The Noble Pundit

A Small Defense of John Kerry

I spend a lot of time, electrons, and disk space taking shots at John Kerry, but there are times when I think some things are crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed without deep introspection.

JB Corrigan is reporting on an article that indicates that the Kerry Kampaign in Florida may be considering hiring a man who, during Vietnam, explicitly advocated political assassinations. The post ends with:

So tell us Senator Kerry, is this how you plan to 'stop' George W. Bush from being re-elected?

That's a heavy duty charge. One that should require some decent substantiation. But that seems to be lacking in this case.

Simply because this man, Scott Camil, once advocated political assassination does not mean that he is a political assassin. The fact that he is unrepentant does not mean that he is going to go assassinate the President. The only thing we know about Scott Camil is that he is an unrepentant Machiavellian idiot. To imply anything otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Kerry is a menace to this country that has to be kept out of office, but come on. We got to do it right.

Now back to our regularly scheduled Kerry bashing.

Is The Bible Ambiguous On Homosexuality?

I may have to start a new category just for inane statements coming from the Democratic candidate for President.

WorldNetDaily is reporting that John Kerry recently suggested to a Mississippi crowd that the Bible is less than clear when it comes to homosexuality.

I don't know what Bible Kerry has been reading (he says "Well, I know the deep beliefs, I respect, I'm a Christian, I've read the Bible, and I know you can find the clauses that go both ways. I'm not here to argue that with you." (emphasis mine)), but the ones that I have read and studied most don't seem to carry any references that indicate that homosexuality may be anything less than an abomination in the eyes of the Church.

Does the Bible acknowledge the existence of homosexuality? Yep. Does the Bible give us clues into the historical role that homosexuality played during the period when the traditions were developed? It gives a small window into that world. The Bible doesn't refer to the general level of homosexual acceptance during the time, but while it paints a religiously biased picture, it also does not gloss over this part of life.

Remember, the final straw that led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was when the men of the town tried to force their way into Lot's home calling for him to bring out his male guests so that the townsfolk might better "know" them. The term "know" at that time had a bit more hardcore meaning. The men didn't want the guests to come out to discuss the current state of political affairs or to make proper introductions all the way around. No, they wanted essentially to gang rape the guests. The men of the town turned down Lot's daughters in order to take the male guests. The implications against homosexuality are very evident, to all those excepting those who wish not to see.

Leviticus 18:22 is even more clear. The only problem I have with Leviticus is that some parts of it have been rendered obsolete (the sections dealing with slavery, for example) with the passing of time and advancements in our level of humanity. Quoting only Leviticus leaves open the valid charge that if some passages are no applicable, how is the determination made as to which rules to follow and which are ignored as ancient curiosities.

But no matter, nowhere do I see the Bible condoning homosexuality. Regardless of your opinion on the issue, you cannot deny the facts. The Bible condemns homosexuality. You may not agree with the conclusion, as Kerry obviously does not, but that does not mean the Book doesn't clearly say what it says.

When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible is about as clear as ancient texts get.

I shudder to think what Kerry might do if handed something written by a devious lawyer....

John! Bring These Jobs Home!

John Kerry has expressed his concerns about the outsourcing of jobs that Americans are quite capable of performing.

Here would be a good place to start on the fight to bring American jobs home for Americans, John:

HEINZ EUROPE
Established 2000
Hayes, Middlesex, England

H. J. HEINZ FROZEN & CHILLED FOODS LIMITED
Established 1993
Dublin, Ireland and (1999) Hayes Park, Hayes, Middlesex, England

H. J. HEINZ COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED
Established 1996
Dublin, Ireland

H. J. HEINZ FROZEN S.A.R.L.
Established 1979
Paris, France

HEINZ IBERICA S.A.
Established 1987
Madrid, Spain

HEINZ POLSKA Sp. Z.O.O.
Established 1994
Warsaw, Poland

HEINZ C.I.S.
Established 1994
Moscow, Russia

HEINZ GEORGIEVSK
Established 1994
Georgievsk, Russia

CAIRO FOOD INDUSTRIES SAE
Established 1992
Cairo, Egypt

HEINZ REMEDIA LIMITED
Established 1999
Tel Aviv, Israel

H. J. HEINZ BELGIUM S.A.
Established 1984
Brussels, Belgium

H. J. HEINZ Southern Africa (Proprietary) Limited
Established 1995
Johannesburg, South Africa

H. J. HEINZ (Botswana) (Proprietary) LTD.
Formed 1988
Gaborone, Botswana

REFINED OIL PRODUCTS (Pty) LTD.
Formed 1987
Gaborone, Botswana

CHEGUTU CANNERS (Pvt) LTD.
Established 1992
Chegutu, Zimbabwe

HEINZ SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD.
Established 1995
Johannesburg, South Africa

HEINZ SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.
Established 2001
Republic of Singapore

HEINZ-UFE LTD.
Established 1984
Guangzhou, People's Republic of China

HEINZ COSCO
Established 1999
Qingdao, People's Republic of China

HEINZ KOREA LTD.
Established 1986
Inchon, South Korea

HEINZ WIN CHANCE LTD.
Established 1987
Bangkok, Thailand

PT HEINZ ABC INDONESIA
Established 1999
Jakarta, Indonesia

HEINZ UFC PHILIPPINES
Established 2000
Manila, the Philippines

HEINZ HONG KONG LIMITED
Established 2000
Wanchai, Hong Kong

This is a listing of overseas corporations formed by the H.J. Heinz company over the course of the last 25 years. It does not include companies that were purchased or otherwise acquired during that time (that wouldn't have been fair). And it doesn't take into account that it often make sense to establish a presence in country in which you do business.

Personally I have no problem with the idea of outsourcing if it results in more wealth generation here. More wealth gives us an opportunity to create different jobs that would be better at improving our overall standard of living.

But how many of these new operations cannabalized from the core US operations and reduced the amount of product exported? How many jobs were lost (or not created) because of the reduced export demand? How many of the jobs that are currently being performed by folks overseas could be done back here at home, thereby providing needed jobs for Americans?

Wouldn't it be ironic if John Kerry was directly benefitting from the very trends he is so opposed to? For John, stopping outsourcing should start at home.

Arrogance & Elitism

Canada is understandably concerned about the recent revelations of a Trident-IV getting damaged while being removed from the USS Georgia a few months back. That's fine. I am concerned also. I can understand why the Navy did not come out and announce the event, but someone in the Department of Defense should have. Especially since no one was ever really put at risk by the accident. It would have avoided the current fallout from the unexpected and heretofore unknown revelation. Had it been announced, there would not be the discussions of a possible coverup floating around like they currently are.

Now I understand that Canada is out ally and that they had a right to know about the issue, just like all Americans had a right to know also. But it really pisses me off when they attempt to lecture us:

"The whole issue of transparency in government is fundamental to our democratic system. I think when something is covered up it is pretty outrageous." (Libby Davies, Canadian Parliamentarian from Vancouver East)

I'm sorry, but that just sounds extremely smug and elitist. You can be upset and searching for answers, but the tone implied in that comment is offensive. Canada's government is no more perfect than ours and Mrs. Davies needs to get off her high horse and realize that.

After this incident is investigated and concluded, Mrs. Davies needs to made a persona non grata on US military bases. In the past she has led citizen inspection teams; that needs to stop. US officials hostile to the United States military have a right to inspect bases as they see fit. That's part of their oversight duty. Foreign officials that are even seemingly hostile to the US military should not be allowed on our bases. The US base at Bangor may affect Mrs. Davies constituents, but that does not automatically confer upon her some right to visit the base.

But in the meantime, I would like to know how in the hell someone managed to leave a ladder in the tube and how it was missed until the missile hit it. I know that I don't have all the details, but that seems like a gross oversight to me.

I too, would like answers. I just don't see the need for arrogance in my demanding them.

Souvenirs Vs. Historical Artifacts

There seems to be a big brouhaha brewing over the final disposition of a number of objects from the World Trade Center and the Pentagon attacks of 9/11. Some folks are understandably upset that a number of items have been appropriated as souvenirs.

If items are taken simply as momentos or some other kind of personal use, then I agree that there is something abjectly perverted about it.

If the taking of a momento puts an investigation or prosecution in jeopardy, then it needs to be punished.

But not all taking of items is wrong. In some cases, a greater good may be found in the effort.

In the middle of the article there is a few short paragraphs:

The report also states the special agent in charge of the FBI's office in Knoxville, Tenn., Joe Clark, contacted FBI officials in New York requesting a piece of debris to display in an exhibit dealing with hate crimes. A 100-pound piece of steel was sent to Clark, the report said.

The report stated FBI agents who worked in New York repeatedly expressed their disgust that visiting agents and supervisors would seek souvenirs from the terrorist attacks.

Many interviewed regarded the debris as sacred, the reported stated, "and were disgusted by the fact that anyone would want to take items, including pieces of the building which were contaminated with blood and human body parts."

The implication is that there was something wrong with Mr. Clark's request. But I honestly don't believe that there was.

His intention is not to put the piece in his personal collection. His intention is not to try to profit either financially or emotionally from having the piece. Rather he is using it to try to educate.

9/11 is part of our history - an important part. It is not an event that can be ignored. It is not event which should have all evidence of it destroyed. There need to be a few pieces out there where people can see them. There need to be a few pieces out there to remind us of the horror of that day - and of the resolve and unity that followed.

There need to be a few unsanitized pieces, ones that still show the human toll of that day. 9/11 was not clinical. Neither was our reaction.

On the Temple Mount in Jerusalem the Palestinians have set up some museum to the people killed in the fighting on and around the Mount itself. Most of the museum is displays of guns or rocks or flags, with lots of text panels.

But the last display showing a few of the bloody shirts of those wounded or killed on the Mount grabs the visitor. I probably learned more at that last display than I did in the entire rest of the museum.

Was it wrong to display the bloody shirts? I don't think so. History is not always happy. Sometimes history is brutal. Sometimes history is bloody. That part of history needs to be confronted and studied just as much as the Renaissance or the Reformation.

I would commend Agent Clark for trying to make an effort at gaining some good out of such an awful tragedy. Maybe his exhibit won't influence a single person; maybe it will influence countless numbers. We don't know and probably never can or will know. But at least an attempt is being made.

When I look back through my photo albums, I come across a picture of me standing on the observation deck on the top of the Center in 1986. I look at that photo and then I see images from the destruction of the Towers and it makes me sick.

But over time the impact of photos has a tendency to fade. Images can be manipulated. Images can be denied. In the end, they are but colors and patterns on paper that create a representative record of a moment in time. But they are not real.

It is much easier to deny a photograph than it is a block of steel. It is much easier to deny a memory than it is a bloody shirt. It is much easier to deny a textual account than it is a real and tangible artifact of the event. Holocaust deniers can deny the photographs and records of Dachau, but they cannot deny its existence or that of the ovens. We need to keep the memory of 9/11 alive by keeping pieces and parts of the horror where people can see them and remember for themselves their individual horrors of that day.

Now what about Rumsfeld and the piece of metal he keeps on display on a table in his office? That's a little bit tougher.

I would like to see the piece out on display where more people can see, but I don't think we can really pass judgment until he leaves office. If he takes the piece with him, that would be wrong and contemptible. If he leaves it behind as a permanent memorial, then I don't really have any problem with it except for its location.

When we look back at history, we see days of abject tragedy. We remember and try to learn from those days so that the mistakes that brought them on are not made again.

But for the battles we best remember we have physical reminders. It may be the fields of Gettysburg or it may be the hulk of the USS Arizona sitting on the bottom of Pearl Harbor. But with 9/11, the Pentagon has already been repaired and the WTC is going to be rebuilt. There is still the field of Shanksville and there will certainly be some kind of memorial park or stone in Lower Manhattan, but for most people, the physical reminders of that horrible day will be erased. The day will become but a memory, with all the deniability that memory entails.

There is a difference between souvenirs and historical artifacts. I can empathize with the families of the victims of 9/11 in their disgust over the former. But I can also see and appreciate the need for the latter.

We owe it to the victims to not let their day become nothing more than a bad memory.

The Bombings In Spain

I haven't really commented on the terrorist attacks in Spain yesterday, but I think that they do deserve a special mention.

3/11 will become Spain's version of 9/11. The fact that the carnage and the human toll is but a fraction of 9/11's is a tribute to the effectiveness of the war on terror. The very fact that the best that the terrorists could do was to pull off multiple, nearly simultaneous attacks against an extremely soft target (and rush hour rail service in a major city will always be soft, has to be to move that many people efficiently) really speaks to how weak the terrorists are.

Spain responded today with protest marches, a period of silence and the beginning of three days of mourning.

Since the bombing occured there have been accusations flying around that the Basque separatist group ETA was possibly responsible, but then there are the counter arguments that say that it would be completly out of character for them.

Given the immediate denials of responsibility by ETA and the reaction of the people of the Basque region - joining the rest of Spain in silence and the beginning of mourning - I believe that ETA was most likely not the culprit in this case.

First off, if ETA organized and executed this attack it would be bordering on organizational suicide. If ETA is responsible they will very likely be facing the full wrath and fury of not only the Spanish government, but also the Americans, the Brits, and quite possibly even the French.

If a global terrorist organization like al-Qaida has been made to reel from the onslaught, what could the only possible outcome for a regional group like ETA be? Only complete annihilation.

For ETA this type of attack would not further their purpose in any way, shape, or form. There is no upside, no warning or message that could possibly be sent outside of "Kill me!" No upside; all downside: not too bright.

But when we look at it from the point of view of al-Qaida things make a lot more sense. It is an attack fraught with symbolism. 3/11. 911 days after 9/11. Spain - a nation that has already once thrown off the yoke of Islam. Spain - a nation that steadfastly stood beside the US after 9/11.

Plus it would "prove" that al-Qaida still existed as a somewhat dangerous entity. For the murderous thugs, it could be viewed as a morale boost.

Not to minimize the tragedy of 199 dead and over 1400 more wounded, but if this is the best the al-Qiada can do it only serves to show how far they've fallen. They have gone from glorious suicide missions of unparallelled deviousness to imitating the Palestinians.

Now I am a firm believer in the concept of asymmetrical response. If they killed 199 Spaniards I believe that the Spanish have a moral justification for rooting out these rats by the thousands. If each bomb was denotated by a suicide bomber, they will claim a glorious achievement in having killed 20 infidels for every martyr.

If that's the case, we need to create 200 martyrs for every innocent Spaniard (or Peruvian or Honduran or Pole or Frenchman, Chilean, Cuban, Ecudorian, Colombian, Morrocan, or Guinean) who was murdered in cold-blood on the morning of March 11th, 2004.

This is not a time to be concilliatory. This is not a time to desire negotiations. This is not a time to assume that we can reason with the unreasonable.

al-Qaida understands death and fear. They "fight" for a religion they don't understand. They "fight" for a man who is nothing more than a manipulator of the Jim Jones or David Koresch ilk. They don't understand logic or reason, but they certainly understand that their "friend" met martyrdom as a screaming, bloody mess from the .50 cals that cut him apart. They understand that the contrails high up in the sky mean that tons upon tons of explosive metal are above to indiscriminately martyr them or their friends. They understand fear and they understand death.

The only way we will ever truly defeat al-Qaida is to make it simply too risky to become a member. When potential terrorists watch as their role models are dying not as valiant warriors, but screaming and writhing in excrutiating pain inflicted by an enemy that often can't even be seen, that might help to influence more than a few loons to go off and become sand castle artists instead. Will we influence all of them? No. But eventually the pool of prospects will start to realize that it is they who are dying in horrific ways while the same master manipulators and liars keep trying to recruit them. Eventually the truth of the intent of the organization, the accumulation of power and wealth by a few at the expense of the many, will become painfully obvious.

It is disheartening to think that another nation has had to suffer the tragedy of an attack like this. It is even worse to think that it was a stalwart ally like Spain that was the nation. No one deserved this.

Unfortunately it probably won't be the last time it happens. More friends will suffer and die at the hands of this living evil.

We owe it to the memory of all those who have died to fight the good fight against these terrorists, to protect our homes, our nations, and our futures.

"Or Glow In The Dark"

Via Dean's World

In the comments for Stephen Green's post on Impure Thoughts, there is a priceless quote.

Referring to the quote "Live free or die" a gentleman named Joe says:

Ultimatly it will be: Live free or glow in the dark.

The element of the day is cobalt (60)

Too funny.

I don't like John Kerry.

No great surprise there, right? Anyone who has been reading this site even for the last few days could figure that part out. But as unapparent as it may be, I actually do have some rational basis for my position.

Kerry has done a number of things that are really at odds with my own personal beliefs. His flip-flops, his positions, his actions, his pronouncements, and his history are all disagreeable to me in the extreme.

I have an extreme dislike for John Kerry.

Part of my reasoning is perhaps a little selfish. Last week I started a new job with a fairly large component of the military-industrial complex. I have a real fear that come November, should Kerry win, I will get a pink slip before I even make to my one year anniversary. This is not an unfounded belief. Kerry voted against the very program on which I'm working by voting against its host platform. Kerry is weak on defense. He is a pacifist, a modern day Neville Chamberlain. If John Kerry were President, I don't believe that we would ever defend any of our interests around the world. I have no doubt that Kerry would be a big believer in outsourcing - not for jobs, but rather the responsibility for our national security.

When our troops went off to battle in Iraq, what was Kerry's komment?

Did he say "God bless" or "Godspeed" or "I stand behind our men and women in uniform during this troubled time?" Did he have the internal fortitude to take the high road like Joe Lieberman and to put aside partisan politics during the duration of the war?

No. John Kerry's only anti-Establishment traits came out in full force.

Kerry is the ultimate Washington insider in every way, except for his opportunistic opposition to Vietnam. It was during his escapades in the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) that I think that Kerry developed his knee-jerk anti-military streak. He cannot articulate a reasoned and rational argument against the military, he can only rail with the blind hatred of a zealot.

Why did Kerry refrain from showing class during the war? Because his roots wouldn't allow him to. He saw a use of force and had his knee-jerk reaction. He couldn't bring himself to admit that there might in fact be a time and place where military force might be of some good (He didn't have to agree, just to at least acknowledge that the other side might have a valid point).

Instead, Kerry aped the Bush Administration and called for a "regime change" - in Washington.

I loathe John Kerry.

I've seen comments a number of other places that Kerry seems to be a ticking Deanesque time bomb. He almost seems to be preparing for an Iowan proportioned meltdown. His mouth is his own worst enemy. He says some of the stupidest things. Bush may mangle the language, but Kerry mangles all pretext of logic.

And further, he has no pretext of a sense of morality. I'm not talking about gay marriage, but rather about the abhorrent use of language on his website.

I have no doubt that the language on Kerry's site was not unknown to the candidate. Every comment that comes through on this site is read and reviewed. Inappropriate comments are erased. Virtually every site owner does something similar.

What the Kerry Kampaign seems to be doing is trying to pass off any semblance of responsibility by playing off the lack of knowledge about how blogs (which is essentially what his site is) work. He simply does not want to admit that his little foray into the world of cussing is having repercussions.

I abhor John Kerry.

He has so little apparent understanding of cause and effect it is downright scary. He doesn't seem to understand how raising taxes on the wealth creating class might end up reducing the overall tax receipts. He doesn't understand that Marxist redistribution is counter to the very idea of the capitalist marketplace that he espouses so well when needed (second paragraph, may require registration). He has failed to discover that tyrants like Kim Jong Il love him so much, not because of who he is, but because based on his past actions and statements, they view him as weak and sympathetic to their cause.

Tyrants and dictators love Kerry because Kerry loves them. He has attempted to defend in some way nearly every Communist dictatorship of his time, from the Soviet Union to Nicaragua to China to Vietnam. At a time when North Korea's Communist kleptocracy was on the verge of collapse, Kerry started talking about them in relatively favorable terms. But why does Kerry show such solidarity with such a sordid crowd?

Kerry has good Marxian principles. He absolutely believes in the redistribution of wealth (so long as it isn't his). Kerry believes in the wonders of big government. Pure capitalism is as foreign to Kerry as a Turkish lesbian. For Kerry, communism isn't a utopia, it is a goal. He may not have explicitly stated as such, but his actions very clearly point to such a desire.

As a result it has been easy for Kerry to attack one of the key building blocks of our free and prosperous society - business.

It is free enterprise that keeps us moving forward so quickly. Capitalism fosters innovation. Capitalism fosters a "can-do" attitude in our nation. Capitalism brings technological advancements unthinkable just a few short years ago. Capitalism is the engine that drives the research and development in the business world that keeps pushing the edge of that envelope.

Kerry's drug proposals would have the effect of gutting the rationale for R&D at the big drug companies. His cuts to the defense budget would seriously threaten the already shrinking technological gap advantage we have over our adversaries. Profits and the accumulation of wealth simply run counter to Kerry's beliefs. He could never allow unfettered markets, or anything that even came close to resembling them. We would be more likely to see a five year plan under Kerry than deregulation.

And business leaders have taken note of the candidate's views and pronouncements.

But most importantly, how would John Kerry have reacted to today's events? If John Kerry were in the position of José Maria Aznar what would happen?

Aznar has the second most unenviable job in the world today (the most unenviable was to be the al-Qaida goober that called in to take credit.) He has to simultaneously heal and protect his nation in a time of great need. How he handles this will likely define his Presidency - even more than his unwavering support for America in our time of need.

Aznar has skills and tools to handle this well. He has the support of the one man who has already, personally, been in his position.

Would Kerry react with resiliency? Would he react with a stubborn will to move his people forward to greater glory and achievement?

Or would he wallow in the cult of the victim? Would he, instead of calling out the National Guard and the military, call on the FBI to launch a priority investigation? Bottom line, would he be a Bush - or a Clinton?

I fear what a Kerry Administration would mean for our nation, I really do. I think that John Kerry is singularly ill-equipped to deal with any task facing a President, except for lying to foreign leaders.

John Kerry is not anywhere close to being the best choice for our nation.

John Kerry: Keen Observationist

"Let me tell you, we've just begun to fight," Kerry said. "We're going to keep pounding. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary."

One great thing about John Kerry being the presumed Democratic nominee: he says something incredibly stupid almost every single day. The AP is reporting on Kerry's above quote referring to the Bush Administration and the Kerry campaign's attempt to spin the meaning.

I was going to make a snide remark about how it is painfully obvious that Kerry must not have paid attention during his time in Congress, but then I rememberred: he only makes token appearances anyways.

Now he also confused me with his "new math" surrounding the costs of the Bush tax cuts.

He claims that Bush's tax cuts have driven up costs for working families. OK, I don't agree, but I can sort of see some brand of twisted logic at play in that statement. He then says that he is going to give the middle class a tax cut -good, good - by raising taxes on those making more than $200K a year? Whoops. Now I'm lost.

According to Kerry a tax cut made my cost of living go up (even though my take home is higher) and he plans to rectify this situation by cutting my taxes by leaving them the same and simultaneously raising taxes on extraordinarily well compensated individuals.

So my taxes stay the same and my neighbor's rise and this is a tax cut? Even twisted logic can't reconcile that one!

Oh, and his $50 billion fund to help provide relief from state and local taxes? Worthless to me living in Florida. We don't have state and local income taxes. As far as I'm concerned that empty campaign promise is nothing more than a very thinly veiled attempt at redistributionism.

"Kerry has voted for higher taxes 350 times and his numbers for new spending don't add up," said Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman. "His campaign-trail promises mean he is going to raise taxes by at least $900 billion."

Alrighty then. A number is out there. Right or wrong an attempt has at least been made at quanitfying the cost of Kerryism. I would be interested in seeing the numbers that the Kommie Kerry Kampaign can come up with as a rebuttal.

I have trouble believing Kerry when he says that he wants a tax cut for anybody. What makes this time different than any of the last 350?

Probably not a thing. It's just another empty campaign promise.

Of course, that might make Kerry a crooked liar.

Guess "it takes one to know one."

Aviation News Sites

This post may be of somewhat limited interest, but these are some new sites I found that are of great interest to me given my new job.

All Aviation Flight OnLine
Defense-aerospace.com
Speednews
Aviation News Center
Rotorhub.com

More will be coming as I find them. I'll also be adding a new sidebar link listing for these types of sites.

I Did Not Need To Find This

Via Dean's World.

Well, the last thing I needed to find was Victor Davis Hanson's website. I just finished reading Ripples of Battle (a thouroughly interesting book, I must say).

Now I just got to make sure that I don't spend too much time on his site....

An Excellent Video

My dad sent this to me at work today. It is a tribute to our military that is well worth the time to view. It is well done and really pretty moving.

Go over and take a look!

(Requires Flash)

Let's Pretend

Let's pretend for a moment that you are the chieftain of an airline going through the throes of Chapter 11. You need to generate some excitement - something to help entice high paying passengers back into the air with you.

Now how many of you decided that the best way to do this was to repaint your aicraft? And for the one who did, did you decide to repaint into yet another version of the sterile "corporate" schemes?

Airline paint schemes used to be interesting. They were almost always multi-color with lots of color. Even the bare metal of Eastern and American was never boring.

But now all the airlines are out after the incredibly boring looking corporate schemes. United gave up its orange/blue/white scheme to go to a gray on gray to now go to a graduated straight blue stripe to on white? I'll grant them, it is one step above a whitetail with a name, but still.....

Oh, and before anyone decides to lecture me on the economics of all that paint work - remember Southwest still uses three seperate shades of orange and red on their aircraft that aren't painted like Shamu or the flag of Texas or some such thing. And Southwest is profitable. The weight of the paint is not the determining factor of the profitability of the airline. Service is.

And United would have been much better advised to spend their limited resources on improving their service (as would all the airlines).

No Funny Money!

Most regular readers of this site have probably figured out that when it comes to money - cold hard cash - I'm a bit of a traditionalist. I don't care for the Monopoly money bills we're issuing, I don't really care too much for the state quarter series (but it is at least palatable for some reason), I don't like the new nickels, and now I don't like the new plan to put the Presidents' faces on the dollar coin (rotating 4 Presidents per year until they're all done).

American currency should not carry the face of a living person, particularly a sitting President (which would happen with the last issue of the dollar coin series). I like Ronald Reagan. I think that he will be an excellent candidate for being memorialized with his bust on a coin - after his passing.

The Caesars put their faces on coins. King George III had his face on the coinage. Using the money as a propaganda tool is common amongst the two-bit tyrrants of the world.

It is, in my opinion, boorish. I've said it before and I'll say it again, our money is a reflection of who we are. Having dignified currency in both appearance and subject is important. People around the world complain that Americans don't value history. Imagine if they started pulling Reagan nickels and GW Bush dollars out of their pockets.

Money, like it or not, is important for something more than just being a store of value. It is, in our case, also a store of knowledge.

How many people would know who Alexander Hamilton was if he wasn't on the $10? We like to think that we would revere Franklin just the same, but there is a segment of the population who only knows of him as the "Benjamin" on the $100.

Susan B. Anthony? Sacagawea? Would they be as well known if they weren't the subject of the $1 coin? Possibly, but very unlikely.

When we start playing with the money, we start playing with that memory. If we can replace Sacagawea with Jimmy Carter, why not swap out Hamilton for Clinton - Hillary Clinton? She wasn't ever President either (of course, her fanatics would want her as the replacement for the other non-Presidential denomination. Just wait for the movie It's All About The Hillaries...) Why not just go ahead and change the currency over so that the current President is on every denomination (but then how do you account for the free campaign advertising? Gives new meaning to campaign finance reform...)?

Our money is important. Far to important to debase with a rotating bust scheme.

As far as I'm concerned, the idea is a bust.

They're Mad; They're Motivated & Apparently They're At Happy Hour

Today was the big day in Florida, the Democratic Primary, the first opportunity for the Democrats in Florida to prove that they're mobilized, motivated and mad.

Unfortunately, the turnout seems to indicate that they were motivated to go elsewhere. In Orlando, which had its mayoral race today, they are anticipating a turnout of just 18%. Yep, that sounds most motivated to me.

Of course, that is better than the 11.4% national turnout.

For supposedly being so motivated to get GWB out of office, you would think that the Party could put up at least slightly better numbers than these. Heck, Bush is generally getting around a 6.6% turnout - and he's the only real candidate on the ballot! This is the first week in which Kerry has basically run unopposed. Despite all that, despite the grassroots movement for Dean, the motivated Party apparatchiks, Kerry's Kousins, Edwards Efforts and whatever other clichés you want to think of, 11.4% is pitiful.

Happy hour has a better turnout than the supposedly competitive Democratic primaries. That is pretty sad.

Now I know that I'm sitting here taking shots at the Democrats for talking one story and walking another, but this is more than just a single party issue. Too many people practice self-disenfranchisement. Too many people abdicate their responsibilities as citizens.

Voting in the primaries is not an issue of life or death. The truly critical election is coming in Novemeber.

But the primaries do often have other important elections. For instance today Orlando elected its mayor and city commissioners. Folks who didn't bother to show for the election today will now have no say in the governance of their city. Many will complain about the results, but they didn't bother with making their voice, no matter how small it might be individually, heard.

In November we of course elect the President, members of the House, 1/3 of the Senate, state officials of varying descriptions and countless pieces of referendum legislation. Today's elections were important, but November will set more of the tone for the nation.

11.4% turnout is not motivated. It is pitiful. I know that many people blow off the primaries, but come November we have a responsibility, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Commie, Libertarian, or whatever party affiliation, to show up and make our voices heard. In 2000, the residents of Palm Beach County, Florida in particular, proved the importance of each and every vote. My entire life before then, I had never seen an election where each vote was so important. I may never see it again (boy do I hope not!), but I will hereafter vote as though my vote will be the one to decide simply because it has been proven that it may very well be.

For what it's worth, however, I did not participate in today's election. I would have had an opportunity to vote in exactly one uncontested race today. Having just started a new job, that fact kept me from asking for the time off from work (as I am entitled to) to cast a single, solitary vote in an undisputed election. Not exactly in line with my above rant, but....

And One More Thing

The other night I joined the Florida Blogs Webring, a group of Florida based blogs numbering 51 currently.

I spent some time perusing a selection of the other site in the ring before joining and several look interesting indeed.

So to get a different Floridian view (bearing in mind that "The Rules Are Different Here") go to:

2 Links For Nighttime Reading

Getting up at ten of five in the morning every morning is still killing me and probably will until my body has a chance to better adjust to the new schedule. I had two other articles I was going to comment on, but instead I'll just present the links here, with a mild commentary after:

Aristide Defiant, to Sue US, France, Over Kidnapping - How dare he! Of all the low down, dirty, evil things to do to us! He can never be allowed to resume power ever again, anywhere. Not even as block captain for a neighborhood watch.

I don't really care about the kidnapping accusation. False accusations are levied all the time in foreign affairs. That's just part of the game. But to lump us with the French....that is just beyond the pale. That is what you call a low blow and is why I think that Aristide should spend the rest of his days hanging out in the Central African Republic as far away from the crystalline waters of the Caribbean as you can get him.

Iran Defends Nuclear Program In Face Of UN Criticism - I don't know about this. The Iranians seem to be playing a version of the "definition of 'is'" game, but with much higher global stakes. Methinks it might be about time to turn up the heat one the ayatollahs...

Kerry Makes A Fool Of Himself, Again

John Kerry was down stumping in Hollywood, FL today and came up with a real gem of a quote. The AP is reporting on his quote about Bush being a divider, not a uniter, but on the local news tonight, I saw an even better one.

Bush was out in Texas, at a rodeo. Kerry decided to take his shots, saying (I wish I could find an article with this statement, but so far I've only seen it on a video on WFTV's 5 pm newscast in Orlando):

(paraphrased due to lack of quote transcription) If George Bush has enough time to go to a rodeo for a day, he certainly has enough time to give a Homeland Security commission on 9/11 more than one hour.

The exact wording may be off, but you get the gist of the quote. Kerry is claiming that by campaigning for reelection that Bush is somehow being derelict in his duty. That seems like it could be a fair criticism (although I would argue that since he was only at the rodeo for an hour, and he was on Air Force One while in transit, he probably did manage to get a few Presidentially-like things done), so how does John Kerry's record show that he would stack up in the responsibility department?

Let's see, according to his hometown Boston Herald, Kerry came to work approximately 36% of the time last year, and hasn't bothered to make a working appearence yet this year (he did show up for a token soundbite vote on gun control however).

Well, gee. That is certainly a much better record than Bush with his 4 hour foray (if that) to Daytona for the 500 and an hour at a rodeo!

I know that my employer would just be thrilled if I managed to drag myself to do something a little more than once every three days. I'm sure that they would be fine if come March I hadn't bothered to show up to actually do anything worthwhile yet this year. And they would certainly be most understanding if I told them that the reason I wasn't doing anything was because I was out pounding the pavement and pressing the flesh looking for another job. Yeah, they'd understand.

Meehan said Kerry has missed no roll calls in the past 14 months in which his vote would have altered the outcome.

You know, up until 2000, I had never voted in anything in which my vote would have altered the outcome. Is Senator Kerry so prescient that he can foresee the value of his vote on any given issue? Or his simply gambling that he won't miss the most critical vote of the year?

Senators are employed and paid to debate and deliberate about pressing legislative matters before them and then to pass judgment on those issues by voting. Kerry's spokesman was correct when he said the voting is just one...part of being a senator. Unfortunately, he included the word "small" in the sentence, and voting is not a small part of being a senator - it is the very reason for being a Senator. We elect senators to vote in our stead. When John Kerry goes off campaigning instead of voting in the Senate he is disenfranchising his constituents.

Kerry needs to get a clue. He is not so important as to live by different rules than the rest of us (his desires notwithstanding). Anybody else with his job performance would have been fired and deservedly so. By US Code, he should have been docked pay, but that hasn't happened either. And I can't recall having seen any mention of the Senator returning any of his ill-gotten gains, despite the fact that he is one of the servants (yes he is nothing more than a public servant. Oh how that word must chap his hide....) who needs it the least.

Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones....

An Excellent Sunday Sermon

Also over at One Hand Clapping today is an excellent piece about the common links between The Passion, Saving Private Ryan, and Schindler's List. It is well worth the time to read. Well worth it.

It's Amazing What Some People Still Do

Via Donald Sensing who got it from Sgt. Stryker

As I recently mentioned, I went to see The Passion and like many was astounded at the brutality of the cruxifiction scene (I've still got to weigh in with my overall view on the movie, besides just saying that I was suitably impressed). And like many, I assumed that such barbaric practices had fallen by the wayside - even in barbaric locales.

But no. Apparently our friends in Saudi Arabia still practice it. As do the murderous loons running the civil war in the Sudan.

I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised by the depths to which man will dive in order to inflict pain and suffering on his fellow man. I find it interesting that both nations noted here are Islam. I know they like symbolism, but isn't this a little overboard?

I've never been a big fan of the Saudis, but the fact that they would resort to cruxifiction really makes me question whether or not their friendship is worth the price. We claim to support human rights around the world (and generally do an excellent job of doing so, despite the rhetoric of Amnesty International), but how can we befriend a nation that still does this? Doesn't that support the claims that we are a hypocritic nation?

For me, this is just more proof that we need to dump the Saudis. There simply isn't enough good that comes out of the relationship - even considering the oil. Keep in mind, they need us to buy oil just as much as we need to buy it. If we shift and buy from others instead, it may hurt our economy, but it will destroy theirs (and will probably lead to the downfall of the Wahhabist regime. I'm really starting to believe that even an Iranian style fundamentalist regime can't be that much worse that the corrupt House of Saud).

Cruxifiction is a step too far as far as I'm concerned. It's time to end the facade of good relations with the Saudis.

It's really too bad that Bush 41 had such a "great" relationship with the House of Saud. I think that relationship will prevent Bush 43 from doing what is right.