My Vote

I'm going to make this short and simple.

I must say one thing, though. Call it a pre-emptive strike, if you will. I believe our government's top priority should be national security. You and I employ the government, and our safety is my first concern. Of course I care about other issues like job security and healthcare reform. But those things take a big step back when compared to national security. You and I happen to live quite peaceful lives, where violence happens on TV and in the news. However, no one would argue this top priority of the government if war was brought to their doorstep. You would want action. You would want protection. And I believe we are living in a time when people want to bring war to our doorsteps.

Because of this, my vote in the 2004 presidential election is being cast based on who I believe is best suited to lead the effort in protecting America. I believe that person is George Bush.

Bush has his previous 4 year record to stand behind. The evidence shows, thusfar, that he is taking the necessary measures to ensure our safety here at home. The current conflicts across the globe were not desired by Bush, but he was willing to take action when war was brought to us. As Senator John Kerry stated in last night's presidential debate, "every president from the beginning, uh, of time, has had a sufficient doctrine of preemption." I believe if an impending threat to our security is known, we are justified in pre-emptive action. George Bush has had the courage to take criticism when he knows he's taking correct, pre-emptive, action in the world.

I believe, as John Kerry stated, that the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein as a leader. I think the war on a global effort of terrorism should not be focused solely on Afghanistan, as Kerry suggested, but should be just what is stated, a global effort.

The final nail in the coffin for me, and I hope for others, about our two candidates is this. George Bush has been taking action in this world against threats to our security. He has laid foundations for our sustained safety through taking an offensive approach to our enemies.. In this post 9-11 America we have to be on the offense, acting against impending threats before they strike. George Bush has taken, and will continue to take, the necessary action to ensure the safety of America.

If you watched the debates on Thursday you might have seen the following Kerry response.

Lehrer: "We'll come back to Iraq in a moment. But I want to come back to where I began, on homeland security. This is a two-minute new question, Senator Kerry. As President, what would you do, specifically, in addition to or differently to increase the homeland security of the United States than what President Bush is doing?"

Kerry replied with this: "Jim, let me tell you exactly what I'll do. And there are a long list of things. . . . ." After this, Kerry spent his two minutes talking about ways in which he felt George Bush has messed up homeland security. He never once made mention of anything he would do to, as the question asked, "increase homeland security." The only thing close to an actual response to the question were his last words, "Let me just quickly say, at the current pace, the president will not secure the loose material in the Soviet Union-the former Soviet Union for 13 years. I'm going to do it in four years. And we're going to keep it out of the hands of terrorists."

So that's it? That's all he could muster for a response when asked how he was planning on keeping you and me safe from another 9-11 in this country?! John Kerry has led a position of opposition during his entire race for the office. He has yet to give us any clear plans for action in the homeland security effort. He mentions his 4 point plan for Iraq from time to time, which includes the following:
-- Get more help from other nations.
-- Provide better training for Iraqi security forces.
-- Provide benefits to the Iraqi people.
-- Ensure that democratic elections can be held next year as promised.

But these are all efforts that are currently part of the Bush plan for Iraq!



As I previously mentioned, national security is my top priority in this election. George Bush has laid out his plan for keeping America safe, and it's working. John Kerry has pointed his finger at Bush and made critiques, but offered no solutions of his own. My vote goes to George Bush.

Check out these resources to research the debate, and other election happenings.

Debate Transcripts
Kerry's 4-point plan for Iraq
GeorgeBush.com Debate Facts
John Kerry Debate Wrapup
Commission on Presidential Debates

A view on Government

Patrick commented on the lack of pro-Bush propaganda on my site, so I figured I should add some. We all spend ample time bashing everyone else, claiming we're taking the lesser of two evils when it comes to political figures. And I agree. . . . .sort of.

Before I get into it, though, I'd like to post a quick view on government, which will help our discourse on presidents. I view our government as such: The power rests with you and me. There. That's it. Plain and simple. If you and I and the rest of the people in this country decided we were fed up with our government, as it currently exists, we could overthrow it. The president has no power except the power we give him. Or, maybe another way. The power rests with whom can wield authority. If the American military decided to take over our nation and become a communist power, guess what? They could. Who's going to stop them? A law written on paper? Or better yet, if another group decides to invade us and take us over, what's going to stop them? A UN resolution? Please. . . .The only thing stopping them is another, more powerful group. We've forgotten that, in our culture, power is still defined by might. It has to be. Think on a local level. Without a police officer, what stops criminals from overrunning a store? A law on paper? no no. It's what the law on paper represents. And in the case of America, the laws on paper represent power that is in the background, but still there. It's a lot like our currency. That 5 dollar bill is only worth $5 because you and I say it is. It has no inherent value except that which it represents.
Likewise, our president holds no power except that which we give him. Or, rather, that which we give our military, who in turn, are led by him. (And the other people you and I elect to be in charge, but that's another story.)

Our president is a figurehead. He doesn't wield all kinds of unlimited authority, enabling him to do as he pleases without question. Sure he can set some policies and scribble his name on paper. But if we have a problem with a decision made in the annals of government, chances are the president is just the lightning rod. There are countless others, some of whom you and I get to elect, who are backing, or making, the decisions.
This isn't to say the American President is without power. He has authority and powers just like the other branches of our government, but he's still a figurehead. (figurehead, not puppet.) And it follows that the president can be overturned. Because the power doesn't rest solely on him, if he tries to stear the country too far off the tracks, he's ousted. He can be overruled by elected officials, or kicked out of office altogether.

For more info, check out the following:
Checks and balances diagram
Checks and balances notes

John Kerry : 2 things

So in the political arena, I don't mind differing views. I'm not one who simply hates opposition. On the contrary, without opposing views we become sloppy in our own thinking. We must be challenged in our beliefs if we want to know truth. In order to make rational decisions we have to be allowed to hear all sides. For instance. . .I don't really like Al Sharpton, but at least I can respect him for holding fast to his beliefs. Trust me, if Sharpton were elected president, we know what kind of policy changes he'd be making. He's a guy who tells you what's on his mind. Crazy as it may be, at least he's not a liar. You know what he stands for, and by voting him into office, you know what you're getting yourself into.

What I do mind, however, is a slipshod, wavering ideology. So I bring two things about Mr. John Kerry. The man who wants to be your next commander in chief.

Number 1:
Taking a cue from Michael Moore, John Kerry has, in the recent weeks, decided to take a stab at President Bush by commenting on his Sept 11 actions in that Florida classroom. Kerry even went so far as to say:
Had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had something he needed to attend to," reference
So we have John Kerry taking a stab at the president's actions on that fateful day, saying he would have 'attended to' the situation faster and more effectively.

Now you might be asking, as I did. . ."How did 'ol John react on Sept. 11th?"
Glad you asked. . .here we go.

From
The Washington Post
"On July 8, Kerry recalled for CNN's Larry King his actions that day. He was in a meeting in the office of Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) when he watched the second plane hit the World Trade Center on television, while standing next to fellow senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table, and then we just realized nobody could think, and then, boom, we saw the cloud of the explosion at the Pentagon." "

Now, if you recall on that day, there were about 40 minutes between the second trade center attack and the attack on the pentagon. So by his own words, Kerry claims that he and fellow senators sat for 40 minutes "unable to think." Thanks John, that clears up a lot for me in November.


Number 2:
Remember how John Kerry has been badmouthing President Bush all these weeks? Remember how he's been attacking his every move? How nothing Bush does could possibly be the right thing. How Bush is the last person in the world suitable for the job. Remember how John Kerry rips into Bush's every move without thinking. . .(see number 1 above for further detail)

Recently President Bush received intel on more possible terror alerts. Well, as you can imagine, Kerry and his pal Howard Dean hit the campaign trail shouting about how the terror alerts were made up by the evil conservative party to make Bush look a little better. How do you think President Bush responded? He thought it would be good for a man who might be the next president to be briefed on the situation. He offered John Kerry a secure phone line while on the campaign trail so that he could be made aware of the situation. Sounds respectable to me.
Now what's Kerry's response to the offer? He turns it down. You see, Kerry was a little busy campaigning against the man who just offered him an inside view of the most recent threats against our nation. (That's you and me.) He was a little busy with his campaign events to spend any real time listening to real information. He finally got a secure line setup while his bus was parked in one place during a softball game in Taylor, Michigan. Seems after the phone call, Kerry kept his distance from Howard Dean. Smartest move I've seen the man make thusfar. Check out this msnbc article for more detail.

My problem with Kerry isn't that he's not Bush, which is the main reason most on the left consider him their newfound god. My problem is that he points the finger without offering any new insights. He talks about doing things 'differently' in Iraq and against terror. Well John, what do you mean by 'differently'? The only solution he's offered up has actually been to send more troops to the middle east to fight terror! A fact most on the left don't seem to acknowledge. Sure he's talking about UN troops and other nations helping out, but he's not talking about stopping a war, he's talking about revving it up.

Vote for John Kerry. He's the man who sat unable to think for 40 minutes on sept. 11th. He's the man who wants to send an additional 15,000 troops to Afghanistan. He's the man who didn't care about terror intel as much as he cared about softball. He's the man who votes for things after he votes against them. He's the senator who missed 89 percent of Senate votes this year. He's the man who didn't cast a single vote between March 25 and late June. He's the man who's wife said she joined the democratic party out of spite. Sounds like the position of opposition has a great frontrunner.


By the way. As a senator, it's his job to vote for his constituency. If you were absent from work 89 percent of the time, would you still have a job?

Wag the John

So the new unimportant political story is how a filmmaker named James Moll directed the film introducing John Kerry at the Democratic National Convention the other day. Moll is employed by another more well known filmaker Steven Speilberg. Sounds good to me. Nothing too wild about that. . . .until this.

It seems Moll and the democrats weren't satisfied with the footage of Kerry's wartime activities. So they pulled a Moore and bent the facts ever so slightly. At one point in the film we see Kerry manning the swift boat we've all heard so much about. Bullets fired into the water nearby create a desired effect, but Moll says "'It's just illustrative'. . .saying the bullets in the water were not from the actual event." Referenced

What a petty thing. But a huge thing nonetheless. A small cinematic move that underscores an overarching theme in the John Kerry campaign. This is my beef with all partisan politics. Giving a version of the truth, as Moll says he's doing, is an injustice. It seems to be of little significance that we have a man, and an entire political party that supports the doctoring of facts. Like Michael Moore, it's not a lie, but it's a presentation of the facts in such a way as to lead people's thoughts towards a different truth. A little thing like adding bullets hitting the water near Kerry's boat isn't the end of the world. However, letting him and the party as a whole openly support the misrepresenting of facts is inconceivable. What about standards? What about showing things as they really happened in Kerry's past? I'm not saying he should be showing images of his worst days; of course a convention film should be showing his strengths. . . .but give me the truth, not fiction.

And, just because I'm in a real anti-kerry mood right now, check out these little blurbs.
A photo used by the Kerry campaign shows John with his swiftboat crew. Out of the 20 men in the picture, guess how many are currently supporting Kerry. Including John himself, two. check it out.

Here's another article giving more detail to the civil action against the Kerry campaign.


I love this quote.
"On June 1, 2004, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth sent a cease and desist letter to John Kerry for President, Inc. on behalf of 11 officers shown in the photograph, pointing out that using their images in a campaign advertisement "wrongfully and incorrectly suggests their present endorsement of his candidacy.""

And knowing is half the battle. . .

Robert Greenwald thinks you're an idiot. 
Don't be alarmed, he thinks I'm an idiot too.  In fact, Greenwald thinks most of America is so uneducated, so moronic, and so uninformed that we will sit back and digest whatever he has to say.  I don't know. . .I think his Michael Moore complex is showing. 
Greenwald titles his film about FoxNews, "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War On Journalism."The whole film is devoted to showing how FoxNews is a right-leaning propaganda machine bent on keeping a republican dominated congress alive and well.  He targets Fox for calling themselves 'Fair and Balanced' when, as he claims, this is false advertising.  Nevermind Outfoxed is backed by Moveon.org.  Greenwald assumes you and I are too stupid to realize he's a hardcore lefty making a movie about how the right is evil.  Give me a freakin break Bob.  At least Michael Moore shows his unbalanced side unabashedly.  Grow a pair and just say you hate conservatives.  Quit pretending like you're somehow in the middle of the road, as a partisan hero. 
By the way, you don't see Greenwald going after any other media outlets in his 'War On Journalism' do you?  All you see is him crying about how he hates FoxNews.  I'm not sure I'd have a problem with his efforts if he at least had the integrity to label his work what it is.  "OutFoxed: We don't know what we like, but we know we hate Bush"
 
 
By the way.  I love how the trailer to the movie shows tons of O'Reilly clips where he's telling people to shut up on his program.  As if that's supposed to make me think O'Reilly's a bad guy.  Wait a second, he has morals. . . .damn conservatives with their standards and integrity. . .I bet they'd even fight for peace too.  Just sickening.

Can you imagine

Well now the 9-11 commission has tried to show how military officials acted slow on September 11th. Had they acted sooner, the commission argues, air force fighters would have been able to down the planes before they reached their destinations. MSNBC has an article about it all. But here's my question. . . .

What the hell would the American public have done if congress had approved and succeeded at shooting down the three aircraft? Can you imagine the outcry?! People would have gone insane. I can't even begin to imagine what would have happened. Let me take a stab at it, though.

First, the ACLU would have sued the government for taking away the passengers rights to live. Then the families of the victims would have sued the government for killing their loved ones. Than the hardcore left would have demanded Bush and his administration be jailed for murdering innocent passengers. All this, because of a preemptive strike.


I imagine it would look a bit like what we're seeing today. . . .when you deal with preemption, you never get to see what was thwarted. You just get to stay alive. Had the fighters been able to down those airplanes, we would never know to be thankful for the twin towers still standing. Likewise, I wonder what I don't know to be thankful for, all because our courageous President demands evil be erradicated before it attacks.

what's happenin

So here's the thing.
I have another blog that I post to. It was my first blog, and it covered all sorts of topics. I started the am radio so I could post political/cultural rants and I wanted to gather up some of my old posts. Because I moved them over, they actually appear in reverse chronological order. Anything on this blog dated 'June 1st' is from the old blog. So there you go.

Read

Picked up a new book today by Philip K. Howard called "The Lost Art of Drawing the Line". So far it's been great, and by 'so far' I mean the first 20 pages. It's all about the way we've gone sue-happy in this country, and the way our lives have been forced to change as such. Howard provides many examples throughout the text of wild lawsuits, as well as societal impact on this monster. Here's a quick quote. . .

"The effects are sometimes tragic. Christopher Sercye, fifteen, was shot while playing basketball on a playground close to the Ravenswood Hospital in Chicago. With the help of two friends, the boy made it to within thirty feet of the hospital entrance. When Christopher collapsed, almost at the hospital door, his friends ran in to get help, but the emergency-room staff refused to come out. Hospital policy was that they should not leave the hospital because, as the explanation later indicated, of fear of possible legal liability for neglecting patients already in the hospital. But going thirty feet outside the hospital is not much different for staff than going thirty feet inside. As Christopher lay bleeding on the sidewalk, a policeman begged the staff to come out. But the hospital staff refused to budge and instead placed a call to 911. Christopher lay on the sidewalk for twenty-five minutes before a police sergeant arrived and commandeered a wheelchair to bring him in. The boy died shortly afterward."

"A new medical school graduate, one week away from getting her license to practice, was recently driving in suburban New York when she came upon a motorcycle accident with the rider sprawled on the side of the road, obviously badly injured. After a brief discussion with her mother, she decided not to stop because she might be liable for practicing without a license. At first blink, her logic seems perfectly reasonable. But this only shows how warped we've become. How about helping out because you're a human being who happens to have the skills to save a life?"

Wow. . .what a culture we live in. We were shocked at the McDonald's suit in which "an elderly lady spilled the hot coffee." (First set at $2.9 million, later reduced to $640,000.) How about these: "Boston Judge Hiller Zobel has been asked to decide a custody fight over a dog, a claim over a missing prize in a Cracker Jack Box, and a lawsuit over ownershio of birth control pills between a fifteen-year-old and a thirteen-year-old. These claims don't usually succeed, but they are symptoms of a society-wide preoccupation with rights."

What about the parents of the three-year-old who kicked another three-year-old in a sandbox at Charles River Park, in Boston. "Jonathan's social graces left something to be desired, and there was a pushing incident. At this point, Stacey and her mother could have left the playground or gone to another area, but Stacey's mother had her own problems in the social interaction area, and she decided to call the police." "In new America, the judge actually adjudicated the dispute, granting a preliminary injunction requiring the parents to 'keep each child supervised and separated from each other while in the playground' and prohibiting the mothers from talking to each other."

Now I know I'm only 23, but these two mothers couldn't figure out on their own to just keep their kids apart? We have created a society in which any and all interactions with other people become opportunities for me to find out which of my supposed rights have been infringed, and how I can milk the system for my free money. Check out the book if you want more examples of the craziness.
Peace. . .
-The IP-

the spin we get

I watched an interview on C-SPAN the other night with Elaine Brown. Here's quick taste of the way the radical left spins information for the American people. She finished a rant with this quote. "If we had an educated mass George Bush would not be President." As you can imagine, her audience gave her a thunderous applause, and she laughed hard at the comment. But did you catch it? Read it again. You see, at first glance, what we take from her comment is that George Bush shouldn't be president. But what she really said is that you and I are uneducated. She called the American people idiots, and everyone smiled and nodded.
She later made this gem of a remark. In reference to Martin Luther Kings views on the Black Panther Party, (which Brown directed in 1974), she made the statement that MLK was the "one great leader we ever had." Once again, at first glance this seems like a great comment, donning Dr. King with a title he rightly deserves. But read it again. Did you see how she degraded all other Black leaders of today? Did you see how she openly stated that not only was Dr. King one of many great Black leaders, she said he was the "ONE great leader we ever had." The spin is incredible.

Note these stats taken from Michael Savage's The Enemy Within.
First let me throw some facts out there.
"The CDC (Center for Disease Control) dedicates more money to AIDS than to any other disease. Just less than 30% of the CDC's $7 billion budget is earmarked for HIV and AIDS. As much as I would like to find a cure for this terrible disease, AIDS is not the leading cause of death in this county."
"Here is the difficult truth: cardiovascular disease is the leading killer of men and women from all races. Not AIDS. Not even close. In fact, more American adults, ages 25-44, die from heart disease, cancer, and suicide than from AIDS. But the media doesn't tell you that, do they?. . . . Why? Because HIV is the only politically driven disease."
(The previous came from Savage's book, but is all information that can be found on public domain: Savage sites 'Adult Mortality, Profile of the Nation's Health. pg.37)
Now. . .I told you all that so I could tell you this.

In San Francisco, the CDC gives $600,000 in federal funds to the Stop AIDS Project. With it, workshops like "Flirt, Date, Score" are funded. "The promotion, which targeted gay, bi, tri, and trans guys, said, "Want to flirt with greater finesse and date with more confidence? Share your expertise and hear how others are successful in meeting guys and staying safe today." "Other workshops like 'Bootylicious' offered insight and advice on topics such as sex with male prostitutes, as well as oral and anal intercourse. That's your tax dollars at work."
With all that; Julie Gerberding, Bush appointee to head the CDC, threatened to withhold funding. "When word of her inquiry reached the Stop AIDS Project, the damaged and deranged powerbrokers on the left marshaled their forces. They, along with 150 HIV/AIDS likeminded groups, dashed off a letter to George Bush thrashing the CDC. Gerberding had to back down."
Their letter included this comment.
"If the government does not fully fund federal AIDS programs, there is only one sure result: The American taxpayer will see both the costs of treatment and the death toll rise dramatically."

And, to tie all this together with what I said at the beginning of the post. . . .look at the spin. Read the line again if you need. In Savage's words, "Did you catch it? If AIDS numbers increase, it's because YOU didn't do enough."

There you have it. Just a few examples of the spin we get from the up and ups. Those like Elaine Brown, who consider us all too stupid to decipher her words, abound and seem to be given more and more airtime these days. Watch for the spin, it's not hard to find.

-The IP-

Guess I'll have to write about 'ol Rich

See Dick
See Dick testify
See Dick calling himself a liar


Alrighty, well with everyone talking about Richard Clarke I think I'll chime in. But I won't use his words or anything he's saying. (He's said enough.) Instead I'll say something I believe in.

In working with kids, it's not uncommon to hear several interpretations of an incident. Perspective can be gained by listening to several stories, and trying to piece together the information from all the jargon.
Moving on. . . .I love the fact that I don't know what the government is doing at all times. (In fact, this is why I pay them for their services) If I knew every little detail about government actions, my own security would be jeopardized. Some people have a hard time with this raw fact. They simply want to know it all. What's going on behind closed doors, what's the CIA doing right now? What new military weapons are out there? Who's the biggest threat to us? How, Why, When??!?! Now, granted, I understand this mindset. I want to know all the details as well, but I realize if the government was foolish enough to make public every detail about its workings, we'd be much less secure, defeating the governments first goal.

With that in mind, what we as the people of America get, in terms of information, is bits and pieces of stories. We don't hear everything firsthand, so all we can know is what so and so claims took place; trusting a variety of sources. So here's the tie-in. It's just like hearing the kids stories. Sometimes they match up, but most of the time you get different 'truths' about what happened. This is what we're getting with these 9-11 hearings. We have some groups saying one thing, others claiming quite different 'truths'. So who do you believe? Well as always with partisan politics. . . .if you're a Bush supporter, you automatically think Clarke is a liar working undercover for John Kerry. If you're a Bush-hater, you assume Clarke is a hero for coming out and revealing the truth about an evil man named George Bush.

Here's my quick take. I'm not even going to comment on the issue at hand. I'll just say this. . . . .
Sometimes with the kids you get different stories, we already mentioned that. But sometimes you get one kid telling multiple stories; some that even contradict each other. When this happens credibility goes out the window.
Richard Clarke, with the latest 9-11 hearings, you have argued against positions you yourself took in the 2002 hearing. When asked to comment you have no explanation. Thanks for making it so clear who we should believe. Actually, I guess that's still up for grabs. I should have said "Thanks for making it so clear who NOT to believe."

See, working with kids comes in handy all the time. We just needed a kindergarten teacher to preside at the hearings.

This is some good revelation.

Now we cry for preemption

So I'm listening to Condoleezza Rice testify in front of the 9-11 commission this morning, and some of it irks me. But I'll get to that in a second. First I want to lay some groundwork.

The whole premise for the 9-11 commission is fine by me. America was attacked. Let's take every opportunity to learn how the attacks happened and what we can do to stop them in the future. Along these same lines, let's look at how a terrorist network was able to pull off these attacks, or any for that matter, without being stopped by the people and institutions charged with protecting us. If ineptness is found at the top, or if a lack of response to overwhelming evidence of a coming attack is found, further action must be taken.

Now, onto the committee. Here's what rubs me wrong with the whole thing.

During her testimony, Rice fielded questions based on the Bush administrations previous knowledge about the coming 9-11 attacks. She made it clear that this was a problem spanning multiple presidents, influenced by both parties. Fine, whatever, that sounds like the truth to me. Because it's obvious the Bush administration had the power to stop the attacks, it's also key to note that the terrorists were living in our country during the Clinton administration. Yadda yadda, we already know all this. But here's where I get ticked about the whole argument. . .

To say that the Bush administration could have/should have stopped the 19 highjackers brings up, yet again, the hot topic of preemption. Groups like the ACLU say we can be free from government intrusion and secure at the same time. They claim the government should be able to preemptively stop any attack on America, but the government isn't allowed to gather information about the people inside our borders that might help in process. (Civil liberties vs. civil rights)
Here's the part that makes no sense about this whole preemptive notion.
While so many people are screaming at the Bush administration, or the government in general, about their failure to stop these attacks, can you imagine the uproar that would have occurred if, on Sept. 4, 2001, 19 people were arrested by military personal?! There would have been unimaginable outcries from the so-called civil liberties groups shouting discrimination, infringement of privacy and whole hosts of other crap that I'm not smart enough to know about. What if the 19 highjackers hadn't even been allowed in our country because of their terrorist affiliations? Can you imagine the protests that would have ensued. (All this, for men who would later instigate 9-11)

My only complaint with the 9-11 hearings are when questions revolve around preemption. The same people who want America to be secure are the same people who cry foul when the government takes preemptive action. For an example of how the ACLU's idea that we can be free and secure is full of crap, check out the next post. If you don't care about it, then peace out.

As Simple as I could imagine

Once in 3rd grade a friend of mine named Brett didn't want to play anymore. We were at recess so I went and complained to the teacher that she had to make Brett play with me. She just suggested I play with another group. What a horrible teacher.

Later that same school year, I tried to trade a 'How to Draw people' book with a kid from another class for his pencil holder. It was one of those cool ones that had compartments for everything. He wouldn't trade and I was mad. How dare he not make the deal with me? Didn't he see how great the deal was? I'm sure that guys in jail by now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having the right to choose what or whom to publish/produce/support is not censorship. It is not a trampling of any speech freedoms. It is, in fact, an example of just how free our speech really is. Mike, you can say all you want about censorship. We know, however, that our choices make us free. Even if, from time to time, someone chooses against you. Welcome to our America Mike. You have to earn the right to be heard. And even then, it's our right not to listen.

Thus Sayeth Disney

So the New York Times brings out a piece yesterday telling more about Disney's refusal to distribute Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. The article isn't too long, but here's a few things the writer has to say:

"A company that ought to be championing free expression has instead chosen to censor a documentary that clearly falls within the bounds of acceptable political commentary."

The writer ends the piece by saying "it is clear that Disney loves its bottom line more than the freedom of political discourse."


-Maybe Disney's goal isn't political discourse.
-Maybe Disney's goal is entertainment for their paying customers.
-Maybe Disney can choose to market whatever they want.
-Maybe I should make a movie and demand Disney distribute it.
-Maybe Michael Moore shouldn't worry because there are many other companies who will gladly distribute his film.
-Maybe you remember how no one said a word about a movie called 'The Passion of The Christ' that no one would distribute. Where was the NY Times writer when that happened?