now get prescription drug benefits through the state-federal Medicaid program may end up paying more when they are shifted to the new Medicare benefit.

I don't know if that qualifies as cutting Medicare by 17 percent.

As for veterans benefits, I again turn to a FactCheck.org article on the subject:

It is true that Bush is not seeking as big an increase for next year as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wanted. It is also true that the administration has tried to slow the growth of spending for veterans by not giving new benefits to some middle-income vets.

Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut.

The conclusion:

All this means Bush can fairly be accused of trying to hold down the rapid growth in spending for veterans benefits -- particularly those sought by middle-income vets with no service-connected disability. But saying he cut the budget is contrary to fact.

And as for cuts in military pay, what I found had to do with cuts that would come as a result of the expiration of pay increases. In other words, it would return the pay to the level it was before. Yes, it's a cut, but it would be the result of not extending the pay increase.

Regarding overtime pay, once again it's time to dip into the treasure chest at FactCheck.org:

The latest TV ad from the Moveon.org Voter Fund says "George Bush wants to eliminate overtime pay for 8 million workers," referring to new overtime rules that the Department of Labor has proposed. The 8-million figure (hotly denied by the Bush administration, of course) comes from a study by the labor-funded Economic Policy Institute.

The ad misquotes the study, however. What the study actually says is that an estimated 8 million would lose the legal right to premium overtime rates should they work more than 40 hours per week. It does not say they would actually lose pay as the ad says. In fact, the 8-million figure is inflated by many part-time workers who never get overtime work, or overtime pay, even though they now have the right to it.

The truth is that some would lose, some would gain. The article explains it in more detail.

In response to the claim about oil prices, I'll take this one off the top of my head. Oil prices have gone up due to uncertainty in the Middle East, certainly, but that's not the only reason. The strategic petroleum reserve is being filled and there are also problems having to do with a shortage of refineries that affect gasoline prices. As with the overall economy, there's more to the price of oil than just the president's actions.

Now to outsourcing of jobs. FactCheck.org has this to say in this article:

There is indeed a tax break for US-based multinational corporations to locate operations overseas. Bush isn't to blame for it -- it's been there for decades. It's also true that Bush doesn't support Kerry's proposed remedy, which is controversial.

And later:

Economic analysts say offshoring is a fairly small problem, and Kerry's tax proposal won't do much to solve it.

Read the rest. The end result is that Bush isn't responsible for this "problem." And don't forget all the jobs that are "insourced" by foreign companies employing Americans for the operations they have in this country. For example, many Japanese cars are built in America by American workers.

Regarding the accusation about government contracts without bids, this is not the first time that's been done. Could it be that Halliburton was simply the best choice for the job? And it's not like they're making a huge profit either. From FactCheck.org once again:

(I)nvestigators from the General Accounting Office (GAO) found Halliburton's no-bid contracts to be legal and probably justified by the Pentagon's wartime needs. Furthermore, Pentagon auditors have yet to make any final determination of whether payment should be denied to Halliburton for gasoline or meals for troops. Those billing disputes are still being negotiated.

What about Cheney's connection to Halliburton? There are two connections he retains. The first is that he receives a deferred salary. This is not affected at all by Halliburton's performance. It's salary he has already earned; they're just paying him on the installment plan. The second is that he still has some stock options. He has consigned all profits from the sale of those options to charity. From the followup article at FactCheck.org:

And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education, a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

I don't know about you but I'm satisfied. If you think about it, we should be rooting for Halliburton's success so that these charities will receive a greater donation.

As for the war, they bring out the same old tired canards about how there are no WMD's (even though we've found some and just about everybody, Democrats included, were saying that he had them) and how there were no ties between Iraq and terrorists (although those ties are well-documented). They say that Kerry's plan is a good one but I think that Kerry is on crack if he thinks that he can get countries like France and Germany to help out in Iraq. France at least has stated unequivocally that it will not help in Iraq. Period. Most of the other points in Kerry's plan are things the current administration is already doing.

Finally there's the item regarding the deficit and the debt. I posit that the recession that Bush inherited and the September 11 attacks had as much to do with this, if not more, than any of the President's policies. Yes, the war in Iraq is expensive. War always is. Our deficit is certainly not the largest in relation to GDP that we've ever had. And I doubt Kerry's policies would really eliminate the deficit, not when he's proposing to implement socialized medicine at astronomical cost. I've certainly not shied away from criticizing the President on his spending, but I believe Kerry would be far worse.

I'm not saying that none of the concerns of the Iconoclast's publishers and editors are valid, but for a lot of them they seem to be parrotting the views of the left rather than researching them for themselves. They have the right to endorse whoever they want and if they want to endorse Kerry, that's fine. All I've hoped to show by this is that you may not want to give as much weight to that endorsement as you initially would.

New infantry rifle?

According to the GeekWithA.45, it looks like a new primary battle rifle, with several variants, will be on its way to our soldiers in the next couple years:

It's going to be the XM-8, in 6.8 Remington, fielded in large numbers starting in 2006.

Now I'm no expert but no less an authority than the ever-irascible Kim du Toit has been calling for the switch to a more powerful round for some time. The evidence I've read indicates that the 5.56 round just isn't powerful enough for today's battlefield. As I understand it, the ostensible reasons for selecting that round in the first place were weight and recoil. But since then there has been a lot of evidence that it just doesn't have enough punch to deal with what our soldiers are facing nowadays in Iraq and elsewhere.

As noted in the page the Geek links to, the XM-8 was originally chambered for the 5.56 round but chambering it for the 6.8 Remington won't be a problem. The 6.8 is just a bit longer than the 5.56 and no modifications to existing magazines is required. As mentioned in the Geek's post, it should also be possible to manufacture M-16 and M-4 upper receivers for the 6.8 since the lowers and magazines will all work just fine. (Again, I'm no expert, but it seems to me that replacing the entire upper might not even be necessary. The bolt assembly and barrel might be all that's required.)

There is at least one potential issue however. As a friend of mine commented when I told him about this, switching to the new cartridge would result in deviation from the established NATO standards. We'll have to wait and see how that shakes out. I'll definitely keep my eyes and ears open for any additional information on this. In my opinion, however, the safety of our troops is the paramount concern and this round will definitely be more effective without adding much weight or recoil.

The Pajamahadeen

Kevin over at Smallest Minority provides the first instance of the word "pajamahadeen" that I've seen along with its definition in his response to an ignorant GFW:

I'm one of the "pajamahadeen" Mr. Aleshire, one of the bloggers who fact-check and expose the bias and outright lies of the "old media." Your peice, and this rebuttal, are now up on my site where about 400 people a day will see it - and will pass it on to others. There's a lot of us "gunbloggers" out there. Together, we have quite a readership!

Googling for the word shows that this is far from the first use of the word. It looks like this is where the word was originally coined, at least according to this post.

I wonder if there are any formal requirements for membership....

Words cannot describe

how upset I am over this.

Two survivors and the families of six slain victims of the 2002 sniper shootings have reached a $2.5 million settlement with the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle used during the attacks and the gun shop from which it had been stolen.

Bushmaster did nothing wrong. They manufactured and sold a legal product that was not defective, not to mention one of the most heavily regulated products of all.

The victims' attorneys said yesterday that it was the first time a gunmaker has paid damages for crimes committed with its weapons. The manufacturer, Bushmaster Firearms Inc. of Windham, Maine, "paid damages for negligence leading to the criminal use of a gun," said the victims' co-counsel, Dennis Henigan.

"That's why it's a breakthrough of lasting significance," said Henigan, who also is legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is based in the District.

The Brady Campaign (formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.) has as its ultimate goal nothing less than the complete disarmament of the US citizenry, which would leave us all at the mercy of armed criminals and, more importantly, our government should it turn tyrannical. This is just one front in their war on our rights. They work to promote legislation that would result in registration and, ultimately, confiscation. They also, as shown in this case, are working to bankrupt the firearms industry.

I'm not convinced that Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, where the rifle used by the DC snipers was stolen from, is entirely blameless. They did not keep proper records, didn't notice that the Bushmaster had been stolen, and didn't properly account for several other guns. However, as the article states:

(Seattle lawyer David L.) Martin said poor paperwork and accounting within the store made it seem that many more guns were missing than actually were. "We have accounted for most if not all of the weapons," he said.

The main concern is that it sets a precedent. A company that has absolutely no culpability whatsoever has paid money to victims of criminals who bear complete responsibility for their own actions. This is wrong. It is, quite simply, a travesty of justice.

A more immediate climatological problem

I'm referring to the climate of fear described in the linked post as:

Many Republicans are afraid to put Bush-Cheney bumper stickers on their cars or signs on their lawns because they are afraid of physical retaliation from angry liberals.

(Emphasis in original)

I've seen it myself, as described in my Bush/Cheney Sign Watch series of posts. In fact, there's more in that saga. The sign, and the smaller signs decrying vandalism, were recently brutally destroyed once again. They have been replaced with a new lone Bush/Cheney sign that appears to be of the hand-made variety. It has survived a few days so far but we'll see how long it lasts.

I have not observed any instances of vandalism to cars or property, just the signs themselves. Yet I still wonder how well my car would fare if I were to put a bumper sticker on it showing support for Bush. I contemplate replying to slogans on bumper stickers that support Kerry or are critical of Bush with some sort of flyer, but I would never consider defacing the sticker or otherwise damaging the car.

I'm not saying all Democrats will do this. The vast majority of them are decent people who respect the law and other people's rights. It's unfortunate that this vocal and violent minority is out there casting the entire left in a bad light.

Dan Rather, Marine

This article at FrontPage magazine is an opinion piece that purports to show the pattern of behavior that led to Dan Rather's most recent hoisting-by-his-own-petard involving the forged Bush National Guard documents. I really can't comment on a lot of it as I am certainly no expert on Dan Rather's life and career. I do want to say something about this excerpt, however:

In 1953, Rather graduated with a degree in journalism from Sam Houston State Teachers College. He had already been working for Associated Press and then United Press International and a few radio stations as a “stringer” reporting stories that happened in Huntsville north of Houston. But being in college gave Rather a semester-by-semester student deferment from being drafted into the Korean War.

After Rather graduated, “the way he got around being eligible for the draft was he joined a reserve unit – Army reserve,” wrote B.G. Burkett, co-author of the book Stolen Valor. Rather dropped out of the reserves as soon as the Korean War ended in armistice. Whether Rather used journalist or related politician connections to get into the Army reserves, as he would later accuse President George W. Bush of doing in the Texas Air National Guard, is unknown.

Former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg in his 2002 best-seller Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News described a confrontation with the anchorman: “Rather’s voice started quivering, and he told me how in his young days, he had signed up with the Marines – not once, but twice!”

This was inaccurate. Rather signed up once with the Army reserves and once with the U.S. Marines. Rather, wrote Burkett after studying his military record, “was discharged less than four months later on May 11, 1954 for being medically unfit… He couldn’t do the physical activity.” As a boy, Rather “had suffered from rheumatic fever,” reported veteran UPI journalist Wes Vernon.

Ever since Dan Rather has described himself as a former U.S. Marine, after spending roughly the same amount of time in Marine Corps training before being rejected that now-Senator John F. Kerry spent in Vietnam. “This,” wrote Burkett, “is like a guy who flunks out of Harvard running around saying he went to Harvard.”

The key point here is that Rather voluntarily signed up with the Marines. When he was discharged, it was for medical reasons, not because he changed his mind or otherwise desired to leave. As such, I say he deserves the title of former U.S. Marine. I have a friend who enlisted in the Marines. It was what he wanted more than anything else. Unfortunately, during basic training, a medical condition with his feet was uncovered and he was medically discharged. He was honorarily granted rank (can't remember what rank, it may have been as high as Corporal) and honorably discharged. He, too, is a former U.S. Marine.

Whatever you believe about Rather's behavior and ethics as a reporter, the fact remains that he enlisted in the Marines and left involuntarily. I respect him for that, if for nothing else.