In4Mation Station

Wait...isn't Da Vinci Code in the fiction section?

2006-05-14T08:31:00.000-05:00

Hello again. I know it's been awhile, and I don't know if anyone will come across this, but it's the summertime now--I'm out of school and have a little bit more time to read and respond to the news. Originally, this website was created to raise a little bit of awareness about the political candidates for president. Since we've got a few years before that really heats up again, I'll focus on whatever news I find interesting. Anyway, on with the news!

So I was checking my e-mail on Yahoo (not as good as GMail, but that's another story) and I came across this story about the Da Vinci Code movie that comes out next week (already got my tickets). There's a few things I don't understand. First and foremost, the book is a work of fiction! I could understand if I went to Borders and found the book in the non-fiction section. Then it is selling itself as a work of truth. Is some of the novel based on actual facts? YES. The Catholic church and Opus Dei and the Louvre and the Knights Templar all existed. Dan Brown shapes his novel around some of these topics that are bound to be controversial--especially if people accept it as the truth. I also understand that some people are a bit naive, maybe even ignorant to this fact, because they don't go to church or participate in religion. I guess that the pamphlets I would make up (if I really cared that much about it) would say (many, many times) "IT'S A FICTION BOOK" or "IT'S A WORK OF FICTION." Something along those lines. Then at the bottom I would put a little blurb that said, "If you are still confused about this fact, please contact _________ Church."

Secondly, this isn't the first time we've heard of "The Da Vinci Code." It's been a book that has been on the NY Times bestseller list for a long, long time. It really was the "Harry Potter" of adult reading. Many people who didn't regularly read picked it up. Now it's going to be a movie. Granted, I'm sure more people go to the movies than read books nowadays (pity), so they are worried that the "gospel" will get out to more people. And as for the Catholic church taking "unspecified legal action"--what court do they think that's going to hold up in. I guess even the Vatican doesn't know the difference between non-fiction and fiction.

In the end, I guess I'm as riled by the people who read this book and actually like it and take it as the truth as I am by people who are opposed to it and want to crush it. I read it--twice--and found it to be a thrilling little adventure that was over the second I finished it. I don't make it out to be anything more than I did other books, like "1984" or "Moby Dick." Let's get over it and move on.

It's not my fault...They told me not to!

2004-09-01T10:24:00.000-05:00

You better watch out, because John Kerry is furious. Apparently, the Democratic presidential candidate is angry because he wanted to go after the swiftboat allegations (and more importantly the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth), but his aides advised him not to. He is "shaking up" his current staff and brought in top Clinton aides Joe Lockhart and Joel Johnson. He has not fired anyone as of yet. One advisor to Kerry said this:

"The candidate is furious," a longtime senior Kerry adviser told the Daily News. "He knows the campaign was wrong. He wanted to go after the Swift boat attacks, but his top aides said no."

I can somewhat understand Kerry's frustration, but I'm pretty sure that Kerry has the final say in these matters, and if he wanted to counterattack the swiftboat veterans all he has to do is make the order. I do not think he has anyone to blame but himself on this one.

And really, I think it is too little, too late. I think most of the damage that could be done has been done. Most people are either going to believe the allegations or not. If a person is already pro-Kerry, I seriously doubt if these accusations are going to make them change their mind.

Pretty scary, huh?

Did they think we wouldn't notice?

2004-08-30T18:12:00.000-05:00

I'm sure that some of you have probably heard about this already, as I'm sure that it will make big news, but another controversial toy has has been found in Miami. The "toy" consists of a plane wedged between two skyscrapers. Some people feel that this toy depicts a plane crashing into the World Trade Center. I must admit it looks like that to me. L and M Export/Import, the company that made the toys, claims that there is nothing wrong with the toys. Supposedly, the company that distributed the toys, the Lisy Corporation, did not view the toys before they sold them with children's candy bags. They are in the process of recalling about 14,000 bags of candy that may have the toys in them.

Lisy says they were sold the toys by L&M Import and Export. The product was coded as a plastic swing play set and sent in two versions, one with a man swinging between the towers. The product was packed in bulk, with the airplane version out of sight.

If this is true or not, we may not know. An interesting fact about these "toys" is the product number--9-0-1-1. Coincidence? The company that makes the toy still feels that there is nothing inappropriate about it.

Even more interesting is another toy that has surfaced after the discovery of the the "9/11 toy." This toy is similar to the aforemetioned one, except that instead of a plane between the two buildings, there is a man wearing what looks to be a turban. Some people think that this man may represent Osama bin Laden.

Here are the pictures in question:

If the resemblances of these toys are intentional, I personally find it appalling. Comment and let me know what you think.

I'll keep you posted if I hear about more.

Bush condemns 527 Swiftboat Veterans-- Too little, too late? (Website Addition)

2004-08-24T15:02:00.000-05:00

Here I am again. I just can't seem to keep myself away as you can see. There is just too much stuff going on and I don't want any of you to miss it.

So, Bush finally condemned the ads from the 527 group Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. The Kerry campaign has been pushing for Bush to condemn the ads since they aired on TV about two weeks ago. The group however, has not heeded Bush's requests and has said that they will continue to blitz voters with the ads.

Fine, that's all well and good. What a bad move on Bush's part not to do it sooner though. Since the group is not funded by Bush (no matter how much the Democrats will try and show you that it is), they do not have to take their commands from him. So, why not condemn them when they first came out, look "good" in the eyes of the Democrats, and then, since the group would not have listened in the first place, let them continue to run the ad. It is a win-win situation for Bush, if you ask me.

The other thing I have a problem with can be seen right here:

"The moment of truth came and went and the President still couldn't bring himself to do the right thing," Senator Edwards said in a statement. "Instead of hiding behind a front group, George Bush needs to take responsibility and demand that the ad come off the air."

A senior Kerry campaign strategist, Tad Devine, told reporters that Republican allegations against Senator Kerry would backfire on Mr Bush because "the allegations are not true and the President is behind them."

Give me a break. If Bush is behind this Swiftboat stuff, then you can bet your ass (I use the ass for emphasis) that Kerry can be found behind Moveon.org and all those other great anti-Bush websites. These Democrats will look and look and look for a connection between Bush and this group, which is funded by a Bush supporter. I had heard that apparently Bush was friends with someone in the group, or a friend of a friend, or something like that. So what? Unless he's funding the group (which is against the law), then he has nothing to worry about, and no one can accuse him of anything any more than they can accuse Kerry of being supportive of anti-Bush defamation websites. Of course they are going to support something that makes their opponent look bad. Let's have some common sense here.

That's it for now, and hopefully for the next couple days. We will see. It seems I've broken my word before. Over and out.

UPDATE: I just read that Kerry is dispatching swiftboat veterans to Bush's ranch in Texas. Apparently, asking for the commercials to stop, which I would consider condemning to a point, is not enough. The article also says that they have found that one of Bush's top legal aides has been providing legal advice to the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth group. I haven't heard if he was doing this of his own accord or what. Regardless, it doesn't look great for Bush (though he still is not contributing to the group, so as far as I can tell, he is not breaking any laws).

I'll keep you updated of any new information.

Kerry phones swiftboat veteran foe

2004-08-24T10:37:00.000-05:00

Once again I break my vow of silence to bring you this news from Drudge Report.

Apparently, Kerry has called one of the swiftboat veterans that he served with, who is contesting Kerry's military record. Nothing seems to really have come out of the conversation. Kerry did ask to meet the veteran, Robert Brant, face to face, but Brant declined because he did not think that Kerry was going to set the record straight.

Drudge Report also reports that:

*Kerry's campaign now says is possible first Purple Heart was awarded for unintentional self-inflicted wound...

*Kerry received Purple Heart for wounds suffered on 12/2/68...

*In Kerry's own journal written 9 days later, he writes he and his crew, quote, 'hadn't been shot at yet'

Interesting stuff to think about. Yet, through all of this stuff, who really knows what to believe?

No "Ketchup" for Kerry last night

2004-08-11T11:08:00.000-05:00

I just had to break my vow of silence after I saw this article at Drudge Report. Apparently, the campaign is wearing on the couple. They decided to get separate suites in a hotel after a very heated argument.

I wonder what it was about. Perhaps Kerry told Teresa to shut her mouth, and stop speaking her mind. He probably can only cover for her so much more. I do agree with a lot of the press that she seems to be a "loose cannon."

That's it for now (hopefully).

Over and out.

No posting for 2 weeks...

2004-08-10T13:24:00.000-05:00

Hey everyone,

I am afraid that I must take a little haitus from this blog for the time being. I have about two weeks until I go back to school, and about 5 days of that are going to be spent in the woods of nothern Maine. Taking into account those 5 days, it does not leave me a whole lot of time to get things in order. I have things I need to wrap up at my summer job and things to wrap up at home, so that is one of the reasons.

The other reason is this--I'm feeling a little burnt out. I understand that this is normal for frequent bloggers, and I think even more frequent in blogs dealing with current events and such. I need time to read the news and just absorb it for myself. Unless I see something that I think needs to be here, I wouldn't expect anything.

I also hope to continue with my 9/11 Commission Report Summary. There might be a few changes. I found it really difficult in my first post to explain everything in a summarized view. There are so many facts and figures it makes it very hard. I think that I will more than likely provide poignant quotations and my reactions to those, and maybe a brief background to give them context. I just feel that it would be a huge undertaking to summarize the whole thing. Secondly, I must stress this--I will only continue doing this summary if I see a significant rise in my site hits and in comments. I know that I have a few loyal readers at the moment (and I hope to gain more when I get to school), but I can not continue doing this unless I see that a lot of people are getting something out of it. This may also go for my website. Don't get me wrong, I love doing this and sharing this all with everyone--but I just feel that I can't do it if enough people are not reading it. I may just have to restrict spreading my knowledge to dinner time discussions or something.

Anyways, that is all I have for now. Take it easy, and I look forward to writing in a few weeks.

Thanks for reading,

J.D.J.

9/11 Commission Report Summary (Chapter 1)

2004-08-06T14:05:00.000-05:00

This is a summary of Chapter 1, "We Have Some Planes"

Note: These summaries that I am writing consist of parts and passages that I think are important. I bring them to you attention because I think that they are vital information that I believe some people might not know. I guess that is all I have to say about that for the time being. Just keep it in mind.

The 9/11 Commission Report is broken up by chapters, then further separated by sub-chapters(e.g. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and so on).

Chapter 1, 1.1 - INSIDE THE FOUR FLIGHTS

This section of the Report takes you inside each of the hijacked flights (American 11 and United 175, which crashed into the World Trade Center; American 77 which crashed into the Pentagon; United 93 which crashed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania). It describes each of the hijackers, the security processes at the individual airports, and gives a blow-by-blow account of the hijackings.

I am not going to summarize this section because one can not really summarize what happened in each of the flights. I believe that it is important for everyone to read this part if they get a chance.

Chapter 1, 1.2 - IMPROVISING A HOMELAND DEFENSE

The major characters in this section are the FAA (Federal Aviation Association) and NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command).

Basically, there was a complex system of protocol that was supposed to be followed in a case of hijacking. On 9/11, it was the first time that anyone had encountered hijackers who intended to use airplanes as weapons of mass destruction. Besides this, there had never been such an undertaken hijacking before, involving so many planes. There were also many problems with communications between different agencies. The list goes on and on, but that is the basic jist of it. I will now provide some quotations from the report that are relevant.

"On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen."

This was very true. As I said before, the chain of command protocol was very detailed, and would not possibly be able to accomadate such a situation as these agencies faced on 9/11.

"United 175 (second plane to crash into World Trade Center) turned southewest without clearance from air traffic control. At 8:47, seconds after the impact of American 11, United 175's transponder code changed, and then changed again. These changes were not noticed for several minutes, however, because the same New York Center controller was assigned to both American 11 (the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center) and United 175. The controller knew American 11 was hijacked; he was focused on searching for it after the aircraft disappeared at 8:46."

This, of course, presented a big problem because the air controller was not able to discern what was happening on both hijacked planes. They do not say what caused this controller to be responsible for both planes, or if it was just a coincidence. However, since time was crucial in this situation, those several minutes that United 175 was not classified as hijacked made problems much worse.

"At about 8:55, the controller in charge notified a New York Center manager that she believed United 175 had also been hijacked. The manager tried to notify the regional managers and was told that they were discussing a hijacked aircraft (presumably American 11) and refused to be disturbed."

This was just another problem that did not help the situation. I think that we can all appreciate what they were doing, but ignoring another hijacked aircraft was not the answer.

"Within minutes of the second impact, Boston Center instructed its controllers to inform all aircraft in its airspace of the events in New York and to advise aircraft to heighten cockpit security. Boston Center asked the Herndon Command Center to issue a similar cockpit security alert nationwide. We have found no evidence to suggest that the Commande Center acted on this request or issued any type of cockpit security alert."

There was a big problem with communication during 9/11, as you can see:

"The first indication that the NORAD air defenders had of the second hijacked aircraft, United 175, came in a phone call from New York Center to NEADS at 9:03. The notice came at about the time the plane was hitting the South Tower."

"In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 (plane that crashed into the Pentagon) turn around. by the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or were looking toward the west. Although the Command Center learned Flight 77 was missing, neither it nor FAA headquarters issued an all points bulletin to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets. American 77 traveled undectected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C."

That's all I can do for right now. I will try and post more tomorrow. Please check back.

I can get us out of Iraq...but I can't tell you how, or when or...

2004-08-03T10:54:00.000-05:00

As people get more and more uncomfortable with the problems still arising in Iraq, they look to others besides our Commander-in-Chief for other options. Of course, now being the Democratic nominee, John Kerry knows how to get us out of Iraq. He's told us dozens and dozens of times (did you watch the Democratic Convention???). The one thing that is lacking however, is an actual plan.

Kerry says that he has met with foreign leaders who say that they will support these "plans" if Kerry is elected. But wait--he can't tell you who those leaders are. I understand that he can't divulge that information because of the risk of not being elected. However, that puts us back at square one. Since I, the voter, can not count on these supposed foreign dignitaries, I must then rely on the "plan" of John Kerry. He says that if he is elected, he will be able to persuade other countries to join us in this War. This is hard to believe though, because of the reputation that the United States has (which can be largely blamed on Bush), and the problems that we have run into in Iraq (Abu Ghraib, hostages and the Philippines pulling out, continued terrorist and insurgent attacks). As Anthony Cordesman, John McCain's former advisor and Iraq expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says:

"Nobody is going to bail us out of our responsibilities in this conflict. It is not a matter of who is the president at this point. There simply won't be any international support for a country like France or Germany to do it."

I just think that we should not assume that Kerry has a plan, and accept that because we believe that Bush does not have a better plan. Instead, I think that we should demand to know just what his plans are and how he thinks he can get us out of this War.

New Project

2004-08-02T14:51:00.000-05:00

I apologize for not posting the last couple days. I was busy and was not able to be in the close proximity of a computer. Anyways, in the time that I have been away, I have been reading the 9/11 Commission Report. I'm about 100 pages into it, and there are very interesting, important things in there. Discovering these facts, I got to thinking, "It is too bad that so many people will not take the time to read this Report." Which it really is. I would say that this Report provides we the public with as unbiased an account of events as we will get. Perhaps if people read this Report, they would not be so easily swayed by one side or another, by Michael Moore, or whoever it may be.

So, taking all of this into consideration--here is my new project--I am going to try and bring forth the most important facts in the 9/11 Report. I had planned to do it all at once, but, as I don't feel like writing an extensive research paper, I will try to post after I finish each section.

Hopefully in doing this, I will be able to provide some information that people might not otherwise get because they were too busy to read the Report, or thought they would not be able to understand it, or what have you. There are some startling facts in here people, and they deserve to be put out there.

For those of you who have been contemplating reading the Report, do it. It is well worth your time.

It is time for us to stop letting other people tell us how we should feel.

Does Kerry generally pose and smile for no one?

2004-07-28T08:37:00.000-05:00

Last night on the FoxNews Channel John Kerry spokeswoman Mary Beth Cahill claimed foul play concerning the newly released NASA photos of Kerry. Cahill claimed that someone had "leaked" these photos that were not supposed to be taken.

HUME: So the campaign had no idea there would be any photographs.

CAHILL: None.

HUME: When it was agreed he would put on his [sic]th costume.

CAHILL: There was no press there. there was -- nothing. All of the sudden these photographs are out.

The thing that puzzles me as well as many others is this--if no one knew that pictures were being taken, then 1. Who was Kerry smiling at in these pictures? 2. What did he think was happening when he posed with those other guys in the picture? (Does he usually do that for fun?), and 3. How did he not see the cameras? Come on.

Here are some pictures to illustrate my points:

Definitely looks like he's saying "cheese" here.

Like I said, does he usually hang out (pose) with the guys like this?

Now, if anyone has gotten Kerry into hot water in this situation, it has been Mary Beth Cahill. These pictures show that her accusations are not true at all. Even Kennedy Space Center spokesman Mike Rein said this:

But Kennedy Space Center spokesman Mike Rein said a video was routinely made of Kerry "as we have done for the last 40 years." He said NASA takes such footage because Kerry was in "a very confined and hazardous area" and that the pictures are always made public.

What Rein says is indeed true. All one needs to do is scroll down to the bottom of the NASA/Kennedy Space Center Multimedia Gallery and see for themselves.

If you ask me, it's not a big deal. I don't think seeing Kerry in a spacesuit that looks like it is standard NASA fare will damage his credibility in any way. However, I think if Kerry lets Cahill open her mouth anymore, then there may be problems.

I'll keep you updated if I find out anymore.

Off Until Monday

2004-07-21T13:47:00.000-05:00

Hey everyone,

I just wanted to let you know that I will be gone until Monday, July 26th. I will resume posting then.

While I'm gone, stay updated using the links to the right of my site.

Thanks,

J.D.J.

Take a break and watch something funny...

2004-07-21T11:38:00.000-05:00

If you think the above picture is funny, wait until you see this hilarious parody of "This Land" with Bush and Kerry. Guaranteed to make you laugh, no matter who you support.

Just take a break, sit back, and enjoy.

P.S. Please let me know if it doesn't work. I have heard that some people are having problems with it.

Are those secret, confidential papers in your pants, jacket and portfolio, or are you just happy...(Website Addition)

2004-07-20T15:51:00.000-05:00

Sandy Berger, former President Clinton's national security aide was caught, not with his pants down, but his pants stuffed--with top-secret handwritten notes that he "inadvertently" took from the National Archives. These notes, in addition to copies of highly confidential terrorism memos were found at his home and office. He took these documents while he was preparing for the Sept. 11 commission. While some Democrats are trying to play it down, saying that it was "innocent" and Berger saying, "to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced."

Sandy Berger

Be that as it may, it is clear that Berger took handwritten notes from these memos and knowingly, not inadvertently, took them from the Archives, which is against policy--

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

Here is another interesting story concerning "disappearing documents"--

Breuer said the Archives staff first raised concerns with Berger during an Oct. 2 review of documents that at least one copy of the post-millennium report he had reviewed earlier was missing. Berger was given a second copy that day, Breuer said.

Officials familiar with the investigation said Archive staff specially marked the documents and when the new copy and others disappeared, Archive officials called Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey to raise concerns.

I think that this is something more than "innocent" when copies of documents disappear, are replaced, and then disappear again.

I do not believe, however, that Berger has destroyed any documents or withheld any from the Commission. What we are dealing with here is the fact that very confidential information is being leaked purposefully. Some believe that since Sandy Berger was an unofficial advisor to John Kerry, that perhaps he could have been giving facts to Kerry which he would otherwise not have access to.

Of course, some people are defending Berger.

There are also other versions of the story which can be found here and here.

Read all of them.

UPDATE: Here's something funny, I guess--Clinton is "laughing" about the Berger investigation. I can find nothing humorous about this situation, other than the fact that the Democrats are playing this down so much. Berger has admitted that he did sneak out handwritten notes. Joe Lockhart, Clinton's former press secretary had this to say:

There's absolutely no evidence that (Berger) made anything more than an honest mistake. No amount of character assassination can change that.

Like I said before, Berger CONFESSED. When someone confesses to knowingly and purposefully doing something, it CANNOT be considered any kind of honest mistake.

Give me a break.

Niger-Joe Wilson-Uranium-Iraq-CIA Mess

2004-07-19T14:58:00.000-05:00

I have read a few things about the contradictory statements that U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson made about Iraq's buying relationship with Niger concerning Uranium. Wilson had said "it was unlikely any uranium transaction had taken place andthe administration appeared to have been manipulating the intelligence." I believe this report came after Bush made the statement that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," in his 2003 State of the Union address. After Wilson's findings were reported, Bush's statement just became more fodder for people who opposed Bush's War on Terrorism and felt that he had no facts to back up his claims.

Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson

However, since this time, the Senate Committee studying these claims has "described various reports about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from French, British and unidentified foreign governments." Another interesting fact that bolsters Bush's claims is the fact that "uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports."

As far as I know, this Committee has not yet officially released its findings, but it should be interesting to see what happens. Some say that Wilson lied to get support for John Kerry.

Like I said before, some of the stories that I have read have been very confusing, but I hope that you find what I have said helpful. If anyone knows more about this subject or can put it in better terms, please let me know. I have somewhat fallen behind in this topic, which puts me at a slight disadvantage.

Nader: "I get by with a little help from my 'friends'."

2004-07-19T10:07:00.000-05:00

Everyone knows the Democrats strongly dislike Ralph Nader, including the Republicans. Everyone always says, "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush," and statistics show that they are right. Nader "took" votes away from Al Gore in 2000, and he stands to take away some from John Kerry this election year. Well, Republicans decided to take advantage of that fact, and saught the petition signatures Nader needed in Michigan to get him on the ballot.

I just got such a kick out of this story when I read it. Like this:

An article from The Detroit News posted on the state Republican Party's Web site quotes the party's executive director as saying, "We are absolutely interested in having Ralph Nader on the ballot," and adds that the executive director, Greg McNeilly, was personally circulating petitions for Mr. Nader.

Mr. McNeilly told fellow Republicans in a recent e-mail message that the Democrats were trying to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot, and that "your help is needed in the next five days to ensure that Michigan voters are not disenfranchised."

Of course the Republican party is "absolutely interested" in seeing Ralph Nader in the race, but not because they care about any voters being "disenfranchised." Give me a break. They know what they are doing, and kudos to them for doing it.

The Democrats, in very "cry baby-like" fashion said, "'There is no way they could have gathered over 40,000 signatures and spent less than $5,000,'" which is the legal limit." Fortunately for the Republicans, they aren't subjected to those campaign rules, because it was not arranged by the Nader campaign.

Martha gets 5 months jail time"I'll be back," quips Schwarzenegger...I mean, Stewart

2004-07-16T10:03:00.000-05:00

In a very Arnold like fashion, Martha Stewart vowed, "I'll be back," after being setenced to 5 months jail time and a $30,000 dollar fine. The judge also said that Stewart will face 5 months home confinement and two years supervised probation.

Martha will not be behind bars just yet, after the judge allowed her a stay while her lawyers file her appeal. Stewart tried to get a new trial earlier, citing some kind of juror tampering, but was not allowed one by the judge.

Interestingly enough, shares of Martha Stewart Omnimedia jumped up 35% after she was sentenced, from $3.11 to $11.80.

In other news, Martha supporters are appealing to the President with a petition that can be found at savemartha.com. Honestly, I do agree that what she has done is nothing compared to the Ken Lay's of the time, but still, she did lie to two separate government organizations, and she must pay for the crimes she committed. I mean, if you think about it--if you or I had committed the same crime, I seriously doubt if we would have 14,000 people signing a petition so that we might avoid jail. Why should celebrities get special treament? Leave me some comments and perhaps let me know why.

UPDATE: Martha's Court Statement

Are things really that bad? (Food for Thought)

2004-07-15T10:55:00.000-05:00
I just read a really interesting article about how much better of we are than we were about 30 years ago. The author presents some statistics that show that the middle class is not disappearing and that on the whole, even the poorest people are doing much better.

Read all of it.

Pot (Kerry) calling the kettle (Bush) black?

2004-07-15T08:40:00.000-05:00
I just came across this article that says that Kerry did not read the same 90 page Iraq intelligence report that he accuses the president of not reading either.

Once again, this is not a "support-Bush" post, but rather a "take a good, hard look at Kerry before you automatically think that he is better than Bush" post. I think that this view (which doesn't seem too popular right now) is very important. If anything, we have to inspect Kerry harder in some aspects, because some of his viewpoints and actions are not as publicly known as Bush's. Also, I am trying to take some of the anti-Bush liberal media slant (because we are being spoonfed it everyday) and right it a bit by showing that Kerry has made some mistakes in the past and these will definitely translate to problems in his presidency as well.

That's all I have to say about that--for now.

Whoopi ousted by Slim-Fast

2004-07-15T08:06:00.000-05:00

Whoopi Goldberg will not appear in any more Slim-Fast commercials or ads after remarks she made at a star-studded Kerry campaign fundraiser. (Another link here)

Some of her comedy routine included Goldberg hauling a wine bottle around, and a long segment using Bush's last name as a double entendre, if you get what I mean. John Kerry and John Edwards tried to distance themselves away from some of the comedy of the night (mostly centered around Bush).

Bush has expressed outrage over the fundraiser, demanding "that the Kerry-Edwards campaign release video or film footage of the event, saying Americans deserved to decide for themselves about it." If you ask me, Bush has no right to demand the tape, and I'm pretty sure that most Americans have already have a good idea how they feel about Bush. Just like "Fahrenheit 9/11," I'm sure this comedic fundraiser only really appeals to people who do not support Bush.

I'm wondering how big of a tax break Slim-Fast might be getting, since so many actions nowadays seem to be a result of things like this. Although, when it comes down to it, Slim-Fast did make a pretty smart business move, because supposedly they were standing to lose customers because of Whoopi's remarks.

We all know this isn't going to get any better as we get closer to election time.

I'll vote for him...if his taste in music is good...

2004-07-14T14:49:00.000-05:00
I just came across a short little article about presidential campaign songs. Apparently, Kerry announced the partnership with John Edwards using the song "Right Now" by Van Halen--a song that was last publicly heard "in an ad for Crystal Pepsi." I know I wasn't considering John Kerry, but now that I know he likes Van Halen (Sammy Hagar Van Halen that is), I know I can't deny Kerry my vote.

One really has to wonder how much it matters--the only real attention I ever saw about any campaign song was when Bruce Springsteen refused to let the Reagan campaign use "Born In The U.S.A." (which would've been a bad song to use anyways, considering the subject matter).

Check out the article, it's interesting.

Press manufactures Bush quotes--can we trust what we read?

2004-07-14T11:20:00.000-05:00
Knight Ridder, the second largest newspaper chain in the U.S. (31 daily newspapers in 28 U.S. Markets) has twisted words (and sometimes made them up) in the media war against Bush. I must once again assert that I am not standing up for Bush, but rather for our right as citizens to get true and accurate reporting. Because we don't, we most constantly question what we read.

It seems the media will do whatever it takes to fuel the growing dissent against the current administration--this dissent which apparently is being consistently fueled by these false statistics/quotations.

We need Ralph Nader

2004-07-14T09:09:00.000-05:00

I don't know a heck of a lot about the guy. I know that I've heard "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" plenty of times. I do know I love how the Democratic party frets about him. I think that it is great that he stays in these elections that he can not win. I don't believe this because I want Bush to win. I believe this because I think it is great that we have another choice. So many things are wrong with both parties, people need to know that there is more out there. The Democratic party is urging Nader to drop out and support John Kerry, because they are hoping that "people who've traditionally supported Ralph Nader will understand that John Kerry has fought for these issues his entire life."

Of course Nader, a consumer advocate, disagrees. Nader Spokesman Kevin Zeese there are a "host of issues" that the Kerry campaign is "not addressing, including Israeli policies toward Palestinians, corporate welfare and U.S. energy policy."

I think that it is saying something that a candidate like Ralph Nader, who only receives 3-5 percent of the vote, presents such a challenge to the Democratic party. If anything, I think that he should be considered a problem for both the Republican and Democratic parties--the fact that people are saying they want more, and they are willing to take their vote to a candidate that will not win to prove that fact.

Colin Powell least traveled Secretary of State in 30 years

2004-07-14T08:48:00.000-05:00

The State Department has reported that Colin Powell not only is the least traveled Secretary of State in the last 30 years, but that his diplomatic trips tend to only last an average of 2.9 days, significantly shorter than previous SOS's. They say that he relies on the telephone much more, and also does many interviews with foreign media here in Washington. I'd say even though it is important to have him here, the need to have him representing the U.S. overseas is far greater. When the United States is suffering from a horrible international image, private telephone calls will not do. He needs to be seen in public places and on foreign media. Powell doesn't feel that it is traveling is necessary "having seen much of the world and having lived on planes for years" during his military days, he is "no longer much interested in travel."

Honestly, who cares what he is interested in? It's his job. He should take a look in the past and see the successes of predecessors, which was most likely a direct effect of the extensive traveling that they did.

Kerry causes hubub at 9/11 memorial service

2004-07-13T15:10:00.000-05:00
Anything for a photo opportunity? You have to wonder. Some families of victims of 9/11 were upset with Sen. John Kerry's late arrival at a 9/11 memorial service. Even though it wasn't "a day for politics" as David Wade, a Kerry spokesman said ("Kerry's stir at the 9/11 memorial came amid a whirlwind day of Boston campaigning - including two fund-raisers that netted his campaign and Democrats an estimated $5 million), Kerry apparently "allowed television crews to film over the Public Garden fence - capturing video of Kerry with grieving family members in the midst of his presidential campaign."

Just some food for thought I guess.

Delay the election? (Simply preventative, if you ask me) (Update: Website Addition)

2004-07-12T16:09:00.000-05:00
There are currently people trying to figure out just how to delay the presidential election in case of a terrorist attack. I think that before people jump to conclusions and people start coming up with theories about how Bush wants to "delay the inevitable" for as long as possible or anything of that nature, that they read articles like the one provided above. I don't think there is anything to worry about--the government is simply preparing for the worst-case scenario:
In his letter, Soaries wrote that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."
God help us if Michael Moore belabors this.

UPDATE: Condoleezza Rice says that the Bush administration has no plans to postpone the federal election.

Kerry "doesn't have time" to get terror briefings...signs of things to come???

2004-07-09T15:23:00.000-05:00
He's simply been too busy. I mean, come on, look:

Can you blame him for not keeping up on his terror briefings? And he critizes G.W. for dropping the ball (which he did). I don't know, I just thought it was funny, take a look for yourself.

Appy-polly-logies (for not posting that is)

2004-07-06T10:40:00.000-05:00
Hi everyone,

I just wanted to apologize for not posting the last couple days. I was away, I know I should've told you, but I am back now, and will be keeping up the regular posting. Just thought I'd let you know.

Thanks,

J.D.J.

Bush's approval rating lowest ever, but Kerry still doesn't pick up the scraps (Update: Website Addition)

2004-06-29T10:58:00.000-05:00
The latest poll by the New York Times/CBS News shows that Bush has the lowest approval rating he has had during his presidency. Even though this would appear to be a good thing for John Kerry, the Times reports:
...nearly 40 percent of Americans say they do not have an opinion about Senator John Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, despite what have been both parties' earliest and most expensive television advertising campaigns.

Among those who do have an opinion, Mr. Kerry is disliked more than he is liked. More than 50 percent of respondents said that Mr. Kerry says what he thinks voters want to hear, suggesting that Mr. Bush has had success in portraying his opponent as a flip-flopper.
So, even though many people are fed-up with Bush, Kerry can not take advantage of that fact. Support for both candidates is very close (and has been for a while), and even when some poll reports a gap of 5-9 percent, I don't pay attention, because the next day I hear about a poll that shows Bush and Kerry one percent away from each other. I wouldn't really pay attention to those numbers until we get closer to the election.

It still seems like it is anyone's game. I guess we will see.

NEW: Here is another website with poll information.

Some good thoughts on what's ahead

2004-06-29T10:22:00.000-05:00
This article by John Keegan has some very good points in it about problems we have faced, will face, and as I perceive it, the very hard road still ahead.

Does the end justify the means?

2004-06-29T08:36:00.000-05:00
Keith Burgess-Jackson is a Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Texas. I just read his philosophical essay on whether the outcome of the war in Iraq would/could justify the "lies" Bush told about WMD or Iraq/al Qaeda ties (I say "lies" because the essay is not about whether Bush lied or not). This essay takes a view from philosophical standpoint, and I feel that Burgess-Jackson definitely makes a strong point about liberals who, he says, can be/are "moral cherrypickers."

Read the whole thing.

This is truly amazing! New ultra-sound equip. shows whole new world of babies!

2004-06-28T14:44:00.000-05:00
You just have to see this! A doctor has created a new form of ultra-sound that lets us observe babies in 3D. They also show babies doing things like yawning, smiling and other things that some doctors did not believe babies could do or do that soon in the womb.

Also check out the 10 images they have to view.

Does Michael Moore do candid interviews anymore?

2004-06-28T14:27:00.000-05:00
Michael Moore and Co. have said that they will not do interviews where there will be heated debate. I think the main reason for this is that Michael Moore is worried that even his fact-checkers won't be able to muster any numbers/stastics or facts to qualify his accusations and in some cases, lies.

This interesting little tidbit I took from Instapundit, which in turn got it from here(but you really don't need to read the whole thing, it mostly just spouts of box-office profits, box office leaders, etc.). Anyway, here it is:
NOTE: Box Office Mojo asked Michael Moore and company to comment for this story, but they wanted to screen the questions in advance. As policy, Box Office Mojo does not conduct interviews under such circumstances, so there will be no comment from them.

Wants to screen questions in advance? So they can write short essay questions which dance around the truth? I just don't get it. I really enjoyed Moore's movie, "Bowling For Columbine," even though it relied somewhat on pure shock value. But as Christopher Hitchens and Jeff Jarvis (see this post) and other people have put it, it seems that "Fahrenheit 9/11" has very little substance in it. And I think that is what Moore is admitting by dodging media and interviews.

One effect the Democrats don't consider when they vote pro-abortion (food for thought)

2004-06-28T10:37:00.000-05:00
Here's an interesting (but sad) concept to ponder about how being pro-abortion really effects voting turnout...and since, as we know, Democrats generally are pro-abortion, how it effects their chances in an election.

Sovereignty Transferred to Iraq (Website Addition)

2004-06-28T10:18:00.000-05:00
In a wise move to dodge any possible terrorist attacks of the planned June 30th power transfer date, the U.S. government handed the reins over to the new Iraq government.

Finally.

Even though U.S. and other coalition troops will stay in Iraq as a security measure, they are in the process of training Iraq security forces to handle any possible insurgent attacks, which I am sure there will be some of.

Something interesting that I found while reading the article was the fact that the new officials of the government were sworn in with their hand on the Quran. I found this interesting and possibly a good gesture to those who thought that one of Bush's goals might have been to make them a "good, Christian" country (which it may have been and very well still might be, but I think it is a good sign).

I just hope that we can get those troops back here soon. I think I agree with many when I say that it is time for them to come home.

NEW: Another story about this event can be found here.

Virus Update

2004-06-28T08:37:00.000-05:00
I just read an article that said that they have caught the culprits of the virus that I posted about last week.

They say for now that the problem is fixed, but that it is likely to happen again. I would say, just follow the instructions in the article until they come out with a new patch.

And pass this news on to your friends/family/relatives to prevent any further infection.

Barbara Streisand, political advisor/critic...I mean...what???

2004-06-28T08:14:00.000-05:00
I definitely get a kick out of Barbara Streisand's pro-Kerry section of her website, especially her anti-Republican/Conservative song, "People." Through the website she sputters off numbers and figures, but in the end, I could care less. Why should I listen to her? Because she's Barbara Streisand? I would be willing to put money down on the fact that she's not coming up with these political views all by herself. And some of the things she says aren't even the truth:
JOHN KERRY MADE A CHOICE WHEN HE CHOSE TO FIGHT IN A WAR AND THEN SPEAK ABOUT THE ATROCITIES OF THAT WAR. NOT ONLY DID HE FIGHT FOR HIS COUNTRY ON THE BATTLEFIELD, BUT IN THE HALLS OF CONGRESS - WHEN AS A VETERAN, HE CHOSE TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE WAR HE DIDN'T AGREE WITH. THEN,
RATHER THAN GOING BACK TO HIS PRIVILEGED WORLD,
HE CHOSE TO PICK UP ARMS IN A DIFFERENT WAY: AS A LAW MAKER ENFORCING THE IDEALS OF THE COUNTRY THAT HE FOUGHT FOR. THAT'S HOW ONE'S CHARACTER IS DEFINED.

What did she say? Not going back to the priviliged world? That brings to mind a topic that I just posted on yesterday. Kerry definitely still leads a privliged life.

But back to the subject at hand. I guess in a way, Barbara and I are a bit alike, as much as I'd hate to admit it. We both have avenues to voice our opinions and to make facts known. The only difference is, is that I'm not falling back on any kind of "fame" to make people believe what I say is true. And in some ways, I think that is what she is doing.

Let me know what you think. Leave a comment.

Nader writes to Moore, and has some good points...(NEW UPDATE)

2004-06-27T13:18:00.000-05:00
Nader writes to his "buddy" Michael Moore in two letters, found here and an earlier one found here. He even pokes a little fun at his waistline.

Check 'em out.

Update: Nader again, and more explicitly calls for Moore to lose weight and take care of himself.

Conflict of Interest--CNN and Clinton

2004-06-27T13:02:00.001-05:00
This is slightly old news, but not everyone knows about it. Just kind of drives home the fact that you can't always trust the places where you get your news, especially corporate ones. Sometimes they take their orders from higher authorities, instead of delivering unbiased, uneven news.

Thank God I can be biased.

Here's another link about the same topic.

Just a funny thing to think about...

2004-06-27T12:41:00.000-05:00
You know, as much as the Democratic party is a party for the people or the "common man," you have to get a bit of a kick that if Kerry was elected, his family would be the richest family ever to be in the White House.

I'm definitely not saying that Bush is not rich and wealthy. But some Democrats are worried that Kerry's wealthy image may not be good for the campaign.

This political ad about Kerry's wealth is also pretty funny. Check it out. Just a little bit of funny food for thought.

You've just got to love it...or not.

2004-06-26T14:26:00.000-05:00
So Bush puts an ad on his website saying that he should be likened to Hitler (which I think takes some guts), because the Democrats and others are equating him to a dictator of that stature or another like him (Mussolini). The only reason to do this? Because they have been doing this. Take a look at federal judge (supposed to be non-partisan--this explains his apology) Guido Calabresi's apology because of remarks he made earlier this week. Or the fact that Gore calls his critics brownshirts (definition).

And then, after the facts are there and the things have been said, the John Kerry campaign has the audacity to say this:
Dear [Name Withheld],

Yesterday, the Bush-Cheney campaign, losing any last sense of decency, placed a disgusting ad called "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party" as the main feature on its website. Bizarrely, and without explanation, the ad places Adolf Hitler among those faces.

The Bush-Cheney campaign must pull this ad off of its website. The use of Adolf Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong.

We sent you a fundraising plea earlier this morning. But when this came up, we decided it was important to show you just what we're up against: a presidential campaign that is willing to do or say absolutely anything to win. You're our only line of defense against these underhanded tactics. Please contribute today:

https://contribute.johnkerry.com

If he were a real leader, George Bush would be talking about his first-term accomplishments -- and his second-term vision for America. But he has cast aside that opportunity because he has nothing to offer except a string of broken promises and a steady stream of fear and deception.

John Kerry is talking to this country about his optimistic vision for a stronger America. By contributing, you're giving him the resources to get that vision to millions more Americans every week. Help keep up the incredible momentum of this campaign by making a donation today:

https://contribute.johnkerry.com

Thank you,

Mary Beth Cahill
Campaign Manager

P.S. It's hard to believe that the Bush campaign would use images of Adolf Hitler. See it for yourself: http://www.georgewbush.com.

Check out the article at OxBlog. It's short and worth the read.

Sudden case of Sadam/al Qaeda ties amnesia...

2004-06-26T14:10:00.000-05:00
I think it is very hilarious that more and more documents and people are proving all the critics of the Sadam/al Qaeda tie assertion are incorrect. Stephen Hayes says this:
Meanwhile the men at the top of the administration Rubin worked for--Bill Clinton and Al Gore--have come down with an even more striking case of political amnesia.

On June 24, Katie Couric interviewed President Clinton on NBC's Today Show. She asked, "What do you think about this connection that Cheney, that Vice President Cheney continues to assert between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?" Clinton pleaded total ignorance. "All I can tell you is I never saw it, I never believed it based on the evidence I had."

Al Gore better watch out who he is accusing. He and Clinton knew it then, but like so many politicians (Bush and Cheney included), now that they are in the wrong, they don't want to take responsibility for their actions. Hayes leaves us with this:
So the Clinton administration, based on the evidence it had, was right to express concerns about an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. We now know more. And given the vast number of documents from the former Iraqi regime that sit untranslated, we are certain to learn more still. It's an odd time for the former president and his old advisers to be backing away from what they once so confidently told us.

Even though I've given you some good quotations, read the whole thing anyway.

Dropping the F-Bomb can make you feel better...

2004-06-26T13:30:00.000-05:00
VP Dick Cheney had a little bit of a potty mouth in the Senate earlier this week. You know, the way he talks is his preference, just as is the way I talk. But take credit for what you did. If you said a bad word then just admit it. Instead, the article says:

Cheney said he "probably" used an obscenity in an argument Tuesday on the Senate floor with Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and added that he had no regrets.

We certainly know this won't help Bush's religious right campaign.

Be on the lookout...

2004-06-25T16:16:00.000-05:00
Be on the lookout for undetectable, unknown computer viruses that you can contract from websites that we can't tell you about. Read this.

I'm scared, but I don't know what to be scared of, which makes me want to laugh just a bit.

For you Beastie Boys fans out there...

2004-06-25T15:52:00.000-05:00
Hey, I just read that the new Beastie Boys CD might install malware on your computer that prevents you from burning or copying the CD.

Now, I love the Beastie Boys, and thankfully, I haven't put the CD in any computer yet, but I can't believe that a record company would do this. I know that the recording industry is sustaining major losses because of music piracy, and I support the lawsuits that they are currently involved in, prosecuting people who share music illegally. I think I am one of the few of my age group and generation who feel this way. You may not think that it affects people, but it does. I know people who have lost their jobs because of piracy. So when you do this, you are not just affecting the artist, you are incorrect. But I'm not concentrating on that soapbox right now, I'm focusing on a different one.

Piracy is illegal. But being able to make back-up copies of music/movies/books is your right.

This "virus" (because that's what it is) may not affect CDs distributed in the US. But leave me a comment and let me know if it does. I can definitely forsee Capitol records "facing the music" on this one (sorry, I just had to).

Clinton acknowledged the ties...why can't we?

2004-06-25T15:46:00.000-05:00
Here's another prime example of the different stories we are hearing. If you ask me, I think that people are prejudiced against Bush, and sometimes with good reason. But still, if the facts are here, how can we ignore them? It seems quite a few people are choosing to, that's for sure.

Trying to be "fair and balanced."

2004-06-25T15:27:00.000-05:00
Here is a somewhat interesting take why Kerry can lead us out of the War in Iraq...although most of the rhetoric is bolstered by the fact that a majority of the wars we have been in were while a Democrat was in office (hmmm, why don't we think about that fact for a moment)? Anyways, here's the article.

Somewhere in that article the author cites a CNN Poll that says that 54% of Americans think it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq. However, the article that I cited in a post not too long ago by Andrew McCarthy said that there is actually just a slim margin of people that see the war as a mistake. I feel that this margin will diminish even more as we find more of these Iraq/al Qaeda ties.

Other reactions to "Fahrenheit 9/11" (Update: Website Addition)

2004-06-25T14:50:00.000-05:00
Besides what you see/hear on television/radio/newspaper, some people have very unpositive reactions to the new Michael Moore movie. Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine.com, who will be on CNN tonight, had this to say.

Another article I enjoyed was this article by Christopher Hitchens.

Arm yourself with the information, then go see the movie. Like I said before, conversation is good. Debate is good. Very good for civic society.

NEW: Republicans trying to stop ads for "Fahrenheit 9/11," claiming they are nothing more than political ads. There is a law on the books that restricts political ads aimed at candidates 30 days before an election or primary, which is what they are considering the GOP convention, in August, to be.

NY Times suppresses document...but why?

2004-06-25T14:43:00.000-05:00
Here's an interesting article about the "alleged" Sadam/al Qaeda ties. New documents keep seeming to come to light, but not everyone is hearing about them. As Andrew McCarthy puts it:

The Times has been against the Iraq war from the start. Its relentless propaganda, in conjunction with its media allies, has taken a sizable toll. President Bush has taken a ratings hit, and a poll out this morning suggests that a slim majority of Americans now believes the war was a mistake. But that could turn around in a heartbeat. No one is more aware than the "newspaper of record" that if the American people become convinced Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were in cahoots, the national perception of the necessity for this war will drastically change, and the president's reelection will be a virtual lock.

As Glen Reynolds of Instapundit.com puts it, "Read all of it."

And leave comments. Conversation and debate is good.

Introduction

2004-06-25T14:22:00.000-05:00
Hello.

In the past couple weeks, I have discovered the true meaning of a blog. At first, I was against "blogs." I associated them with online diaries. Then, I decided, maybe I would give one a test drive, where I could really voice my opinion, not just what I had for breakfast and how many people made me angry during the day, etc. But even I found it hard not to add some things that happened during my day, and I said, "What am I doing?" But after reading an enlightening article in TIME magazine, I discovered that "blogs" (blog = short for weblog, in case you didn't know) provide a wealth of information. I have discovered several that I frequent many times a day, keeping me current and up-to-date on the issues, news, fun things, etc. Blogs can be biased and highly oppinionated. But in soome ways, that what makes them fun. I don't know exactly which way this blog will point, but what my primary goal is to point people in the direction of stories from major magazines, newspapers, blogs and other places so that they can arm themselves with information. We are coming upon a very important election. No matter who you decide to vote for, you need to be armed with information. We are pumped full of news from all types of different media forms (some of them biased, some of almost totally partisan). It is hard to know what to believe. That is up to the person who absorbs all the information. I feel, however, that the more information you have, the easier it is to filter out the lies, the one-sided stories. You see, many of these blogs that I will refer you to are not funded by advertisements or corporations, they are simply written by people like myself--we have no agenda other than letting people access information they might not hear on the television or read in the newspaper.

So, as I try and add something to civil, civic society, I give to you: the In4Mation Station (I felt the "4" would give me a little more tech-saavy). Anyways, I will try and provide you with links that I come across--some will be from other blogs that I frequent, some will be ones I might be lucky enough to find myself. You may look at my posts and say, "Hey, it seems he supports ______ or _______ and why doesn't he provide the other side?" Well, I do have values and beliefs, and most of the time, I spend my time reading things that give me reason to believe what I do (or something like that). If you want other stories, other sides, more information, it is up to you to do as I have done. I will try and be as fair as I can, and as fair as the information lets me. But most of the things that I post on here will stimulate things that concern me, and hopefully will enlighten you as well. That's all I have to say for now.

Over and out.