boudy

Haven't seen the story picked up elsewhere - dateline was 7:00 am GMT - it's now 21:18 GMT - we can still hope. Perhaps recent stories at least indicate that our guys are tightening the noose.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/2004/Dec/28/181_1171017,00050001.htm The region's limited resources combined with the perceived neglible risk of this sort of diaster (last tsunami: 1883) contributed to the lack of awareness & warning. Understandable - we live near a major faullt line in Illinois but we were never earthquake trained as kids - tornados we knew about because frequent visits earned some local areas the title - tornado alley

I know it's boring & unfair - to actually bring up the true historical context as a backdrop for these separation church /State & cultural diversity arguments - afterall, manipulations of history & politics into Rush-like clever cute quotable mantra is much easier to digest & more fun to repeat - chant liberal this & liberal that and attack, ridicule, and scoff - heck, sometimes Rush is even right But you may find the following revealing concerning "new" "feel-good" "multi-cultural diversity-tolerance" from the creator of the Declaration of Independence and (as we learned in school back when they taught US history) a dominant inspirational/philosophical force among the founding fathers: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm >>>"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281 >"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425 >"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67 >"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813. "I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378 >>>"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21 >"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119 >"The law for religious freedom... [has] put down the aristocracy of the clergy and restored to the citizen the freedom of the mind." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:400

Fine, point acknowledged FWIW. Sometimes some gov't regulation actually does some good. (I've actually come to favor concealed carry for Illinois with reasonable restrictions - just to give predators second thoughts about attacking innocent, easy victims - like my 70-something Mom when she's returning to her car from a business call in a bad area) My question is - how do we stop all these blasted Gun Threads?

Here is an interesting site that promotes a book & a strategy for preventing a looming catastrophe. (Even offers a blast map for your favorite zip code.) http://www.nuclearterrorism.org The author is credited with developing & administering a plan in the 90's which brought "loose" nukes in some former Soviet satelite countries under control. Heard him on C-span & Milt Rosenburg's talk show (WGN Chicago). He does not seem that impressed with the dirty bomb scenerio. But with our porous borders & embarrassing inability to prevent illegal immigration & smuggling, Allison says it would be quite a simple matter to send a real city-leveling nuclear bomb in a shipping container, or in large van across the Mexican border or smuggled in a bale of marijuana etc. He says that detection of such nukes would be nearly impossible - He believes the solution to the threat is a broad commitment led by US & allies to stop all further proliferation of fissonable material & lock down all the thousands of ready made nukes in existence. He proposed a carrot & stick approach to both Iran & N. Korea. (I have yet to purchase book - don't know if the reactors Bill discusses are touched upon.) The Carrot for Iran he suggested was a supply of lowly enriched uranium for fuel - but strickly monitored with spent fuel being collected & returned to the source. A consortium of our allies would supervise the arrangement. I think this is similar to the recent EU - Iran agreement except perhaps a bit more stringent. The Stick would be harsh - threat of an imminent attack -carried out if necessary by the US, Israel or an alliance if Iran tried to proceed with development of a weapon. Iran would be forbidden from developing enrichment facilities further & would have to dismantle existing facilities. For the record, he did not favor the Iraq war at this time largely because he did not consider Iraq's nuke threat realistic & the war diminishes our military options regarding Iran & NK. But given the reality we must deal with, he still favors a firm (militarily backed) but face-saving approach to deal with these 2 trouble makers.

never mind

>>IMO even allowing someone to vote who has no idea of the candidates platforms and issues involved is stupid.. how many people do you think are elected by those who are simply 'filling out the slots' and voting the party line because they are Dem/Rep but couldnt define a single position for any candidate in the races they are influencing?

>>Two hours to go until we start hearing the first numbers.

>> Hey...one of those flags is right on my house!!!

>>Kerry...3 times so far, going out for another run in a few minutes

The American Conservative (Pat Buchanan's mag which has few kind words for present Republican Party) - editorial staff was splintered on choices for president, so they featured contributions from editors favoring a number of options. The link below is the one for Badnarik. (Buchanan, after skewering both Kerry & Bush - held his nose & endorsed Bush) You can link onto all the editorials from link below http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover4.html The following exerpt from the article might indicate that a Libertarian candate would draw more support from conservative(not necessarily Republican) voters: " Why should a conservative vote for the Libertarian candidate rather than one of the American Independent, Patriot, or Constitution Party hopefuls? The main reason is the ability to send a coherent message of resistance to unconstitutional growth of government. To be sure, many conservatives are put off by some libertarian positions on drug-law reform, free trade, gay marriage, and pornography. But an election is—or should be for a government properly limited in scope—more about political values than moral values. If I correctly understand American Conservative readers, of which I have been one since early on, they still hold a constitutionally limited state, a noninterventionist foreign policy, and a proper balance among branches and levels of government, to be core political values. The Libertarian Party, whatever its many shortcomings, has been around since 1972, running candidates at every level. It is on the ballot in every state and in 2000 ran enough congressional candidates to win (theoretically) a majority in the House. It is much better organized at a national level than any of the minor conservative parties (which may not be saying much) and it has presented a coherent philosophical alternative to the major parties for decades. I know the party better in the Golden State than on a national level. In California, which has seen its share of flakes running as Libertarians, Orange County Superior Court Judge Jim Gray, a serious, principled proponent of limited government who would wipe the floor with Democrat Barbara Boxer and Republican Bill Jones if they were foolish enough to let him into televised debates, is running for Senate and should do respectably. He’s the harbinger of a trend toward people who understand that if you’re going to do politics, even as a third party, you put on a suit and tie, handle questions seriously, and convince people you could actually serve responsibly if elected. That trend in the Libertarian Party should be rewarded. And a vote for a Libertarian is the best way for a small-government, constitutionalist conservative to let various establishments know there is still a constituency for the Constitution."

One of the main objectives of 1st Amendment is the protection of political speech from the chiling effects of government interference. A private-sector cable company can make a business judgement to air or refuse to air political movies, speech, news, advertisement - whatever it wants - without running afoul of the Constitution. No 1st Amendment issues exist whatsover regarding dumping F 9/11 unless government complicity to stiffle free speech was implicated. On the other hand, a 1st Amendment action will no doubt be brought (and succeed) in Federal court if the FEC or other govt agency attempts to interfere with Sinclair's recently announced decision to broadcast a negative program on Kerry across its network. If that sucks for Kerry - there's little he can do about it but hope nothing in the smear job sticks. He probably got too much mileage off F 9/11 anyway & Dems invited revenge by playing up Moore. I wish someone reputable would have made a real documentary out of "American Dynasty" - an exceptionally well-researched & well documented book about the Bushes' long term connections to oil, mideast intrique, intelligence community, weapons industry & military establishment, the house of Saud, etc written by a former Republican insider. Informing the public of the true history regarding the Bush Family & this administration as researched by Kevin Phillips (which in many ways is far more troubling than F 9/11) without creative editing, lies & cheap shots would have contributed a deeper, broader & legitimate perspective to America's political dialogue.

While it may forever remain folly to hope for never-ending human life, people like Christopher Reeve breath never-ending life to human hope. Blue Skies Superman

Our collective memory has been influenced by the distortion and shrill tone of the war debate. This retrospective illuminates the topic somewhat I believe When the shooting starts March 24, 2003 BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST On the day after President Bush delivered his ultimatum, Patrick J. Buchanan stopped debating the war. The former presidential candidate and longtime adversary of the Bushes wrote that ''patriotism commands that when American soldiers face death in the battle, the American people unite behind them.'' On that very day, the country's foremost conservative publication listed Buchanan among ''leading figures in the anti-war movement [who] call themselves "conservatives' '' but hate their country and want it to lose the war. To my astonishment, I was among them. David Frum, a Washington journalist and White House speechwriter early in this Bush administration, put Buchanan and me on the top of the dishonor roll in ''Unpatriotic Conservatives: A War Against America,'' the cover story in the current edition of National Review. We are accused of advocating ''a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies.'' Concluding, he writes of us: ''[T]hey are thinking about defeat, and wishing for it, and they will take pleasure if it should happen. They began by hating the neo-conservatives. They came to hate their party and this president. They have finished by hating their country.'' That demonstrably is not true of Pat Buchanan, and it is certainly not true of me. Anybody who makes a living by dispensing strong comment should be inured to attack, even when the accusations are totally false. During the nearly 40 years that I have been privileged to write this column, I have not subjected readers to my personal controversies. Now, however, I feel constrained to identify myself as a Korean War-vintage Army officer (non-combat) who has always supported our troops and prayed for their success during many wars. This war is no exception. Dealing with statements about me even so calumnious as Frum's might seem petty in time of war. But broader issues are at stake. Frum represents a body of conservative opinion that wants to delegitimize criticism from the right of policy that has led to war against Iraq. Anti-war activity over the years has come mostly from the left. Those were not conservatives who shut down Times Square on Thursday. Senate Democratic Leader Thomas Daschle went over the line last Monday when he blamed potential American deaths on Bush's failed diplomacy, but he had regrouped by week's end to promise support of ''our troops and our commander-in-chief.'' Like Buchanan, Daschle ended up following the old American custom of supporting the war once the shooting starts. Frum, on the other hand, chose that moment to begin shooting at ''paleo-conservatives.'' He brackets me with his selected paleos--people whom I have never met or read and whose anti-Semitic and white supremacist views I abhor. Frum cannot find any such statements ever uttered by me. Nor can he find anything I ever have said to indicate hatred for George W. Bush, much less my country. His article cites four quotations from my columns, one reporting that congressional sources predicted the CIA would be unable to find Osama bin Laden, and the other three criticizing an overly close identification of U.S. policy with Israel (especially the Ariel Sharon government). Implicitly, that is unacceptable criticism from a conservative. ''[E]ven Robert Taft and Charles Lindbergh ceased accommodating Axis aggression after Pearl Harbor,'' Frum writes. The implication: After 9/11, conservatives should have refrained from debating the Iraq strategy or questioning Israeli policy. Nevertheless, Frum's mention of Lindbergh recalls the lone Eagle's unhappy experience. Gulled by Hitler into regarding the Nazi thugs as saviors of Western civilization, Lindbergh was goaded by Franklin D. Roosevelt into resigning his colonel's commission in the Army Air Corps Reserve. Lindbergh sought active duty after Pearl Harbor but was blocked by a vindictive President Roosevelt. He managed to fly secret combat missions in the Pacific, however illegally, as a civilian. A newly naturalized American, Frum might ponder how Lindbergh handled himself once the shooting started.

Probably dating the guy with the ass you like so much.

From CBS "Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did, Rather reported. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript – including one from as far back as 1968. Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s. But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style told CBS News that it has been available since 1931. " I'd like to see is the documents that the White House released with "th" subscript, as well as military documents produced circa 1973 which resemble the questioned font & spacing. Should be readily available. A side by side comparison between Bush's released docs & the memos CBS dug up would add traction to CBS's claim that the subscript was available & used by military personnel at the time. Likewise, producing uncontested military documents from that era with the same spacing & font characteristics as the memos would allow CBS to straight face their defense. Just saying the font was available doesn't quite cut it in my book. I guess we'll soon see if they can really back up their defense of the appearance of the docs. Other questions will remain given the conflicting testimony of those who knew alleged author. BTW - This is hardly a broad unified lib media conspiracy to fraudulently smear Bush CNN & NPR(heard them myself) & ABC (Drudge link) have been questioning the legitimacy of the docs - using their own experts.

As Michele noted, poll choices do not necessarily reflect reality in the body politic Personally, regarding our government, most people I know pray for a secular future

Did you happen to check if the same applied to cynical and sardonic remarks concerning those who posted messages of condolence to "strangers?" You mean like those who are so disturbed by "vibes" threads that they feel compelled to self-righteously proclaim how they personally feel, think & act while belittling those inclined to feel, think & act differently? BTW, how did you check the silent thoughts & prayers stuff??? Was it the same source for the omniscient sounding pronouncement that only a few people are actually touched or affected by a fatality at their dropzone? What about small, "friendly-family" type DZ's? I (and most my home DZ) was damned well touched last year when a friend from our DZ was killed skydiving in Florida. But I only had 55 jumps - I guess I should have checked with the sympathy police to see how I should really have felt & acted. Of Course! We all know how supportive, well meaning and sympathic "strangers" are - in fact I see them gesture their sentiments to me all the time on crowded rush hour expressways... I think for the most part the community atmosphere was created here to make us much less strangers to one another. Come on... It's the better side human nature to be neighborly & express support to those in the community in stressful situations Despite the fact that some posts appear superficial and quite obviously irritate you, don't you really think most people here have good intentions with their supportive posts? While it's not a form of expression that you or I may engage in ....what's the harm in it? - Many times the condolences - even the "vibes" from the community - seem to be greatly appreciated by those receiving them. Maybe they should send a batch of vibes your way just to see if all the love in this community doesn't change your mind on the subject. Edited to be slightly more neighborly

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-040821rood,1,1611037.story?coll=chi-news-hed Feb. 28, 1969: ON THE DONG CUNG RIVER Anti-Kerry vets not there that day By William B. Rood Chicago Tribune Published August 21, 2004 "There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago—three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969. One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other. For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions. Many of us wanted to put it all behind us—the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service—even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work. But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there...." I'm not sure of the propriety of reproducing the entire article here (I know it's often done). I found the remainder of the article exceptionally interesting and a credible refutation of the John O'neill's allegations regarding the Silver Star incident. The Trib online requires free registration/subscription - perhaps someone else will post rest of article if they deem it suitable. Regarding the treatment of veterans today-IMHO we should put our political divisions aside when it comes to that. This country can not afford to ever again deprive it's service men and women of our well deserved appreciation as happened in the wake of Viet Nam. I think most of us understand that but don't necessarily know how to embrace it with our actions. I'd like to see a thread once in a while on ways we in US can support our service folks. Personally, I guess it's time to donate to USO online again & finally look into volunteering a bit of time each month to help service member's families -

EILEY! We miss that lively wit out here in the Hinckley bean fields - which is literally where I find myself landing all the time. So, until I get past the challenge of finding the DZ under canopy, I'll personally leave the tricky stuff for ya'all to contemplate & watch our many competent mates with the slightess envy and greatest appreciation & admiration. Did I ever show you my macrame?

...or siphon all the hot air emanating from this forum to supply a huge steam powered generator.

No comment on alleged wedding incident - but I have a question regarding the claim made by many including right-leaning media people that Iraq news coverage is unfairly skewed. Hopefully the reality on the occupation is much brighter than the news covearge makes it appear. My question is why isn't FOX news channel out there bringing us the positive stories? Why isn't this unabashedly pro-Bush network carrying the real "fair & balanced" stories of our success in Iraq instead of just bitching about the negativity of the "mainstream media coverage?" The same applies to Rush, Shawn, the dozens of other talk-radio clones, Republican leaning publications, etc,etc. Who the hell is stopping those who believe or know the occupation is going well from portraying the real picture? Don't they believe there is a receptive audience in the US for coverage of the thousands of great Americans giving their all for their country & working for a successful, democratic, peaceful middle-east? It seems all we get from the pro-Bush media is excuses, bitching and name calling (more negativity) about negativity in "the media." The best antidote to overly gloomy news coverage is to reveal the true, more hopeful reality. Can it be it's just easier and serves their selfish interests better for Rush, Shawn, Fox News, et al. to stir up ever more controversy by attacking "liberals" and other war critics than to make the investment and risk to bring in-depth coverage of the good side of the Iraq story? If things are going well, somebody needs to quit arguing and posturing long enough to get the positive message across because, as George Will admitted on Sunday, even conservatives are beginning to consider the admisnistration's handling of Iraq as incompetent.

mega ditto

ditto a quote from someone else who was known to get under the skin of party hacks: "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else" - Theodore Roosevelt

Shortly before the Iraq war started, the most outspoken War hawks apparently found his fiddle out of tune. Novak's criticism of the coming war was labeled "unpatriotic" and a former Bush insider claimed his dissent revealed evidence of his hatred for Bush, the Republican party, and even the country! The following article by our newest celebrity skydiver (or whatever) is a little long to post but the online link expired. When the shooting starts March 24, 2003 BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST On the day after President Bush delivered his ultimatum, Patrick J. Buchanan stopped debating the war. The former presidential candidate and the longtime adversary of the Bushes wrote that 'patriotism commands that when American soldiers face death in the battle, the American people unite behind them.'' On that very day, the country's foremost conservative publication listed Buchanan among ''leading figures in the anti-war movement [who] call themselves 'conservatives' '' but hate their country and want it to lose the war. To my astonishment, I was among them. David Frum, a Washington journalist and White House speechwriter early in this Bush administration, put Buchanan and me on the top of the dishonor roll in ''Unpatriotic Conservatives: A War Against America,'' the cover story in the current edition of National Review. We are accused of advocating ''a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies.'' Concluding, he writes of us: ''[T]hey are thinking about defeat, and wishing for it, and they will take pleasure if it should happen. They began by hating the neo-conservatives. They came to hate their party and this president. They have finished by hating their country.'' That demonstrably is not true of Pat Buchanan, and it is certainly not true of me. Anybody who makes a living by dispensing strong comment should be inured to attack, even when the accusations are totally false. During the nearly 40 years that I have been privileged to write this column, I have not subjected readers to my personal controversies. Now, however, I feel constrained to identify myself as a Korean War-vintage Army officer (non-combat) who has always supported our troops and prayed for their success during many wars. This war is no exception. Dealing with statements about me even so calumnious as Frum's might seem petty in time of war. But broader issues are at stake. Frum represents a body of conservative opinion that wants to delegitimize criticism from the right of policy that has led to war against Iraq. Anti-war activity over the years has come mostly from the left. Those were not conservatives who shut down Times Square on Thursday. Senate Democratic Leader Thomas Daschle went over the line last Monday when he blamed potential American deaths on Bush's failed diplomacy, but he had regrouped by week's end to promise support of ''our troops and our commander-in-chief.'' Like Buchanan, Daschle ended up following the old American custom of supporting the war once the shooting starts. Frum, on the other hand, chose that moment to begin shooting at ''paleo-conservatives.'' He brackets me with his selected paleos--people whom I have never met or read and whose anti-Semitic and white supremacist views I abhor. Frum cannot find any such statements ever uttered by me. Nor can he find anything I ever have said to indicate hatred for George W. Bush, much less my country. His article cites four quotations from my columns, one reporting that congressional sources predicted the CIA would be unable to find Osama bin Laden, and the other three criticizing an overly close identification of U.S. policy with Israel (especially the Ariel Sharon government). Implicitly, that is unacceptable criticism from a conservative. ''[E]ven Robert Taft and Charles Lindbergh ceased accommodating Axis aggression after Pearl Harbor,'' Frum writes. The implication: After 9/11, conservatives should have refrained from debating the Iraq strategy or questioning Israeli policy. Nevertheless, Frum's mention of Lindbergh recalls the Lone Eagle's unhappy experience. Gulled by Hitler into regarding the Nazi thugs as saviors of Western civilization, Lindbergh was goaded by Franklin D. Roosevelt into resigning his colonel's commission in the Army Air Corps Reserve. Lindbergh sought active duty after Pearl Harbor but was blocked by a vindictive President Roosevelt. He managed to fly secret combat missions in the Pacific, however illegally, as a civilian. A newly naturalized American, Frum might ponder how Lindbergh handled himself once the shooting started.