Republicans are winning the war....

It seems in the past couple weeks, ever since the republicans have started fighting back against the unfair criticism, that they are winning the war over iraq. Many democrats were calling for immediate withdrawal, while only 16 percent of the american public agree with this. 49% say we should stay until the Iraqi government can provide for their own security. In addition, 55% of the american public say criticism hurts troop morale. While the democrats continue to say that criticism helps troop morale, only 21% of the public believe this to be true.
In addition to this, a week and a half ago, the House voted 403-3 not to immediately withdrawal troops from iraq. I know I didnt post on this earlier, but this was an ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT move by the republicans. It sure as hell pissed off the democrats because they were finally forced to put their opinions on paper. I just love how all the democrats and the press were calling it a "political stunt." And the use of rule 21 wasnt? HA! The democrats are all about political stunts, and the second the republicans just want them to put in their official stance on the war, they get all pissed off. Hahah, I love it!
Continuing with the republicans winning this war at home, cindy sheehan's protest only drew 200 people over the thanksgiving holiday, down from its near 12,000 the first time she was down there in crawford.
In yet another positive poll for the bush aministration, 56% of the american public believes that democracy will succeed in iraq. Really, thats quite astounding considering the lapdog biased media we have in this country. Don't believe me?...this proves it: only 33% of reporters believe that iraq will be a success. The liberal media is obviously out of touch with reality.
Bottom line, we will stay in iraq until the iraqis are able to take over (which they are already and have been doing), the republicans will and already are winning this war at home, and history will look back on this iraq war as a success (just keep in mind that our own constitution took 11 years to create, and we ended up fighting a civil war over it. also remember that lincoln was consistently criticized and urged to give up the fight, with protests and countless attacks from the minority party, and look how that turned out)....

Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise is officially an idiot. He recently purchased his very own sonogram machine so he can monitor the progress of his child at home. While he says that he will donate it to the hospital after he's done with it, this is still absolutely ridiculous. The fact is that if he wasnt having a baby he would have never bought that machine for the hospital, so to me this gesture is just a ploy.
Even more shocking is the fact that he apparently has given nothing to the victims of hurricane katrina (I'm not sure if this is true or not, but its what I've heard). Hollywood actors are so damn full of themselves and out of touch with reality, it makes me sick.

Hilarious

Haha, this is just plain hilarious, I love his face....

Wondering where all the WMD's went?

FrontPage magazine has aninterview with Bill Tierney who was involved in the Iraq wapons inspections and says Iraq had a WMD program. He suggests that Saddam moved a good chunk of his WMD components to Syria before the war started. Interesting read....

Zarqawi killed?

Reports are circulating that abu musab al zarqawi may be dead. There was a small gunfight. I'm not sure what makes them think he was killed here, and not in any other gunfight, but the white house remains skeptical that he was killed.

Did Bush lie about pre-war intelligence?

Recently, this has been a very hot button topic, mostly because the liberals think they smell blood, and are going for the kill on Bush. They believe that by maliciously attacking Bush through the liberal media, they can gain some headway in the polls.
Anyways, here's everything you need to know when deciding whether or not the Bush administration lied about pre-war intelligence. It's a long read, but certainly a good one.

Bush gave one hell of a speech!

FINALLY!!!! The speech last thursday was one I've been waiting to hear from the President for years now. He finally called out his critics on the iraq war (ya know the ones who voted for the war, but now are against it?), saying:
"And our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.
While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.
They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)
The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)"
The only thing that makes me angry is that he didnt say this a long long time ago....
One particular quote, which we've heard before, but I still love: "Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions in Iraq -- claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001."
You should really read the speech if you didnt get a chance to watch it.

In other news, John Edwards, apparently starting a push for the white house, says he was wrong about voting to invade iraq three years ago, an admirable admission, although I disagree with him about the intelligence being "manipulated to fit a political agenda."

"The Intelligent Falling"

Haha, funny article making fun of "intelligent design."
See it here.

Bill O'Reilly

So, the blogs seem to be buzzing now about bill o'reillys comments on his radio show on November 8th. Apparently he was criticizing a ballot measure passed by 60 percent of San Francisco voters urging public high schools and colleges to prohibit on-campus military recruiting. He said "Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."
Now, many of the blogs I've read have been saying that O'Reilly "has issued an attack on San Francisco" and he is "encouraging the terrorists of al-Qeada to blow up the Coit Tower." Give me a break, he said nothing of the sort. Look, lets face it, the US needs brave men and women nowadays for our military. No one can deny thins, regardless of whether or not you think we should be in iraq. Is it really that bad to have military recruiters in high schools and college campuses? Sorry, but I would prefer they recruit there instead of retirement homes....

Intelligent design in the classroom

Eight members of the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office yesterday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent design policy.
For those that dont know intelligent design is a proposed as an alternative explanation for evolution. Basically, its just creationism reworded in order for those pushing it to force science teachers to include it in their curriculum. However, there is a little something we call seperation of church and state we have here in these wonderful United States. This is an increasingly sensitive and important topic for me, because starting next year, I will be one of those high school science teachers. Just a quick background for you: there is OVERWHELMING evidence for evolution. Science is based on evidence. "Intelligent design" and creationism are not based on evidence. Therefore they are not science. Therefore, they should not be taught in science classrooms. I don't expect sunday school teachers to teach evolution, so why should science teachers be forced to teach creationism? Anyways, off of my tangent, sorry its a sensitive topic for me....Intelligent design basically just says there is a "designer" which created the Earth and everything around us. Sounds a lot like creationism doesnt it?
In the past several years, some have been pushing school boards to give equal time to evolution and intelligent design in science classrooms. Besides the fact that ID isnt science, theres another problem with this. I could do a month long unit on evolution, what in the heck am I supposed to talk about over ID for that same month? There is very little to talk about, because there is absolutely no evidence supporting it.
Proponents of ID claim that evolution is "just a theory." Yes, it is a scientific theory. The problem is that science uses theories much differently than the general public. A scientific theory is a well supported body of facts which is based on evidence and believed to be true. Therefore, theres really no justice in saying evoulution is "just a theory."
Back to whats happening today....a case just ended challenging the teaching of intelligent design. A verdict is expected by January.
Wow, this is quite a long post for me, and I could go on, but for now I'm sure you've heard enough. I will keep you all updated, in case you care. Just remember the outcome of this trial could affect whether or not your children are taught religion in public schools.
Oh, and by the way, Bush supports the mention of intelligent design in the classroom, which obviously makes me angry. So for all those that think I absolutely love and adore bush no matter what he does, I clearly don't.
Even the Vatican supports the theory of evolution.
Meanwhile, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. The standards will be used to develop student tests measuring how well schools teach science.

Two cheerleaders for the Carolina Panthers apparently caught having sex in bathroom

Renee Thomas, 20, of Pittsboro, and Angela Keathley, 26, of Belmont, were arrested after an incident at a club in Tampa's Channelside district. Witnesses told police the women were having sex in a stall, angering other patrons waiting in line to get into the restroom. Thomas was charged with battery after allegedly striking a bar patron when she was leaving the restroom, then got in even more trouble after police said she gave officers a driver's license belonging to another Panthers cheerleader who was not in Tampa. Thomas is not only being charged for giving a fake id, but also a third-degree felony punishable by probation or a jail term of one to five years.

Paris riots continue

President Jacques Chirac declared a state of emergency today, in an attempt to put an end to the violence. It does appear though that the intensity of the violence is on the way down. Last night, rioting was reported in 226 towns, while the night before the number was around 300. Almost 1200 cars were burned last night, as compared to 1400 the night before. Many are calling for the Army to be called in to help put a stop to the violence.

West Wing Debate

So, I normally never watch the West Wing. However, last night I just happened to be watching Dateline, and left the tv on nbc, thus giving me the West Wing. They did something unique last night. It was a live show in which they had a Presidential debate. It was actually pretty cool, because at the beginning of the debate, the republican candidate asked that they remove all of the rules of the "debate" and have a real debate, "as Abe Lincoln did." Don't know if you watched the last actual presidential debates, but they're clouted by so many rules (for example the candidates cannot talk to each other, or ask each other questions, they all get exactly equal time, which is kept track of by three lights). Basically, they're not really debates. But this tv show did something different. They showed the candidates in an actual debate, where you were able to see the actual views of the candidates, and not just memorized lines. Oh how I wish we could see this in the next presidential election. Of course, everyone will say that if the debates were this way, bush would have lost them, because as we all know, hes not the best public speaker. However, bush can connect with people on a personal level much more than kerry, so who knows what would have happened. Anyways, I just thought it was a cool show.

Google Fight!

This is a pretty cool website: Google Fight
Just thought I'd try this fight out: Republican vs. Democrat. Of course the republicans win...haha. But if you try liberal vs. conservative, the liberals win, sad. Try George Bush vs. John Kerry. Bush wins in a landslide.
Some other funny ones I thought of were:
boy vs. girl (girls win in a close one)
America vs. France
America vs. the World (Sorry America, apparently we're not better than the world)
George Bush vs. Bin Laden (Bush wins in a landslide)
Haha, I just find this kinda funny, check it out and create your own battles!

Paris Riots

Well, the riots in Paris continue, and now we see the first casualty from this 11 day long fiasco. Rioting has now been reported in 300 towns across france. Just overnight, 1400 vehicles have been burned, and 36 police officers have been injured. The riots are now reportedly spreading across Europe, to Belgium and Germany.
This all started when two young men were electrocuted at a power substation. Apparently, they were hiding from the police.

Fashioning Deadly Fiascos

Maureen Dowds (NY Times) recent column says: "I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Men are simply not biologically suited to hold higher office. The Bush administration has proved that once and for all. These guys can’t be bothered to run the country. They are too obsessed with frivolous stuff, like fashion and whether they look fat." How can she be serious? Men are not biologically suited to hold office? Where in the hell is that coming from? She goes on to talk about "Brownie" and the recent emails released about him asking whether he looked ok on TV. So, she starts the article talking about how Bush apparently is obsessed with this frivolous stuff "like fashion and whether he lookds fat." But the interesting thing is that her example of this is not in fact Bush at all, it's "Brownie." Another blatant media bias against the President. A story which he had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH (the emails that is), and he somehow takes the hit. Ugh it will never end.

France Riots

So, as I'm sure most of you have heard, the riots in France continue. After reading some blogs on it, I found this to be of interest:
"Back in the 1990s, the French sneered at America for the Los Angeles riots. As the Chicago Sun-Times reported in 1992: "the consensus of French pundits is that something on the scale of the Los Angeles riots could not happen here, mainly because France is a more humane, less racist place with a much stronger commitment to social welfare programs." President Mitterrand, the Washington Post reported in 1992, blamed the riots on the "conservative society" that Presidents Reagan and Bush had created and said France is different because it "is the country where the level of social protection is the highest in the world."
Haha, stupid french....

Congress gives 1 to 3 billion dollars to buy digital converter boxes

So Congress is in the process of passing a bill which will set a deadline for when broadcasters must have all digital transmissions. This dealine is April 7, 2009. This means that on that date if you don't have a telivision able to recieve a digital signal (such as an HDTV), you must buy a digital to analog converter box. If you don't have one, you wont be able to get any television signal.
Well, Congress has decided that they are going to fund 1-3 billion, yes BILLION ($1 billion approved in senate, and $3 billion approved in the House) dollars to buy millions of Americans these boxes. This raises the question, isnt there something better we could be spending our money on? I understand that the point is that people need TV to get vital information in times of crisis, BUT there are things we call radios. Currently, there are millions of people who don't have televisions, so I dont know how this is a justified reason.
Let's face it, TV as we know it now is free. It will continue to be free after it goes all digital. There is one catch though, you must have a television. It's very simple, if you can't afford a television, you dont watch TV. So, if you can't afford a digital to analog converter, you dont watch TV. Americans have four years before they must either buy a new television or buy a digital converter box. I'm thinking if you just save about 2 bucks a month, you should be able to buy your own converter box (although they are pretty expensive now, in four years, they'll be much cheaper). So, why does the government feel that TV is a necessity and everyone, even though they cant afford it, must have one? Maybe they'll pay for my cable bill too?!?!....

Just thought you all should see this;

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), January 23. 2003

Debate over Cervical cancer vaccine

Well, in case you haven't heard, there is a new vaccine that can apparently protect women nearly 100% of the time from the two most common strains of HPV (which cause cervical cancer). So, the logical thing to do would be to administer this to all women, so they will be protected against this cancer (which kills more than 3700 every year). Makes sense right? Some are calling for this to be a mandatory shot for girls entering high school. Because this protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many other people are saying this is sending the wrong message to our kids. Don't get me wrong, I sure as hell dont think that freshmen in high school should be having sex, but this country has got this topic all wrong. Study after study shows that if safe sex is taught over abstinence, teenage birth rates and sexually transmitted diseases decline. Let's face it, teenagers are going to have sex regardless of whether or not their 8th grade 50 year old sex ed teacher tells them its wrong. Yet for some reason school districts all over the country advocate teaching abstinence and rule out teaching safe sex all together. Just by looking at the numerous studies, it is clear that this is absolutely the wrong way to go.

Texas vs. Louisiana

I found this recently when looking through some blogs:

2 States, 22 Observations:
Things I have noticed while watching media coverage of the recent hurricanes.

1. Texas: Productive industrious state run by Republicans.

Louisiana: Government dependent welfare state run by Democrats.
--------------------------
2. Texas: Residents take responsibility to protect and evacuate themselves.

Louisiana: Residents wait for government to protect and evacuate them.
--------------------------
3. Texas: Local and state officials take responsibility for protecting their
citizens and property.

Louisiana: Local and state officials blame federal government for not protecting
their citizens and property.
--------------------------
4. Texas: Command and control remains in place to preserve order.

Louisiana: Command and control collapses allowing lawlessness.
--------------------------
5. Texas: Law enforcement officers remain on duty to protect city.

Louisiana: Law enforcement officers desert their posts to protect themselves.
--------------------------
6. Texas: Local police watch for looting.

Louisiana: Local police participate in looting.
--------------------------
7. Texas: Law and order remains in control, 8 looters tried it, 8 looters
arrested.

Louisiana: Anarchy and lawlessness breaks out, looters take over city, no
arrests, criminals with guns have to be shot by federal troops.
--------------------------
8. Texas: Considerable damage caused by hurricane.

Louisiana: Considerable damage caused by looters.
--------------------------
9. Texas: Flood barriers hold preventing cities from flooding.

Louisiana: Flood barriers fail due to lack of maintenance allowing city to
flood.
--------------------------
10. Texas: Orderly evacuation away from threatened areas, few remain.

Louisiana: 25,000 fail to evacuate, are relocated to another flooded area.
--------------------------
11. Texas: Citizens evacuate with personal 3 day supply of food and water.

Louisiana: Citizens fail to evacuate with 3 day supply of food and water, do
without it for the next 4 days.
--------------------------
12. Texas: FEMA brings in tons of food and water for evacuees. State officials
provide accessible distribution points.

Louisiana: FEMA brings in tons of food and water for evacuees. State officials
prevent citizens from reaching distribution points and vice versa.
--------------------------
13. Louisiana: Media focuses on poor blacks in need of assistance, blames Bush.

Texas: Media can't find poor blacks in need of assistance, looking for something
else to blame on Bush.
--------------------------
14. Texas: Coastal cities suffer some infrastructure damage, Mayors tell
residents to stay away until ready for repopulation, no interference from
federal officials.

Louisiana: New Orleans is destroyed, Mayor asks residents to return home as
another hurricane approaches, has to be overruled by federal officials.
--------------------------
15. Louisiana: Over 400 killed by storm, flooding and crime.

Texas: 24 killed in bus accident on highway during evacuation, no storm related
deaths.
--------------------------
16. Texas: Jailed prisoners are relocated to other detention facilities outside
the storm area.

Louisiana: Jailed prisoners are set free to prey on city shops, residents, and
homes.
--------------------------
17. Texas: Local and state officials work with FEMA and Red Cross in recovery
operations.

Louisiana: Local and state officials obstruct FEMA and Red Cross from aiding in
recovery operations.
--------------------------
18. Texas: Local and state officials demonstrate leadership in managing disaster
areas.

Louisiana: Local and state officials fail to demonstrate leadership, require
federal government to manage disaster areas.
--------------------------
19. Texas: Fuel deliveries can't keep up with demand, some run out of gas on
highway, need help from fuel tankers before storm arrives.

Louisiana: Motorists wait till storm hits and electrical power fails. Cars run
out of gas at gas stations that can't pump gas. Gas in underground tanks mixes
with flood waters.
--------------------------
20. Texas: Mayors move citizens out of danger.

Louisiana: Mayor moves himself and family to Dallas.
--------------------------
21. Texas: Mayors continue public service announcements and updates on
television with Governor's backing and support.

Louisiana: Mayor cusses, governor cries, senator threatens president with
violence on television, none of them have a clue what went wrong or who's
responsible.
--------------------------
22. Louisiana: Democratic Senator says FEMA was slow in responding to 911 calls
from Louisiana citizens.

Texas: Republican Senator says "when you call 911, the phone doesn't ring in
Washington, it rings here at the local responders".
--------------------------
What if state and local elected officials were forced to depend on themselves
and their own resources instead of calling for help from the federal government?
Texas cities would be back up and running in a few days.
Louisiana cities would still be under water next month.
Republicans call for action, Democrats call for help.
What party will you be voting for in the next election?