dkstories

I'd actually say from watching Fox that they provide the conservative side, not both sides. Actually, PBS is the best provider of both sides, and the best of all the news services for clearly delineating when something is being presented as a 'liberal' or 'conservative' viewpoint. There's absolutely nothing wrong with presenting information from either liberal or conservative viewpoints. It's very, very difficult to present issues and news without doing so. What the problem is when the major news stations present it as 'news' and unbiased when it really is biased. PBS puts up people from both viewpoints and they all hash it out in some pretty good arguments (NPR does the same on the radio). What gets my goad is when people try to present it as un-biased news. Fox News is just as biased towards the right-wing of American politics as other broadcasters are biased towards the left-wing.

Here's another news story that made me think about critical thinking when looking at national issues. The issue of Outsourcing jobs overseas is building in this campaign. Just in time, there's a new report being touted that says 'outsourcing jobs overseas actually creates more jobs here at home." I decided to take a deeper look at these claims. If they prove true, they require me to think a little more about the upcoming election and maybe choose differently. So, I looked at the report summary and focused on some key factors of the jobs growth that they claim are directly related to Outsourcing of jobs. I'm not an economist, but thanks to the Department of Labor and a good general education I can come up with enough answers to focus on the important questions. First of all, what kind of jobs are being lost? Most of them are IT related jobs with salaries ranging from the $18,000 range up to the 40-60K range. Most of the jobs lost are in the upper limits of these ranges while the lower paying jobs actually stay in the U.S. (source is the Department of Labor). What jobs are being created? From their slide show: Natural Resources and Mining: 1,046 (all figures from the 2003 column) Construction: 19,815 Manufacturing: 3,078 Wholesale Trade: 20,456 Retail Trade: 12,552 Transportation & Utilities: 18,895 Publishing, Software, and Communications: -24,860 Financial Services: 5,604 Professional and Business Services: 14,667 Education and Health Services: 18,015 Leisure, Hospitality, and Other Services: 4,389 Government: -3,393 Now, I immediately starting having a lot of suspicions about these numbers. Let's look at the big ones that show a great deal of increase. These items includes Construction, Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade, Transportation & Utilities, Professional and Business Service and Education and Health Services. Construction, especially home construction has been booming for the past 8 years and is the backbone of the current economic recovery. My question about construction jobs created by companies outsourcing makes me ask are these because the companies are building new offices, or their executives and managers are buying new homes? As any construction worker will tell you, as long as people are building new homes, new offices, or having extensive remodeling done, the business is good. However when the weather goes bad or people don't want new buildings, the business goes sour. When the construction industry is growing regardless of outsourcing jobs I must ask how directly related are these two facts, what type of long-term stable income do these jobs confer, and notice that the jobs gained are a temporary service to the company or its executives. Wholesale Trade is a field that I looked up at the DoL website to make sure I was right in what it does. Wholesale trade are the people and companies that buy large quantities of goods and then re-sale them to supermarkets, stores, etc. I've actually worked in this industry for one year (making about $12,000 a year, 8 years ago). Here's what the Department of Labor (Bush Administration) says abot this field: "Most workplaces are small, employing fewer than 50 workers. About two-thirds work in office and administrative support, sales, or transportation and material-moving occupations. While some jobs require a college degree, a high school education is sufficient for most jobs. Consolidation and new technology should slow employment growth in some occupations, but many new jobs will be created in other occupations. " So long as sales are good, the companies do good and keep their people on the payroll. Downturns in business often result in immediate lay-off of everyone but management and key field sales staff. Most of the people in this industry make from the low $17,000 (in current dollars not my old salary) to the upper $30,000 range. For senior sales and management, the numbers are much more lucrative. Again, this is a service industry dependent on people buying things and designed to service the direct retailers. The next area, Transportation and Utilities is actually an amalgation of the Air Transportation, Truck Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities Industry. The Utilities Industry grows when towns and cities grow. They provide power, water, sewage, and similar type services to new houses and business (a direct outgrowth of the Construction industry - so long as Construction grows, Utility jobs will grow as well). The majority of transportation jobs take goods from Wholesale retailers to direct retailers. When you buy something at your local mall, or supermarket it is shipped there, and it's always shipped by truck, train, or plane. Education and Health services are also a leading area of growth indicated as a direct result of Jobs Outsourcing. These are teachers, school administrators, Doctors, Nurses, EMT's, hospital administrators, nursing assistants and similar type jobs. I think very few people will dispute that these areas need more people working in them and have for years, especially since most of the jobs in these areas don't pay that well (think teachers, nurses, and EMT personnel always quitting to go into other areas because they don't get paid enough). Professional and Business services is another amalgation of several fields including Advertising and Public Relations, Computer systems design and related services, Employment services, and Management, Scientific, and technical consulting services (the producers of this report fit into the last category). Many of these are good jobs, telling people what to think, how to think, what to buy, how to buy, and where they will work next. To get these higher paying jobs you MUST have a good college education (many require Masters and higher degrees) and years of experience in various management skills. These jobs are where your corporation management come from, or go to when jobs are scarce. Then there's Retail Trade. Yes, your job at the mall, the supermarket, the local gas station where you make slightly more than minimum wage and anyone trying to support a family from these jobs often work 2-3 of them (unless they are in management). There's a lucky few who can make excellent careers from this field, but the majority of people end-up in dead-end fields. The rest of the areas are very small in growth and show minimal growth. Now, here's my summary of these 90,000 new jobs they create when they outsource: Because they are saving 10.4 billion per year, they have more money to spend on new toys, new homes, better private schools. Their former employees can go work in the fields doing retail sale, wholesale trade, become teachers or nurses, or truck drivers to make sure they can buy what they want when they want. It's not their fault that their employees may not make as much money as they did before, the business leaders now have more money and can buy more things creating more jobs (whether their old employees can continue to support families, have health insurance, or will be able to send their kids to school isn't important). What's really amusing is that the claim of 90,000 net new jobs probably isn't a lie and can be reported and touted on the campaign trail. What's even more amusing is because it requires hours to investigate and lengthy explanations to understand why this is not necessarily a GOOD thing takes far too much longer and won't be reported except on PBS or some other program that no one watches. Outsourcing is good for the economy. Whether it is good for the average American is a different story altogether and up for debate.

"It's not what you say as much as how you say it." That's the core lesson I learned when I took Argumentation in college. Watching the local news broadcasts here in Phoenix this morning I was reminded of that lesson by the comments of news anchors on three different stations. The conservative bias, and blatant promotion of a conservative agenda. Here's some examples: 1. Janet Jackson's appearance on the David Letterman show and being censored. Facts Reported: Janet Jackson appeared on the Letterman show last night and was censored while discussing the Super Bowl controversy where she bared her breast during the half-time show. Biased Comments: "Isn't it such a coincidence that she gets all this publicity when her new CD comes out today?" Also, the clip showed from the show only presented her discussion with David Letterman where she asserted that she did not plan to bare her breast that obviously (followed immediately by the preceding quote). My problems: This was a great example of the new era of censorship that is starting to occur on television. The word she used that was censored? "Jesus" The context of her use of the word was expressing surprise at something that the host said. Not since the 1950's and 1960's has the use of the word held any more negativity than "Darn" or "Damn". Both words have been broadcast for the past two decades without censorship, especially in a late-night timeslot. The focus of the news broadcasts was not the word that was used (it was not even mentioned in the news broadcast - I had to go online to get the word she used. There were about four other news items that were slanted in very similar ways that left me asking more questions about the 'facts' I was getting from all three newsbroadcasts. On news about the abortion broadcasts they spent about 1 minute 45 seconds detailing the Bush government position in support of the late-term abortion ban and represented the opposing side with the sentence "Another step in their efforts to stop any limits on abortion." Three channels that I've seen broadcasting on the issue also used very certain terms to describe the people on each side. The terms were "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Abortion". Again terms biased towards the conservative viewpoint. Anti-Abortion activists prefer the term "Pro-Life" because it makes them seem less negative, just as Pro-Abortion activists prefer the term "Pro-Choice" in order to present a less-negative image. Why would an un-biased broadcast use the less negative term for one side but use the more negative term for the other? I saw that on three local channels at the same time. Now I'm not saying that there's not lef-leaning bias in some national broadcasts, especially on the news-sheet style shows like 20/20. However when I watch the national news broadcasts I see a much wider effort to balance the reporting on stories. I have yet to see a local broadcast on Iraq that includes anything more than a short summary of casualties from a particular event in that country. If you want to know how many people that brings the total dead there to, you have to go to a national broadcast or a news-style show doing a special report. That's a roll-back to the reporting during the Vietnam era where news stations didn't report casualty totals because people got more upset the higher those numbers tallied and the Defense Department refused to publish those numbers. Recently I saw pressure on Dick Clark to reveal who he voted for in the last election. I'd like to see all these broadcasters, their managers, and station owners reveal who they voted for. I'm pretty sure from their comments before and after certain stories what the answer is, and their bias is very clear (especially when they report on election stories and make comments derogatory towards Kerry). *sigh*

But I still want to see Draco skivy down.

acck. Five people online. I'm the only one in chat. No one likes me.

Here's perspective on that point, Tomas. Kerry was opposed to the war before he got sent over. He went, he fought, he got wounded (although all minor wounds, they did qualify by the standards set by the US Armed Forces), and once he had met the qualifications for getting out of the combat area early, he did. I don't like that he took the early out, but frankly he at least went over there and fought, risking his life just like most people. He didn't use his connections or his money to get out, he used the same system that was available to every other service member in the combat theater. Did Bush even go over there? No, Bush didn't go. He used every connection he had to get out of it, something most Americans couldn't do. Kerry was, and has never denied being, opposed to the Vietnam conflict. He did not support our involvement in that conflict actively sought to bring our troops home. However, unlike the thousands that fled to Canada or burned their draft cards, he went over there when told to by the government. Instead of using his money and political connections like George W. Bush, he didn't get himself sent to a National Guard unit to sit safely at home in the U.S. Instead, he went over there, did his duty and took advantage of military regulations (open and available to other service members who received the same type of injuries) to go back home where he continued to campaign against the war. I remember guys who used several methods to keep from being deployed to the first Gulf War for various reasons. There's a difference in serving honorably and leaving when the opportunity arises. I know four guys on my ship who had the opportunity to go home in the middle of Desert Storm (1991). Two chose to go, two chose to stay. The guys who went home, went home. It's a choice each person can make on their own. Some people are the type who'll stay no matter what, and others leave the first chance they get. Neither type is a coward. A coward refuses to go at all (Bush). A coward hunkers down into the least dangerous job he can find (I do believe Kerry was Navy wasn't he? Swift Boats and PBRs were some of the most dangerous assignments in the Navy during that war). When Kerry got home, he didn't disappear immediately into his political career, but continued arguing against the war in front of congress and across the country. You better believe Kerry was thinking about a Presidential run back in high school, and considered that future campaign in his life actions. I wouldn't be surprised if George W. Bush did too. A major difference between the two is that Kerry went and did serve in a combat zone, he has fought in combat, and he has killed the enemy in a close engagement (something that none of the pundits dispute from his service award). Kerry has a far better idea of what our service members face than George W. Bush ever will, and he has shown more personal courage in the face of personal challenges than Bush has ever had the opportunity to show. Bush took the easy way out, Kerry did a hell of a lot better.

I visited the Iraq Coalition casualty lists site again today. I try to stay away from there because it is so depressing, but just had to look again. 583 American dead since the invasion began. 684 total dead including troops from our 'coalition' partners (mostly UK). Wounded though is 2,910 in hostile action, 433 from non-hostile action for a total of 3,343 troops wounded. Now we're getting to rotate the first troops sent into Iraq (they were actually shipped to Kuwait about 3-4 months before we invaded, participated in the invasion, and then finally came back to the US about 3 months ago) back to that country in 2 months. That means out of 1 year, six months of active duty service they spent 2 months in the US and the rest in a combat zone. How long do we think that will keep up before people stop reenlisting and instead of a well-trained force over there we get boots with barely enough training or we use all of our National Guard and reserve folks, ripping them out of their civilian lives and then have them also fail to reenlist? During the 1970's, our military forces were deployed in rotation cycles like this and nearly collapsed when a super-majority of the officers and enlisted refused to reenlist. Drug use became rampant as did disciplinary problems throughout the military forces because people were being overworked. However we get to hear Rumsfeld saying there's nothing wrong with troop morale. I've got a buddy who I keep in contact with, and his wife just divorced him. Since he got sent to Afghanistan in 2001 (don't forget we have thousands of troops there right now as well), he's been home for 8 non-continuous months, and one of them was only because his mother died and he got hardship leave. Another buddy of mine that I was in classes with got called up on National Guard duty and had to drop out of college because he's being deployed for 12 months to Iraq. I did some checking, and ships are being super-rotated like the were in the time between the Panama Invasion and Gulf War I. That means crews are deploying for 6-8 months, coming back to port for three weeks, and then beginning work-ups for miscellaneous deployments that average 2-3 months in local operations (work ups usually last about 6-8 weeks of which you spend half your time at sea). Once the minor ops are done, they do Battle Group work-ups (about 2 months prep time, half of which is at sea doing extended battle drills), and then back to sea for another 6 month deployment. Now, dedication is high to complete the job at hand, but refusal to acknowledge force depletion and burn outs are going to come home to roost on the administration. Reports of rapes, fighting, and non-judicial punishments are on the rise, as are drug use ratios of troops deployed and coming back from deployment. The only good news is that recruitment levels remain high. The bad news is that if they can't keep those new recruits in uniform, the overall proficiency and professionalism of the troops decline. It takes from 6 months to a year to train a person before they are truly mission capable. It's not a good thing for any of us when the trained people leave.

France..blech. You know I went to France...met a really nice german boy that I had fun with. Got drunk with a Russian businessman and his boyfriend. We sang the old Soviet national anthem in Russian and the US anthem in English before heading off to their hotel room. I'd say the French suck...but as far as I know...they don't. A little off topic, but I'm having to run the air conditioner again all night and it's pissing me off.

81 at 10:19 p.m. Not cooling down until the weekend Projected low of 69 tonight at around 3 a.m. Sigh

Actual Story I was reading this online today and couldn't help but chuckle. What I really liked is that in 1987 John Kerry requested his FBI files and none of this stuff was provided (the FBI either didn't find it or chose not to give it for whatever reason). It's a prime example of why the rules were changed to prevent stuff like this from happening, and with the Patriot Act they can do these things again. A news show had some of the audio tapes of Nixon and his advisors talking about Kerry and it was quite interesting to hear on a television report. Part of Kerry's platform is to amend the Patriot act to prevent stuff like this from happening and he's being attacked for wanting to go 'soft' on terrorists. I chuckle at stuff like this, but when you think about it, it can really get scary. Imagine having the FBI follow you and keep so much information on you just because you vocally oppose what the government is doing. It makes me wonder if twenty years from now we'll start finding out about files that are being kept now on people who speak out against the administration. Another interesting fact that I picked up from the story was that he was awarded the Silver Star and THREE purple hearts in Vietnam. He was a small boat commander in the Navy. These shallow-draft boats were armed with machine guns and grenade launchers and were often used to not only patrol deltas, rivers, and bays within Vietnam but the insertion (and extraction) of special forces troops on infiltration missions. I had an instructor at my Gunner's Mate "C" school that was assigned to one of these units in Vietnam. Some of the stories he had to tell were frightening, even if you took them with a big grain of salt. None of these units ever went a significant amount of time without facing combat, and with three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star, it looks like Kerry wasn't shirking and lazing about with his unit out of harms way either. I'd love to see the citations he got for those awards. It also provides a contrast between Bush and Kerry as well. During the most violent conflict our nation faced when these two men were young adults, Bush signed up in the National Guard and went flying every couple of weekends. Kerry, a man from an affluent background perhaps more blue blooded than Bush himself, spent that same time sweating it out in the Vietnam waterways, fighting the enemy and earning himself at least three combat-related injuries and showing valor enough to earn both the Silver Star and Bronze Star. That has got to scare Bush's camp. Even with his later actions against the war. Not only did he fight in that conflict, but he came home and was a major figure in the protests meant to end it as well. He was significant in that effort that he was watched around the clock by the FBI, and reports of his activities went directly to the director of the FBI and the President of the United States. There's at least one recorded conversation where the President and his advisors discussed Kerry directly. When you look at more elements of his 1971 speech to Congress besides the first few lines, you see that his speech was a very direct attack at the leaders of the country who he believed had let down the country and their soldiers. Republicans try to stress his relating stories of war atrocities (something I heard plenty of long before I ever joined the military. I had two uncles who fought over there and there gave me some very long lectures when I said I was going to join the Navy. They wanted to make sure I knew how bad it could get before I joined. It's a family tradition that those of us in the military always happen to end up in the thick of things somehow. I blame it on Papa...he survived four islands including Guadalcanal and Okinawa - in the first wave of troops to hit those beaches, most of whom didn't make it out alive). We know that those atrocities did happen, and they were more commonplace than government will ever admit. Admitting that they happened though doesn't disgrace all the soldiers who fought in that conflict as Bush's campaign likes to assert. Of course the Bush Administration is doing its best to deny the high incidents of rape, mistreatment of civilians and prisoners, and reprehensible hospital conditions for injured troops in the current conflict. From what I've seen and heard from people, a lot of the problems that caused the horror stories in Vietnam are re-occuring in Iraq and I believe history will show that as well. Fortunately, we don't have a Soviet Union arming and training the enemy. Compared to the resources of the Soviet Union in the 1960's and 1970's, al-Quaeda (who are helping the Iraqi insurgents now) is grossly inneffective. That leads me to a closing point: In the early 1970's, John Kerry raised issues, concerns, and criticisms of how the government was handling the Vietnam conflict. Now he's saying very similar things about our Iraq conflict. Both Administrations waging those wars did their best to marginalize him and ridicule his criticisms. History shows that he was pretty much right and accurate about Vietnam. If he was right about Vietnam, shouldn't his comments now be given serious consideration?

89 degrees (yay! It cooled down. Only a high of 93 today). I'll trade ya Myr.

Actually, I loved the UK when I was there last years. If I could immigrate there, I would. I was even there in December where I didn't see the sun until my plane to Paris lifted off from Gatwick, and I loved it. The atmosphere, the people, the weather were all nearly perfect for me.

It's now about 2:20 a.m. here and I really can't get to sleep. The air conditioner is chugging away (I expect a $150 bill this month for my one-bedroom apartment) but isn't doing much to get things at a comfortable leve. I just turned it down to 75 in the hopes of getting to a point where I can sleep with just a single sheet on. Oh well, guess I should write some more till it's more comfortable, eh? *big sigh* I really do hate summer, especially when it arrives before spring. The good news? Tomorrow it's only expected to get to 93 (again Farenheit). By next week we might cool down into the high 70's before beginning the final climb to 100 degrees and over. Here's some centigrade stuff for you Yesterday's high 97 F/36.11 C Today's expected high - 93 F/33.89 C Expected average temp for next few weeks - 85 F/ 29.45 C 100 degrees F/37.78 C marks the beginning of summer heat. Very rarely do we go below 100 once we hit that mark until sometime in October (late September if we're lucky) During May-September, cool days are 105 F/40.56 C. Hot days get up to 120 F/48.89 C. We get between 7-20 hot days per year. I think I'll move back to California. I can't take this heat anymore.

I'm awake when I should be asleep. I had to turn my air conditioner to a cooler setting because it was still too hot. High temperature for March 21st - 97 degrees here in town. Right now...81 degrees. I think I need to find a colder climate.

Hehe, next election cycle I'll be old enough...talk about scary.

Hehe, I wouldn't deny the blow jobs under the desk either. Eric, the Michael Douglas movie was "The American President". It's on the atlanta cable station every now and then and I enjoy watching it whenever it's on. The War of 1812 was not just about Canada. The impressment of American merchentmen was a major issue, as was the forced servitude of many Americans overseas by both the British and French (although most of it was by the British). For those that don't know what impressment is, basically a British vessel would board a US merchant ship and take members of the crew into forced service on their vessels. This also happened to businessmen and travelers in Britain during that timeframe and was a major cause for the establishment of the US Navy and the building of the Frigate vessels like the U.S.S. Constitution. The issue of the people being held in Guantanamo is one of the things that bothers me the most. Most of the people held there were captured under arms against the United States during a military action. I have no problem with holding them or interrogating them, but they should have been granted rights under the Geneva Convention that we would expect and demand if they were Americans. Being shipped overseas, held incommunicado, and NOT charged with any crime is something that we, as Americans should denounce under any circumstances. I certainly believe that the men who signed the Declaration of Independence might have some troubles with such actions by this country. Why? Here are some of the reasons they stated for our Independence: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences: Further, in our consititution and its amendments, certain principles were set out. As foreign nationals, these men may not enjoy these rights, but what gives us the right, as a nation, to abandon these principles? Are not all men created equal? Is that not a founding principle upon which our history, our culture, our very nature as Americans is based? Have we not abandoned what it means to be American when we treat others in a way that we would protest and go to war over if these were Americans being treated this way? Have we become so scared of shadows that we will treat human beings in ways that we would not treat other Americans? The constitution says we can't hold people without charging them for crimes. Prisoners of War are to be returned to their country upon cessation of hostitilities (over two years ago for Afghanistan). None of the people being held there have been charged with crimes (while I am not so naive to believe that they are all innocent of plotting against the US, I do believe that they should either be tried and sentenced, or freed immediately). If any of them were heavily involved in 9/11, my opinion is they should be tried, convicted and shot. If they were just al-Quaeda members or Taliban members, let them go, track them, and the minute they take arms again, kill them. If you can't track them down like that, convict them of being 'hardened enemies' of the United States and lock them up. I don't want to let people go who will turn around and try to kill Americans again, but neither do I like the secrecy and blank imprisonment that is going on. Put them into a real prison as a danger to our society, or kill them. I'm a liberal, but I'm not a bleeding heart liberal. What we're doing now is worse than either of those actions. Also, don't get me started on the Patriot Act. In the 1930-1960's under Herbert Hoover, the FBI and law enforcement did acts of spying and violations of what we today view as personal privacy to get everything they could on those who broke the law or spoke out against the government. That was changed in the late 60's and throughout the 1970's to keep the government out of the private lives of people and to stop them from harrassing, ridiculing, or locking up people who disagreed with the government. Since the Patriot Act restored most of these abilities to the government's law enforcement agencies, the majority of uses of these functions was NOT to prosecute terrorism, but for common criminal investigations. Most people wouldn't blink an eye at a man being investigated because he attends the same Mosque as a suspected terrorist, but would they care at being investigated, watched, and having their phone lines tapped because they went to the same gym as a guy who's embezzling money from his employer (a little far fetched yes, but under the Patriot Act, anyone who belongs to the same gym can be followed, investigated, have wire taps established, computers investigated, etc.)? One of the biggest successes of the new Patriot Act powers that the FBI has been promoting was the break-up of a baby-milk theft and re-distributing ring work millions of dollars. Yep, we gave them powers to hunt down terrorists and they not only use them against potential terrorists but against baby milk stealers. These powers were taken away from them because they didn't just use them against criminals but against political opponents and government protesters. Do you really believe that they won't be abused again? We gave these powers to fight terrorists, but they already use them mostly in criminal cases. How long is it before they abuse them again? (Or do you really believe they aren't already being used? Just ask some of the reporters who are already being arrested or harrassed under these powers) When I see an ad endorsed by George W. Bush that says Kerry will weaken our defenses against terrorists because Kerry wants to restrict the Patriot Act to terrorist cases, I shake my head at the poor fools that believe the ad. What we see today is the beginning of an era very much like the early US 1950's. The principles on which this country was founded are being assaulted not by terrorists or other countries, but by our own government, led by George W. Bush. Frankly, it's better to be lied to about a blow job in the office than about how our rights are being taken away, and why our men and women are dying around the world in fights that did not need to be started. Iraq was contained, the damage they could do was negligible outside their borders. By containing him, his threat to the world and anyone but Iraqi citizens was minimized. He could have sat in the box we made for him for another ten years and not seen over 570 american soldiers dead in that country within the last 365 days (do the math, it's a little over 1 american dead per day we've been there). He would have eventually tried to break out of the box, and we could have gotten the world to help us in smacking him down then, or would have died of old age, giving us an opportunity to work for better change then, without a need to invade. Instead we were told he had Weapons of Mass Destruction, was connected to 9/11 and posed a clear and present danger to the safety of our country. Ironically, more Americans have died there in the past year than have died in operations in the area since he invaded Kuwait in 1990. I for one am sick of the lies and misrepresentations of this administration and will vote for the person that offers the best alternatives the mess that the current President has led us into since 9/11/2001. Hopefully this time the Supreme Court won't put him back into office.

I had to cut myself off or I would have gone on for several more pages... Just saw an article about the President thanking a group of troops who just returned from Iraq, telling them their job was "well done". The troops did a good job, and are doing a good job. Unfortunately the job isn't done though, and that's not the fault of the troops. The units that began the war in Iraq, and whose stay in that country was lengthened and lengthened finally came home a few months ago. They've been told that they'll be going back to Iraq again after 3 months at home. Within a few days, these troops that were just told they completed a good tour over there will likely be given their next operations orders for deployments within 1-2 months. Another misleading speech by the President. If Kerry's smart, he's going to craft a very careful message for the troops, one that might change a lot of the soldier's minds on how well their commander-in-chief is leading them.

Yes, that's correct, Eric. Although I think the descriptions are sometimes reversed in some european countries. George W. Bush has always been a right-wing conservative pretending to be a moderate. It comes as no surprise to me that he turns around supports amending the constitution for a social issue. Can we all remember the PROHIBITION ERA and where that led this country (straight into crime, they heyday of the mafia, smuggling, all become 'normal' for many people and an 'acceptable' part of popular society until the Prohibition amendemnt was repealed). I actually kind of hope his same-sex amendment passes because it's effects will give gay and lesbian people a very real target to sink our teeth into, and will help us to change people's minds in a way that is very hard to do right now. (If the Republicans were really smart, they'd declare the word 'marriage' as signifying a religious ceremony, pass a federal law establishing a 'civil union' for legal rights currently associated with marriage and let the states declare who is or is not eligible for a 'civil union' and allow each state to choose if it will recognize the 'unions' of other states. It would totally take the wind out of the gay marriage proponents and they can say they 'saved' marriage for their supporters). Bush has pushed compassionate conservatism, which as Robin Williams said once, is like a volvo with a gun rack. It's a charade for pushing a very pro-business, pro-religious agenda that will eventually ruin this country. If I was Harvard, I'd be ashamed the man had a Business Masters Degree from that university. His business adventures were a disgrace, and his adventures as President are a disgrace. Clinton got impeached for lying about a blow job he got in the oval office. Bush's metaphoric servicing of the business communities that got him into office, and his achievements in seducing us into an unnecessary war far outweigh the good he did after 9/11 with the cleaning up of Afghanistan (something that I agree was necessary and applaud him for doing). The Patriot Act, and his Attorney General's assault on our rights and moves towards a police state are far more worthy of a congressional impeachment (although the Republican Leadership is as guilty as he is and would never take any action) than lies about private sex acts in a civil lawsuit that had nothing to do with the Presidency itself. Last time I was in Europe, I was embarrassed to be an American with Bush as our leader (although I had to argue a few times with people that they were taking things too far). Frankly, I'd vote for Ralph Nader before I'd vote for Bush, and Kerry is a better alternative. I'd rather have Clinton back in office so the worst we had to worry about was who he's getting hummers from, but that's not likely to happen, so it'll just have to be Kerry. Maybe we can get Martin Sheen to run? Or Michael Douglas? Both seem more Presidential than Bush. Hell, I'd take Bill Pullman over Bush. (Guess the movies/television shows). Oh, I almost forgot, have we all seen that new Bush national ad about Kerry? Outright lies/misleading statements that have little basis in reality. The 900 billion in tax increases? Reality: 150 billion based on repealing tax cuts for a small percentage of Americans. Wait for the UN to defend America? Reality: Wanted UN Support for INVADING a foreign country, something many Americans thought should have happened (and many of those who didn't were convinced that it was directly related to 9/11 something Bush later tried to deny, but the record proves every speech he mentioned Iraq, he mentioned 9/11, lending a subconcious link between the two for those who don't analyze his speeches closely - I kept on saying what's the link between 9/11 and Iraq after every speech, wondering what proof he had linking them only to find out he was supposedly never saying they were linked). When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN supported kicking him out. When he was kicked out and we proposed no-fly zones, an oil embargo, and very strong measures against Hussein, the UN supported us. When the UN inspectors were thwarted and we wanted to bomb, the UN supported us. When we based our actions on solid reason and evidence, we got UN support. When Dubya said "Saddam is a bad guy and we have to take him out. The hunt for the perpetrators of 9/11 (but 9/11 and Iraq aren't really connected, I'm just mentioning 9/11 because it's an important event for Americans to remember) will go on as well." The UN went "Huh? No, let's talk about this some more." Bush said "Screw talk, we're doing it and we're doing it now so that by 2004 when I'm up for election I have a success under my belt to get re-elected with and I'll get the bad guy that tried to kill my daddy!" Well, we've had Saddam now for a few months. I'm still waiting for him to be arraigned and put on trial for all those links between him and bin Laden and all the other crap he's done (a lot of real, mean crap subjugating and torturing and killing his own people). Another funny story I just remembered...y'all heard about the handful of british citizens that were captured in Afghanistan in 2001? They've been held in Guantanamo Bay for over 2.5 years without charges and finally released, not even to be charged in a Military Court, Britain held them for a few days and said "they've done nothing for us to hold them." Now they're free after two years of imprisonment all without charges. I seem to remember that we went to war with England in 1812 because they were doing the same thing to Americans abroad. Funny, isn't it? Wasn't there something about 'inalienable human rights' in the Declaration of Independence? Wasn't there something about imprisonment without charges being a reason for rebelling against England? Is that a principle we no longer consider as being applicable to anyone who isn't American? No offense, the deaths of 9/11 were horrible and I was outraged and as schocked as any other American, but I feel that giving up what it means to be an American is giving the terrorists a victory, no matter how safe it makes me, and that is what I see Bush and his team as doing: Taking away what it means to be an American.

So how's the log cabin doing these days? I've heard of several members jumping ship with Bush in charge lately. Politics are always brave things to push, especially when people like me are around. Hats off to courage!

Talk about bringing back memories of high jinx when I was 16 and working at a Burger King. I always hoped no 'special sauce' hit anything in the walk-in refrigerator, or the freezer. Then there was the bathroom, the drive-in counter (did have sticky ketchup packets that time), and of course the sandwich preparation counter. Not to mention the manager's office. Oh, great....now I remember why I prefer to cook at home.

Great job on the newsletter folks. I really enjoyed it!

Don't get me hard...oh wait, never mind. It's not like I don't know how to fix that.

Actually, I find that I like them both equally well. It depends on the story I'm writing or reading, and how the narrative fits the plot line. I've seen professional authors that use both very effectively and even switch styles with good success even within the same story. Dawn of Tears will be in first-person, because the background of the story pretty much demands it, and because the last few stories I've worked on weren't in that style and I wanted to go back to it. As a reader, I don't pick stories based on the style of narrative, so long as the narrative used fits the story and is done reasonably well. I think that I identify closer with the first-person narrative stories though. That may be psychologically based though, since reading descriptors such as I, my, we, our and so forth will subliminally connect the reader to the perspective the story is coming from, allowing a closer association to be formed. Okay, I'm thinking too much.

I've been posting a bit. I can stop writing though and post more if you want?

Hmm...let's see..we want Myr to watch TV. What do we do? Why put up a 16 year old kid with shaving cream... Man what an easy mark.... Now, to make sure I don't forget to set the VCR so I can say I didn't watch the broadcast...