School's 'No Drug Policy' is Void While Making Fun of President Bush

Pete here, forwarding to you a little "common sense."

Many schools have a Zero tolerance for drugs, Including images on t-shirts and what not.

apparently this policy can be voided if you Bush-Bash at the same time:
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/youth/26631prs20060830.html

Now, just the fact that this lawsuit was brought on by the ACLU would be enough for me to disagree with it, but because I am an open minded "Moderate" we will hear them out. Here is the T-Shirt they are defending:

You can read the entire ruling here.

Paragraph 16 goes over the School's dress code policy, which states (in part):

"We recognize that personal expression through dress is an important aspect of our culture for developing a sense of individualism, and this should be allowed to develop within our system. However, we must remember we are a part of an academic community and our guidelines must reflect a sense of responsibility and integrity.

"Any aspect of a person's appearance, which constitutes a real hazard to the health and safety of self and others or is otherwise distracting, is unacceptable as an expression of personal taste. Example [Clothing displaying alcohol, drugs, violence, obscenity and racism is outside our responsibility and integrity guidelines as a school and is prohibited.]" (Brackets in original.)

Okay, So clothing that displays drugs or alcohol are prohibited. I can understand this, after all, this is a school of minors. That and we must be responsible with what we throw on.

Paragraph 17 and 18 is where I think the judge was paid off by the ACLU:

17. The Appearance and Dress policy is unconstitutionally overboard in that it sweeps within the terms of its prohibition a very substantial amount of protected political speech, including Zachary's t-shirt criticizing and satirizing President Bush.

18. The Appearance and Dress policy is unconstitutionally vague in that it is laden with terms whose meaning is unclear, both facially and when read in context.

Bullshit! Bull Crap! The policy does not say that a T-Shirt criticizing and satirizing President Bush violates their dress code, it says that "Clothing displaying alcohol, drugs, violence, obscenity and racism is outside our responsibility and integrity guidelines as a school and is prohibited." (note they use the word President in front of Bush, which is the proper way of addressing our President, whether you like him or not)

Though I think those who relate President Bush to Hitler, or anyone with a Anti-President Bush t-shirt is mis-informed especially at 14 years old), I would have no problem with this kid wearing an Anti-President Bush t-shirt if it was within the polices of the school. As in: No Drugs, Alcohol, Violence, Obscenity, or Racism

But this t-shirt contained lines of Cocaine, a Razor, and a Straw (the razor and straw are used for the intake of the cocaine),therefore is against the school's Policy.

In Paragraph 19 of the ruling, it states:

Defendants' actions in disciplining Zachary for wearing his anti-Bush t-shirt are based in part on its message. Defendants have permitted students to wear t-shirts expressing viewpoints opposed to Zachary's, including, by way of example, "These Colors Don't Run," "Go Army," "USA #1," and t-shirts promoting the National Guard. No students wearing such t-shirts have been disciplined for doing so.

Okay. So they are saying "Because other people have their Pro USA propaganda, you can have your Anti-Bush Propaganda." What do I think:

1. A 14 year old is not wise enough to make political decisions. This is why a 14 year old does not vote.
2. This issue has more to do with your opinion on the leader of the United States.
3. Did the Pro-USA T-Shirts have Drugs, Alcohol, Violence, Obscenity, or Racism on them?

So then, would it be okay to have a picture of a political figure that was Jewish being shot by Nazis, then some clever line about him being a bad politician?

Or what about a shirt with President Clinton and a phrase like "He F***ed an intern while he was married and F***ing lied aboutin frontit infront of a F***ing federal hearing"

Don't get me worng, I wear T-shirts that allow me to express myself (my Anti-Apple one is probably my favorite). But If my Anti-Apple T-shirt had a graphic representation of Steve Jobes snorting cocaine (or a clever line like the President Clinton t-shirt I mentioned) and my employer told me I couldn't wear it because it goes against their "nothing offensive" policy, would the ACLU run to my cause?

********** TONY ADDS **********
Quickly, I think this was the real danger in the Supreme Court's Tinker ruling. Kids do NOT have rights. They have potential rights. Even moreso they do not have full rights which properly would exclude from children's rights the First Amendment.

I think you can expect the lunacy over decades and decades to get worse in this regard before it is corrected.

**********Pete UPDATE**********

This brings up a good question: Should 13 year olds be allowed to vote?

I bring this up because of the ACLU's suit with the kid wearing the Anti-Bush t-shirt with drugs on it, being (and I quote) "a form of constitutionally protected political speech"

If this boy is "constitutionally protected" then does not the entire Constitution apply to him, including:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

You can vote on it here... If you're old enough.

The Star Fib: Unable to Call a Duck a Duck

Pete here again. Man, the Star Fib really chapps my chode. I swear they speak out of ignorance just to tick me off:

During a meeting last week with his economic advisers, President Bush took a break to pose for pictures and tell reporters, "things are good" for American workers and small businesses. We don't know if he was speaking from ignorance or a sheet of talking points, but it's clear he didn't have a sneak preview of the income and poverty report released by the U.S. Census Bureau on Tuesday.

Okay, they were off to a good start with the first sentence, then the just had to keep going. So many things are wrong with this editorial, where should I start? The top I guess.

The annual report, the most comprehensive snapshot of Americans' economic well-being, shows that for the great majority of Americans, this is the weakest economic expansion since World War II.

What? The weakest? Not according to... Oh... Just about everyone else:

Washington Times

Admittedly, the current expansion took some time to take hold. But once it finally gained strength during the second quarter of 2003, it established itself as arguably the most steady, non-volatile expansion in 60 years.

MSNBC mentions "Obvious week spots" including construction spending and a slowing housing market but says:

The latest snapshot, released by the Labor Department Friday, was a bit brighter than expected and should ease any fears that the expansion that began in late 2001 is in danger of fizzling out.

Perhaps the Star Fib should say something like this:

The snapshot released was a bit brighter then we would have liked. Dispute constant attempts to weaken America through our power of journalism, The Anti-ChristMohammad president we have is still performing well when it comes to the economy.

The International Herald Tribune:

The U.S. economy grew more quickly in the second quarter than the government initially estimated and inflation was slightly lower, the Commerce Department
reported Wednesday.

They continue to say:

In the second quarter, spending on housing fell more quickly than the government had earlier estimated - at an annual rate of 9.8 percent - but the drop was more than made up for by a 22 percent rise in construction spending.

So what... A 22% rise on construction spending (according to a statement by an earlier source) is a week spot?

Wage-and-salary income surged during the first half of the year, the report showed.

What was that? "Surged"? Isn't that like the opposite of... What was it that the Star Fib said?

Median household income in 2005 inched up to $46,326

Inched up? That doesn't sound as impressive as "surged" does it? I guess when the failure of the United States helps your political cause... It’s best not to "Dramatize" the positives, right? I mean, with all this "inching" along, people must be having a real crap time trying to pay for bills and what not, right?

That's not what the Heritage Foundation says:

The economy's performance since the 2003 tax cuts went into effect has been stunning. The unemployment rate has fallen to from 6.3 percent to 4.7 percent—well below the historical average. Companies and entrepreneurs have created 5.7 million new jobs, including another 128,000 in August. And the typical unemployed worker now needs three fewer weeks to find a job than in June 2003.

The 2003 tax cuts lowered taxes on savings and investment, making it easier for workers to save for the future and reducing the cost of investment. The consequences have been dramatic. Since June 2003, investment in the economy has surged by 28 percent in real terms and is higher now than during the late 1990s. The stock market has also recovered, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average up 2,500 points in since June of 2003. With tens of millions of American workers owning stocks through 401(k) plans, these gains have been broadly shared throughout the economy.

Time to Celebrate President Bush was right.
American workers do know better than the government how to spend their money. The economy has surged since the 2003 tax cuts took effect, and these gains continued in August, with unemployment continuing to fall as the economy adds more jobs. This Labor Day, American workers can relax while enjoying more of their hard-earned money and the freedom and opportunity that lower taxes allow.

The Bush tax cuts? Isn't that just a Conservative cover-up for Big Business something-or-other? I know it’s hard to believe, but the largest cut went to the lowest bracket (from 15% to 10%, which is a 33% cut).

Look it up if you doubt it. So with all this Conservative Propaganda Good News, what does DNC House Leader Nancy Pelosi have to say? Interestingly enough, she did have something to say, back on 8/4/06:

As bad economic news for middle-income families living paycheck to paycheck adds up, Republicans continue to play politics with the economic well-being of millions of families.

Huh. Apparently reporting good news is "Playing Politics." I'll have to remember that one.

In addition to the "current economic state"...

• Over 5 million new jobs being created can be blamed on President Bush.
• Unemployment at 4.7% can be blamed on President Bush.
• GDP along at 4% can be blamed on President Bush.
• Business spending up 25% can be blamed on President Bush.
• Per capita after tax income up double digests can be blamed on President Bush.
• Revenue flowing in more then 386 billion more then 3 years ago can also be blamed on President Bush

I went on the only vacation I could afford since my wife and I had our honeymoon 5 years ago! Do you know what I see? I see "Vast Prosperity." Just look around you, people. Does your current state of affairs tell you that the US Economy is going to crap? (If you are trying to sell a screenplay in California, don't answer that.)

Another question? Why does the left keep refering to information from only 4-5 years ago when it comes to the negatives of the Economy (like the poverty rate)?

I'll show you:

This chart is from the US Sensus Bureau. Notice the fact that the Poverity rate remains at an all time low? How could the number of people in Poverty go up or stay the same when the Poverty Rate doesn't change or goes down? I'll give you a hint: It has to do with Population Growth.

Remember: Bush isn't eating kittins. But the liberal media IS skewing the data. If you don't believe me, read that Star Fib report again, then look at my graph.

Operation: Learngasm Complete.

Pawlenty's quote

Cumulo Nimbus Growing
It has been out there for a while now. It has been analyzed and dissected beyond belief. I have a little something to redress on the response to the response.

An article about an interview with Tim Pawlenty included a firestorm causing quote. "The era of small government is over."

There have been many blog postings written that point out how Clintonesque the line was. There have been many people talking about how this proves (or completes) the complete abandonment by Pawlenty of the fiscal conservative and small government ideals. David Strom has a great posting about this quote.

I guess, in a simply factual way, the era of small government ended sometime betweent the initiation of the progressive era and the beginning of WWII, but I somehow don’t think that’s quite what Pawlenty is referring to. Instead, he appears to be suggesting that us limited government types who have been trying to wrestle with the growing size and scope of government are passe. These days, using government’s coercive power to achieve your goals is in! The next wave. What Republicans are, or should be, about.

All I can say is, if that is where the Republican Party is going, or for that matter where our young, hip, and politically skilled Governor wants to take us, I’m not on board! Basically, the version of politics Pawlenty is hawking is one of competing interests trying to wrestle control over the power of the state to distribute the goodies. The Democrats give the goodies to the unions and public employees, the Republicans to the farmers and through new middle class entitlements like free college tuition.

Yeah, that is where the GOP seems to be headed. 'What do the polls say? That is what we believe today.' What is the guiding principle for the GOP? I used to think it was (misguidedly) victory only. After watching state and national GOPers wrap themselves around Lieberman's cause I realize that their guiding principle is "make the Democrats lose". Nothing else matters.

Voting guide for Republican members is expected to be as follows:
1. Do nothing until election day
2. Find candidates with (R) after their name
3. Select those candidates.

To Pawlenty's credit he is doing what politicians do (and we as a population do nothing about)...he is looking for any way to maintain his power. That is all. Once in office all politicians principle boils down to one thing: Maintain Power. There is not a fidelity to "fiscal conservativism" or "small government" or any other platform in the future that the politician feels becomes a liability.

And the supporters simply follow.

Supporters Don't Listen, Only Attack
You may think I'm being too hard on the supporters, but I now point to Marty's posting.

I invite anyone to make the case for me to vote for Pawlenty in the general election. I have strived in my life to find the balance between my ideology and the necessity of winning elections. A party is useless if it has no principles and principles are useless without political influence. As far as I'm concerned right now, the positions Pawlenty has been advocating for lately are contrary to my principles. In fact, Pawlenty calls into question all of my beliefs regarding size and role of government in the economy.

Please try to do better than "Pawlenty is bad but Hatch is worse."

Notice the lines in bold face. I point them out because that is one of the questions I have been asking of Pawlenty supporters for quite some time. Why should I, a fiscal conservative, vote for Pawlenty. To date there has been no answers supporting a fiscal vote FOR Pawlenty.

In a moment I will give a primer on the difference between voting FOR someone vs voting AGAINST someone...and the irresponsibility in the latter. But right now I want to focus on the reaction to Marty's post.

The reaction to Marty's post has been typical of Party over Principle people. They ignore the issue, ignore the questions, attack the alternatives (on a personal level, not in any relation to the issues presented) and attack the "non-loyal" personally. To date the challenge of presenting an arguement FOR Pawlenty has not been presented.

One response to Marty:

Given the choice between two alternatives, I choose the best of the two. What does Marty do? Not choose at all.

A subtle shot at the now "non-loyal" Marty and a failure to answer the issue at hand. Additionally a failure to present reasons to vote FOR Pawlenty.

Another response:

Pawlenty has been a staunch supporter of conservative social issues. We can quibble about a "fee" vs. a "tax" but one can easily dismiss his goo-gooism under pragmatic pretenses.

Again, ignoring the exact issue ("I would rather regain some of my principles and face a Hatch governorship then lose all I have come to believe as a fiscal conservative") and then attempting to marginalize the question & and the questioner.

Finally there is this response:

How much did income taxes go up under gov. Pawlenty?
How much did the gas tax go up?
How much did taxes on business go up?
How much in state spending was cut under Tim Pawlenty?
How quickly did gov. pawlenty sign tort reform, eminant domain reform, and repealing profiles of learning?
How pro-second amendment is gov. pawlenty?
How strongly has gov. pawlenty supported pro-life legislation?
How strongly has gov. pawlenty supported the marriage amendment?

Understand what is happening here? In order to make the case to fiscal conservatives rhetorical questions are asked pointing to very small "subsets" of the fiscal platform. This is intentional as Pawlenty's entire performance, as a whole, in the fiscal light is not good. This is like trying to convince your parents that your high school grades are worthy of reward. "Did I get a good grade on my Calculus test in October of my junior year? Did I do well in Biology in the fall semester of my Freshman year? Wasn't my attendance perfect? Did I break my curfew on weeknights? See, I deserve commendation for my grades in high school."

Notice in the series of rhetorical questions the shifting away from fiscal questions once asking a question where the answer is actually damaging ("How much in state spending was cut under Tim Pawlenty?"). Then next one was asking about the speed of signing legislation. I'm not certain that is a credential that is to be considered of a candidate. But, the fiscal conservative retort would be to point out the bills he also signed which include the Transportation Constitutional Amendment and the Northstar Train...the usurping of local voter rights in the Stadium bill and PROPOSING a billion dollar capital investment bill (essentially growing government).

There is so much more to specifically pick apart in the list of rhetorical questions. But the larger idea is the general responses in "defending" Pawlenty.

Again, the responses are to ignore the issue, ignore the questions, attack the alternatives (on a personal level, not in any relation to the issues presented) and attack the "non-loyal" personally. Never believe that the tendency to avoid discussion about issues is unique to the Left. It is epidemic on both sides of the aisle. Wait, correction. Never believe that the tendency to avoid discussion and prevent disagreement about issues is unique to the Left.

Voting For Someone vs Voting Against Someone
Since I have seen the light on this (summer of 2004) I have been waiting for some reasonable examples to help drive this one home. Lieberman's recent ordeal gives an opportunity to show this through the eyes of the Left.

When you vote FOR someone you know what you are getting...in theory. The reality is that you may not have done your homework enough (blame is on you) or the candidate changed since you voted for him (blame is on them). People who voted for Jesse Ventura in 1998 and then were surprised by his governance (style & policy) are the 'didn't do the homework' type. Tim Pawlenty is of the latter type to fiscal conservatives. That tangent is over...sorry.

When you vote FOR someone and you win then election night is not the only day of celebration. You can look forward to, know what you should be getting over, were a part of the driving of policy for the next number of years. THAT is the empowerment of your voting rights.

When you vote AGAINST someone you do not necessarily know what you are getting if you 'win'. This is why it is a wreckful and irresponsible way of voting...and eliminates the empowerment within your voting rights. You may win in ousting someone and you celebrate that Tuesday night (or even Wednesday also). But then you have little to really look forward to. More of the same? Too far the other way?

Let's create a visionable hypothetical. Remember the repeated mantra from the Left in 2004? "Anyone but Bush." I have no doubt that if the ticket were Lieberman instead of Kerry those "Anyone but Bush" people would have gleefully voted for Lieberman. But the largest reason for most of them being in the "Anyone but Bush" mindset was Iraq and the "War on Terror". Imagine their horror to find out that the person they voted "for" did not really aid their main policy position on Iraq. They did not actually vote FOR Lieberman, they were voting AGAINST Bush...and in doing so they accomplished nothing.

Why? Because while their mentality was "vote AGAINST" the action in the voting booth is an affirmative vote. In other words, the actual vote is FOR someone. Thus, in the example above people WANT to vote AGAINST Bush but they cannot. They think and believe they are voting AGAINST Bush. But in trying to do so they must pull the lever FOR Lieberman...and they know nothing about whom they are acting FOR. They are not even necessarily FOR Lieberman.

I know...many partisans on the Left may have understood that example because it speaks to their beliefs. Many partisans on the Right cannot wrap their minds around that...so for them we will create another visionable hypothetical. Rewind to 2002 and imagine that somehow Brian Sullivan said something that made him an objectionable choice as a person to conservatives (including fiscal conservatives). (Let me think of something that would make Republicans hate him as a person regardless of platform...hmm, OH. Imagine he said at the convention that Bill Clinton was a capable and shrewd politician.)

"Damn that Brian. That's it. I'll teach him. I'm voting anyone but Brian", says an offended fiscal conservative. But because our system requires an action of affirmation to vote that offended fiscal conservative selects Pawlenty's name. And did that fiscal conservative get his views represented by his vote? Nope. He would have been better off voting "abstain" (in other words: skipping the vote). Voting AGAINST someone does not pay off and instead opens the door to worse outcomes than intended.

Vote FOR someone or, if you cannot vote FOR someone then noone is deserving of your vote in that race. Skip it. But do not delude yourself into the mindset of voting AGAINST someone. Please remember...your vote is yours to give and there is no Right of a candidate to your vote. Just because you have a vote and there are candidates in a race there is not an obligation to give your vote to a candidate. Votes are too precious to waste on the selection of "the lessor of two evils". Votes are too important to give away to unworthy candidates (in the voter's mind) out of a falsely perceived obligation.

Vote FOR someone or skip it.

Note: I have been working on this post for several days. As I have previously mentioned, my free time went from "some" to "absolutely none whatsoever at all between Sunday and Saturday". I had to work this one in parts and sections. Thus, regardless of if you agree or not, should you find some passages that are incomplete please let me know. (I know, I opened the door for those whose reading comprehension skills are on par with a toddler to claim the ideas are 'incomplete'--that is to be expected, I suppose, from people like that.

President Domestic Travel

Pete here again...

I bring this up because of the recient reporting by Pat Kessler at WCCO. Looking outside of WCCO, President Bill Clinton’s Travel is called excessive from CNN here.

USA Today is quick to nock Bush for his traveling, like WCCO:

USA today says:

An Associated Press tally of Bush's travels shows he has made at least 114 trips
in the 17 months since January 2003.
Clinton flew Air Force One on 123
domestic trips between January 1995 and mid-October 1996, a period of 22 months.
It was a record for re-election-related travel aboard the presidential aircraft,
according to the Center for Public Integrity.

Lets examine this statement:
1. They knew exactly how many trips President Clinton took, but for President Bush its "At least"????
2. President Clinton: "123 domestic trips" and President Bush: "114 trips.” Where is the word domestic when referring to President Bush’s trips?

Now let me rearrange some words in that USA Today Article:
"Are" "all of" "Bush" "trips" "domestic" "at least"?

They actually answer that: "Virtually all of Bush's trips on Air Force One have been within the continental United States."

So, what is the definition of "virtually all"? Does Seventy-Five percent or more count as “Virtually all”? Does this count President Bush's travels for Hurricane Katrina? Those are domestic, after all.
I would love to see a list of where each president has gone on the time they claim and for what. Because, I bet you a dollar, our ol' "man of integrity" of a president has President Bush beat by quite a bit when it comes to "domestic campaigning travel."

Blog personnel update

MENSA, Simpsons and Jon
One of the more popular features of the blog has come to an end...unfortunately. The MENSA questions of the day have ended since co-author, Jon, had only a one year pool of questions. The book he was using was a "Question of the day" type and we decided to not repeat the questions.

The other major contribution from Jon was the Simpson's Trivia. It was a new feature (we hoped it would replace the MENSA questions). This will be at least temporarily halted for a number of reasons.
1) Jon is getting married soon and his attention is, for good reason, not on the blog
2) Simpsons Trivia was not getting the interest (in either hits OR answers) that we were hoping for
3) Jon is moving away from Minneapolis. Where he currently accesses the internet only has dial-up so it is not practical for him to continue for the time being.

Hopefully his input (sports, movies & Simpsons possibly) will be able to return and expand once his major life changes get settled.

Pete joins ARUC
We have a new author. Pete will be joining us. He is one of the many research hounds I have the acquaintance of, very opinionated and has been flooding my (and dozens of others) e-mail with his opinions and observations.

Welcome to Pete.

Lynch having baby...update on the other girl

Remember PoW Jessica Lynch? All the stories. All the hype.

And it continues. Guess what? She's pregnant.

THE American soldier who became a national icon after she was captured in Iraq revealed yesterday that she is expecting her first child.

Jessica Lynch once worried that the injuries she suffered were so severe they might stop her from having a baby.

Ms Lynch, 23, who has rarely spoken publicly since her return home to West Virginia, let the news slip in an e-mail to the television interviewer Diane Sawyer. “Learning to walk again and coping with the internal injuries that I still deal with pale in comparison to the tremendous joy of carrying this child,” she wrote. The father is her boyfriend, Wes Robinson, 25.

Now, does anyone remember the OTHER PoW, whose injuries in the same event were worse? She is black. Remember her yet? Doubt it, mostly because the media, for some reason (racism?) would not cover both women close to equally...and still don't.

The other PoW is Shoshana Johnson.

Shoshana Nyree Johnson (born 1971) was the first black female prisoner of war in the military history of the United States. She was held hostage in Iraq for 22 days after being captured with four other members of the U.S. Army 507th Maintenance Company, 5/52 ADA BN, 11th ADA Brigade. Johnson was a Specialist at the time and suffered bullet wounds to both of her ankles. She survived the ordeal as a result of a successful rescue mission conducted by U.S. Marines on April 13, 2003.

Aside from announcing that Johnson signed a book deal (years after Lynch signed one...and for less? Don't know, can't find details on the amount), and aside from a CNN Where are they Now type of deal (and a couple of similar interviews in the same 'you used to be known' vein) last year there has been nothing said about her.

Watch the releases and coverage over the next few weeks. Lynch is pregnant, Johnson gets a book deal. Somehow I have a feeling if you see one you will not see the other. I have a hunch that the one you will see on the news reports is Lynch, and maybe a quick sentence about Johnson, just to keep it fair.

So, while the media continues acting as if they have some kind of moral high ground over everyone, and that they are better than everyone else you can keep in mind that they are no better than the average person. Worse even, because to be racist is to be worse than the average person.

Shut Up Kessler

I think it is well known how little I think of Michele Bachmann as a person and as a candidate (and should she win, how little I will think of her as a Congresswoman). I advocate skipping the race on the ballot for there are no good options in that race.

However, I do also try to be fair when I look at each and every story that I look at. So when I saw Pat Kessler's story raising questions about President Bush's visit to Minnesota recently I felt compelled to speak out.

Kessler...SHUT UP!

Many people are wondering about the cost of President Bush's visit to Minnesota this week.

His stop in the Twin Cities was part health policy and part campaign politics and nothing is easy or cheap when a president travels.

Taxpayers picked up most of the tab for Bush's Minnesota trip on Tuesday, even though it included campaign fundraising.

Really...is this any different than any other election year? President masquerades a fundraiser into the calendar on the same day and in the same city as a Presidential policy event. Clinton was a master at this, as were Presidents before him. Bush is a master at it now.

The only difference is, well, nothing.

Kessler...SHUT UP!

Here's what you NEED TO KNOW.

Republican Congressional candidate Michele Bachmann's campaign paid $40,000 to bring Bush to Minnesota. That is nowhere near the total cost of the trip.

A prolific fund-raiser, Bush generated more than $500,000 for Bachmann, but he also set aside 50 minutes for a public forum on healthcare and there is a reason for that, so THAT'S NOT THE WHOLE STORY here.

By coupling a policy event with a campaign fund-raiser, the
White House -- under any president of any party -- can reduce the amount of money political candidates must pay to bring the fund-raiser-in-chief to town.

No matter where the president goes, taxpayers pick up the tab for Air Force One, which costs about $57,000 an hour. The total cost for Air Force One for Bush's latest trip to Minnesota: $228,000.

At least he mentioned "under any president of any party"...though it kind of rings hollow without naming the other Presidents who have done this.

Hey, Kessler, where is the real follow-up? How many times did Bush do this in his 5+ years? How many times did Clinton and Reagan do it in their 8 years? How about Bush I in his 4 years? How about Carter, Nixon and Ford in their 12 years?

Kessler...SHUT UP!

The political story is INCOMPLETE without noting who attended the event. Despite reports of political distance between him and Bush, who is scoring low approval ratings, U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kennedy was there to greet Bush. He even presented Bush with a baseball autographed by Minnesota Twins star Joe Mauer.

You started that paragraph out with a truthful phrase, "The...story is INCOMPLETE". Not for the stuff you continue on to mention, but for the questions you did not address (see above questions for a start).

Worse, though is what he puts into the end of his story. Is ANY of this relevant AT ALL to the story in which it is presented? Do Bush's approval ratings have anything to do with the costs of Air Force One and a Presidential trip to Minnesota? No. Does Kennedy's appearance at a GOP fundraiser in Minnesota (not to mention the attendance at an event with the President) have any bearing on the story about costs of Air Force One and a Presidential trip to Minnesota? No. It is even less relevant to the story that the appearance is made "[d]espite reports of political distance between [Kennedy] and Bush". Even more ridiculous is adding, as if it proves even more something nefarious, the fact that Kennedy presented Bush with a baseball. Look out Joe Mauer, you are now linked to the evil that is the GOP...gasp...because you signed a baseball that made its way through Kennedy to Bush. What really was the point of that in the story.

Kessler...SHUT UP! Do us a favor and retire, or change jobs, or something besides that which you do so poorly: reporting a "reality checking" series.

[I added the following to the post after I saw my Google News feed which had an older story still up.]
Kessler...what I find more interesting than your moronic story about Bush's recent trip is the absence of similar scrutiny for Wetterling's national assistance. Please point me to the "reality check" story about the costs to the taxpayer (or lack thereof) of flying in US House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to a fundraiser on Wetterling's behalf. Same race...and no scrutinizing questions from Kessler. Hmm, did you notice that Kessler is from WCCO and the link provided above about the Wetterling event is also from WCCO. So, no blaming the oversight on different news rooms or different editors. What gives. In fact the scrutiny was found only in the following paragraph:

Bachmann has gotten fundraising help from Vice President Dick Cheney, White House adviser Karl Rove and House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Hmm, interesting. A report about Wetterling taking a shot at Bachmann.

Like I said at the beginning of this post, I'm no fan of Bachmann, but fair is fair...and WCCO's handling of these two campaigns is far from that. Not that we should be surprised. It is simply worth pointing it out.

Oh yes, and for those of you who like to hold people accountable for being too close to Bush I have something for you. Lieberman was with Bush on one issue...Iraq. And y'all threw your good uber-liberal to the wolves. Will you do the same with Wetterling? She is with Bush on one issue, and even went to a bill signing ceremony at the White House:

Wetterling, a child safety advocate, was in Washington on Thursday at President Bush's invitation for the signing of a bill stiffening penalties for child predators and creating a national Internet database of convicted sex offenders.

Why bring up this old story? Because it is a great chance to compare and contrast how the media is covering the race.

********** UPDATE **********

This is ThePete with my first Post/Edit/What-have-you. I am a pretty blunt guy so I went strait to the source for this one.

Pat Kessler urked me with his “reporting” so I called him on it, sending him an E-Mail:

Note: The e-mail addresses below from Pat and my self have been made public long before this blog article.

From: zeeboid@gmail.com
To: pjkessler@wcco.cbs.com
Date: Aug 28, 2006 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: Reality Check: Cost Of Bush's Minnesota Visit

Pat,
Would this story you've written also be incomplete without a comparison of past presidents (Clinton, HW Bush, Regan, Carter, Nixon, Ford)? without such data, it just looks as if you are picking on our Current President, as campaigning is something that every president has done for their side.
What is different about it this time?
This reminds me of when people were whining about Bush's inauguration party, as if Clinton never had one... or whining about Bush "lying" about WMDs, while they forget about Clinton's speech the night before he bombed the Iraq aspirin factory where he quoted WMDs as his reason for the attack... or how our current president
wasn't impeached for lying, like our past one.

Your story would look as if it contained less BIAS if you included information on other presidents.

To quote Tony Garcia of alwaysrightusuallycorrect.blogspot.com :
"Hey, Kessler, where is the real follow-up? How many times did Bush do this in his 5+ years? How many times did Clinton and Reagan do it in their 8 years? How about Bush I in his 4 years? How about Carter, Nixon and Ford in their 12 years?"

To add to that, do you have the figures for these presidents and their total campaigning expenditures on the government's dime?
BTW. As a communications major, the proper way to reference our president is not with the last name alone, but with his title: President Bush.

From: Kessler, Pat
To: The Pete
Date: Aug 28, 2006 2:50 PM
Subject: RE: Reality Check: Cost Of Bush's Minnesota Visit

Hello,

As we noted in our story, the costs of presidential travel is paid by taxpayers for any president of any party... and we also included web sources for you to read if you want more information.

Also, you should know we also reported the costs of travel for President Clinton when he visited Minnesota on behalf of candidates, and the costs of security and
local tie-ups for candidate John Kerry in 2004.

Thanks for watching,

Pat Kessler
WCCO TV

Okay, I got a reply. Very nice. Thank you very much Pat, that e-mail I sent you was farily agressiavly stated, and I didn't expect a reply. Very Diplomatic. I'll be nice too then:

From: The Pete
To: "Kessler, Pat"
Date: Aug 28, 2006 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Reality Check: Cost Of Bush's Minnesota Visit

Thanks for your reply Pat. I do think its sad that ANY taxpayer payment of presidential travel for candidate Brag-a-thons is a waste of money, and I appriciate your mention of reporting Clinton's visit costs, it just seams like the public needs to be reminded of these things otherwise some get the impression that the media is favoring one side, while the others are influenced in a negative way.

I will check out the web sources, so long as I can find them, They may have been on TV, but are not included on WCCO's website with your story:
http://wcco.com/seenon/local_story_236133459.html

Anywhoo, You keep on reporting the news, and I'll keep watching WCCO.

Take it easy, and Thank You for your time.
ThePete

From: Kessler, Pat
To: The Pete
Date: Aug 28, 2006 4:50 PM
Subject: RE: Reality Check: Cost Of Bush's Minnesota Visit

I think you make a very good point, and in the future I think it's probably wise for us to mention Pres. Clinton (or whomever) by name so people understand that...

Best,
Pat Kessler
WCCO TV

I hear what you say Pat, but while doing a google search, I wasn't able to find much looking for WCCO and Clinton Campaign:

http://wcco.com/election/local_story_228121440.html
http://wcco.com/politics/politicsnational_story_233185511.html

I know WCCO refused to air the Midwest Heros ad... but that may be another topic.

If one could help me find said items that WCCO has reported on, that would be great. I love being corrected.

God I hate the Mafia Media. The only diffrence between me and them is I tell people what they should think, I don't hide that its my opinion, dispite how correct I am... and I have less money.

Updated by Pete

Israel buying nuclear subs

I find it somewhat comforting that Israel is also building up during the cease fire in response to Hezbollah's buildup.

Israel has signed a contract with Germany to buy two submarines capable of carrying atomic weapons, as world powers carefully weighed Iran's reply to an offer meant to end the standoff over the Islamic Republic's nuclear programs.

The Israeli daily The Jerusalem Post said Wednesday that under the contract signed in July, the two Dolphin-class submarines, called U212s, will be assembled in Germany and fitted with a propulsion system allowing them to remain underwater for far longer than submarines already in use by the Israel Navy.

The report of the sub purchase came a day after a Cabinet minister and former Mossad spy warned that Israel should prepare for a ballistic missile attack by Iran.

What I find interesting is that the German government is going to finance 1/3 of the costs.

The state-of-the-art submarines, manufactured by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG, will be bought by Israel for $1.27 billion, a third of which will be financed by the German government, the English-language daily said.

Now for a little bit of information about the subs.

The U212s are designed for a crew of 35, have a range of 4,500 kilometers and can launch cruise missiles carrying nuclear warheads, the paper quoted Jane's Defense Weekly as saying.

Now the article comes from the Daily Star. A little disclosure on the part of the Star:

The Daily Star signed an exclusive marketing representation, printing and distribution agreement with the International Herald Tribune in year 2000. Under the terms of the agreement, the Daily Star represents the IHT in all the GCC, Lebanon , Syria , Jordan , Egypt , Yemen and Iraq . The Daily Star will also produce local editions wherever possible.

You need to understand that...because the next part of the article begins to portray Iran as a victim of the international community.

While Israel is widely believed to possess a nuclear arsenal, it has never been subject to the international scrutiny that has locked Iran in a standoff with the West.

The UN Security Council has warned Iran could face possible sanctions if it does not meet an August 31 deadline to freeze uranium enrichment.

Iran handed over its response to an incentives package offered by six nations on Tuesday, saying it offered ideas that would allow serious talks to start immediately.

Ah, gotta love that.

Finally, the article does give the reactions to the Iranian nuclear weapon issue from various countries.

"We're giving it careful consideration and a careful review, as it deserves," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday.

John Bolton, US ambassador to the United Nations, said the US was "prepared - if [Iran] does not meet the terms set - to proceed here in the Security Council ... with economic sanctions."

US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discussed the issue during an early-morning meeting at the White House, Perino indicated.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Wednesday that "our hand is still extended. The Iranians know the rules of the game: first a suspension of sensitive nuclear activities."

An Iranian official who asked not to be identified confirmed Tehran's refusal to suspend enrichment, despite the risk of UN sanctions, but insisted: "We can discuss all the items of the proposal; this is a sign of flexibility on Iran's part."

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who delivered the offer to Iran in June, said the reply "requires a detailed and careful analysis."

A Chinese Foreign Ministry statement urged Iran to consider international concerns and take "constructive steps." "We also hope that other parties remain patient and calm," it added.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying: "Russia will continue with the idea of seeking a political, negotiated settlement concerning Iran's nuclear program."

Take those for what you think they are worth. I find them all to be worthless words. In the end Iran is simply buying time to complete their enrichment. Iran tells the West "we'll talke, kind of" then the West waits until the end of August before starting the process of sanctions. And santions? Big deal...how long before they are put into place and then before their effects are realized?

Anyway, it is good to see Israel NOT relying on others for their defense. They are buying nuclear subs.

Where is NATO

The last time I checked Romania was still a member of NATO. They joined on March 29, 2004.

So when Iran opens fire on a Romanian oil rig, and takes it over, why is it that there is no response from NATO after 48 hours? Checked their website, checked the NATO news feed I set up in the blog, checked Google News...nothing.

So, what is the point of NATO? Why are we being held to inactivity? And lest we not dismiss the growing importance of the business ties between Iran & China and Iran & Russia.

With China sitting on a 100 Billion USD deal for oil from Iran, and Russia also standing behind them, I doubt they are going to sit by quietly if the US tries to shake a big stick here. Back in May, Bloomberg News anticipated an attack by Iran on the Straits in retaliation to any US attack. I think this may be the opening gambit designed to forestall such an attack. This did not escape the attention of people reporting on the financial markets.

Storming the Romanian rig "sends a message that Iran can project its power and could interfere in oil production," according to Heinrich Matthee, Iran analyst for Control Risk Group in London.

It is getting hot in the kitchen...and it is looking more and more like the West is going to do nothing but add hot air.

More partisanship in the office that should not be

http://citypages.com/databank/25/1240/article12443.asp
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/08/14/candidateplea/
http://citypages.com/databank/25/1240/article12443.asp
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/08/ballot-access-idiocy.html
http://www.publicradio.org/columns/minnesota/polinaut/archive/2006/08/papa_john_and_t.php

OK, I will admit it from the start. There is no evidence that really suggests this story is the cause of "partisanship" from the Secretary of State. But it certainly seems that there are a lot of decisions from her and her office that hinder non-Republicans or benefit Republicans.

In all honesty one cannot blame her too much...she is a party-girl. What she has done for her party internally is incredible. She is also in an office that shows up on the ballot with party affiliation. The reason I blame her for the partisanship that seems to seep from her office is I believe voting should be carried out in a non-partisan manner. I long for the ballot where NO party endorsements show up. I will support any effort to make the Secretary of State race a non-partisan race like the judges' races used to be.

Why? Because "voting" and "candidacy" should be open and equal for everyone and if decisions are being made that can close out or disadvantage a party then every excuse should be removed and the person held accountable.

Why do I bring this up now? Yesterday the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Rep. Gil Gutknecht could stay on the ballot (as Kiffmeyer had originally ruled) which seems to vindicate her to some degree (Court's rationale is still due). Yet I am still wondering how a competent Secretary of State could let this happen.

The CPA and the Prosecutor

I have said it both directly and implicitly that candidates need to be very careful about the rhetorical games they play. If they fail to connect the dots between their assumptions and conclusions their opponents are afforded a great opportunity of a powerful refutation.

Being careful about what charges a campaign makes against another is crucial as well. The example of that is in this story about the waste of effort "scandals" in the US Senate race.

Amy Klobuchar promises to bring a prosecutor's grit to Washington - only to have Republicans question if she's really a prosecutor. Mark Kennedy suggests that the U.S. Senate could use his CPA's financial sense - only to have Democrats point out that his license is inactive.

Klobuchar as prosecutor and Kennedy as accountant are important aspects of each candidate's argument to voters that they'd be best for the Senate, and both are playing up that part of their resume.

I have to admit that I have not been paying attention to this story. It really is nothing more than a distraction from their issues. Regrettably the supporters and campaigns are all too willing to remove focus from their platforms and positions. Who started this frackus is not important...that both candidates are stooping to play this semantical game with each other is.

Bob McCulloch, the elected prosecuting attorney in Missouri's St. Louis County, said it's rare for the chief attorneys in large counties to personally prosecute cases. He said in his 16 years in the job, he's only prosecuted six or seven cases.

"It's a rather weak argument to suggest that the elected prosecutor is not a real prosecutor," McCulloch said. "You go to any large jurisdiction and you'll find a similar situation. When you're the county prosecutor, you're working on every case."

Similarly, Robert Bunting, a CPA at Moss Adams in Seattle and a past president of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, said that accountants only keep their CPA licenses active if they continue to work in public accounting. Kennedy hasn't worked for an accounting firm since the early 1980s, before holding management jobs at a series of companies.

"If he has the degree and passed the (CPA exam) then at some point that says he knows his stuff," Bunting said. "We still view people who are no longer active in accounting, as having expertise in financial matters."

In all honesty what both campaigns are engaged in is finding ways to falsely and intentionally denigrate their opponent. Interestingly they have done so by making it NOT seem like mudslinging...but in essence that is what is going on.

Actually prosecuting a case as the District Attorney is no more important than having an active CPA license. Klobuchar is still the District Attorney and Kennedy is still a CPA. Focus on the issues...and if you're going to sling mud at least make it worth the time to follow.

Kennedy rarely talks about his nearly six years in the House of Representatives, at a time when public approval of Congress is low; Klobuchar, who often speaks of sweeping special interests out of power in Washington, doesn't often mention her own years of experience as a corporate lobbyist.

To all candidates and their supporters...beware the lines of argumentation you take, beware that the logic is solidly explained, beware wasting time on trivial mud because it is really stupid to have trivial matters end up being turned against you.

In debate we would warn new team members about the hazards of an irrelevant thread of discussion. If the opponent refuted that point and made it look like it was relevant than you will lose. If the opponent refuted the point and did not do a good job they simply point out its irrelvancy and you gain nothing. No matter what, you cannot gain ground on an irrelevant point, mostly you can lose ground and at best you end up with a waste of time.

The same is true in the political world of discourse. And BOTH campaigns are engaged in irrelevant points. Like I said, I did not pay attention to which one started this particular line of mudslinging. I only hope that whichever side started this one ends up getting a good chunk of their rear-end bitten off for starting it.

Stick to the issues. If you can't win on YOUR position then you don't deserve to win.

Iran opens fire on Romainan oil rig

Could this be it? Or was it a mistake?

A Romanian oil rig off the coast of Iran came under fire from an Iranian warship and was later occupied by Iranian troops, a company spokesman said.

The Iranians first fired into the air and then fired at the Orizont rig, said GSP spokesman Radu Petrescu. Half an hour later, troops from the ship boarded and occupied the rig and the company lost contact with the 26 crew members shortly afterward.

So, is this the beginning of Iran's response to the UN?

Or is this the beginning of Iran's response?

Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Tuesday that Tehran was ready to enter "serious negotiations" over its disputed nuclear program but did not say whether it was willing to suspend uranium enrichment - the West's key demand.

The negotiator, Ali Larijani, hand-delivered Iran's response to a six-nation package of nuclear incentives aimed at persuading it to suspend enrichment. He gave the reply to ambassadors from Britain, China, Russia, France, Germany and Switzerland, state-run television said, without disclosing details.

Ah, what about Israel and the United States?

At U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the United States is prepared to quickly submit elements of a new Security Council resolution that would impose economic sanctions on Iran if it does not accept "the very, very generous offer" from the five permanent council members and Germany.

"We will obviously study the Iranian response carefully, but we are also prepared if it does not meet the terms set by the permanent five foreign ministers to proceed here in the Security Council, as ministers have agreed, with economic sanctions," he said.

"If, on the other hand, the Iranians have chosen the path of cooperation, as we've said repeatedly, then a different relationship with the United States and the rest of the world is now possible," he said.

Maybe 8/22/06 is the beginning of something new and improved. Maybe this Iranian response is just a distraction. Who knows...and only time will tell.

We still need to keep a close and wary eye on Iran.

Something was fishy

If you did not hear it on the air Sunday let me restate it. Something was not right about the John Mark Karr arrest last week. He was under investigation for the JonBenet Ramsey murder since before Patsy Ramsey died this past June. Why would someone who seemed to have no connection until his confession and arrest last week be under investigation for so long? Something was missing in the whole story.

Then this morning I found an answer that begins to make sense.

John Mark Karr, the 41-year-old schoolteacher who has said he was with JonBenet when she died in 1996, tangled with California authorities five years ago after telling an acquaintance that he broke into the Ramsey house the night of the slaying.

Wendy Hutchens of Roseville, Calif., told the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and KRON-TV in San Francisco that she contacted Sonoma County authorities five years ago after Karr told her that he met JonBenet at the family's Christmas party, then sneaked back into the house that night through a downstairs storm window.

Mrs. Hutchens said she alerted the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department and recorded her conversations with Karr as evidence. Authorities later searched Karr's Petaluma home and found enough evidence to charge Karr with five counts of child-pornography possession. He served six months in jail before leaving the United States.

This sheds some light now on why this guy was being watched.

Russia calls NHL terrorists

Russia calls the NHL terrorists.

Nope, the NHL is not some new political organization or Muslim group.

Russia has declared an all-out war on the National Hockey League (NHL), accusing the North Americans of stealing its best players.
...
"This is pure sports terrorism," [Russian hockey club] Metallurg general director Gennady Velichkin told Reuters following the sudden disappearance of his best player.

Velichkin said his club had already hired an American lawyer to look after their interests. Lokomotiv Yaroslavl and Russian champions AK Bars Kazan said they also planned legal action against NHL clubs.

Shut up with the "terrorism" thing. You are cheapening the charge of the label when placed on people that truly deserve the label (like Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, ELF, etc).

[T]he NHL said it would not negotiate compensation packages with any Russian club after the European nation refused to sign a transfer agreement with the North American league.

Russia remains the only major hockey power not to join the deal, approved by the International Ice Hockey Federation in 2005.

Under the agreement Metallurg would have received a basic $200,000 fee for [teenage prodigy Evgeni] Malkin. The Russian club reportedly wanted at least 10 times more.

Tretyak said the Malkin case was the main reason behind their decision not to sign the agreement while the Metallurg boss slammed the offer as "disgraceful."

Malkin has faxed a letter to Metallurg, asking them to annul his contract, which he said he had signed under pressure.

And the Russian team's response to the charge of pressuring Malkin:

"You can ask militia (Russian police) about pressure. Pressure is when they bang your head against a wall radiator.

"As far as the letter he faxed to us, it wasn't written by Malkin so I think it's a pure fabrication. I just threw it in the garbage can."

Does this mean the Cold War has started again with Russia? Can we now root against the Russians with the same fervor as in the Olympics before 1992?

22 August 2006

What is it about August 22nd that has people (including myself) watching the Middle East a little closer than normal?

It is a big day on the Islamic calendar.

While no extra safeguards are in place, U.S. law enforcement are not ignoring the possible significance of tomorrow's date, August 22, a date that marks an important historic event on the Islamic calendar.

Internet websites have been full of speculation that it could be a target date for terrorists in commemoration of the return of the 12th imam, a supposed day of reckoning for Shiites.
...
This year, August 22 marks the holy day on the Islamic calendar that is the day of reckoning for Shiites. Some Shiite sects believe that August 22 could correspond to the end of the world. And just today, after much hype, Iran has announced that it will continue to develop its nuclear program. To followers of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, this is a well-timed affront to Israel, the United States and the world. The United Nations had given Iran until the end of the month to respond, but Ahmadinejad had made it clear to all Iranians and the world that he intended to respond on the eve of August 22.

So, yes, 8/22/06 could be a BIG day in history. To clarify my position...I think it is a possible beginning of bad stuff. Not like 9/11 where we immediately know it happened. I think it will be like 6/28/1914...looking back we will see it as the starting point.

Keep in mind that Iran's self-imposed deadling is 8/22/06 regarding the "stop enriching Uranium offer" which Iran has said it would decline. I have read, but have not yet confirmed with a news source, that Iran made it official today...they are declining any deal the requires them to stop enriching Uranium. This means sanctions could be initiated as early as tomorrow, 8/22/06.

Iran this past weekend began wargames/simulations testing missile and demonstrating their new "defensive" strategy. And in their mind if we start sanctions, etc their reactions will be entirely defensive, even if they lob the first explosive.

All in all it is like looking at a Texas Hold 'Em table, seeing someone betting big up to the very last bet...getting ready to make the final bet...and knowing he has talked big, but rarely actually bluffed.
...on the table are the A-K-Q of a suit. Do you consider the ever growing realistic outcome that the big-betting person is holding a winning hand...either the other two cards of the flush, or a J-10, or even the J-10 of the same suit? Do you look hard and watch it closely? Do you watch how everyone is reacting, what their reads may be? Hell yes. This can be the big take down pot for either you or him.

That is 8/22 and Iran. Look close, watch everything around the table. You bet.

End of the world? Maybe, but I say that more in jest. In all seriousness I say 'likely not'...depends on how much you think all of these actions are lining up with the various prophecies of various theologies. World War III? I think it is very likely...but, I'm not willing to put money on it. I'm just very aware and making sure the family knows what to do in the event of an emergency. Is it the end of the world? I say it is, in jest. Is it the beginning of something ugly? Yeah, could be. I think it is folly to deny the possibility and that it is folly to act as if it is a certainty.

The cards are lining up and I believe it is time to see the "down cards". Vigilence and caution.