The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Bill Frist only a little pregnant

If Bill Frist did not pull a complete flip-flop, he at the very least has compromised on principle. In politics compromise to some degree is required all the time. He wants to spend 1 Billion, and I think 3/4 Billion is sufficient. If neither side will give then a compromise of 7/8 Billion might need to be settled in order to move forward. However, on matters of principle such as the funding of embryonic stem cell research there is little room for compromise. Bush was able to compromise without breaking on principle because the stem cell lines already existed. Anything that encourages the further creation of lines that do not already exist is a compromise on principle. Frist wants to say a little bit wrong is ok, but that is like saying you are a little pregnant. Some things are clearly right or wrong.

Again and again key GOP leaders think that approaching an issue from the standpoint of weakness and/or compromise will yield better political results. Frist may get a few slaps on the back from the left, but in the end he decreased his chances at '08 by slapping the GOP base in the face. Most Americans may be "moderate" but not most voters. Most are moderate because they are uninformed and do not care one way or the other. Look at the reaction of Hillary's base with recent "moderate" statements. They scream about it, but they won't go away because they know she does not mean it. Those Frist had the slightest prayer of support will go away, because they know he does mean it and will be a weak leader if elected.

Friday, July 29, 2005

We just want to get to the truth, right?

When certain groups espouse some cause that is for the good of mankind, one would think that getting to the truth would be beneficial in expediting a solution. It is often the case that when a doubter of the "cause" simply wants to fully investigate the claims and evidence of the 'advocate', it is met with resistence.

There is an interesting article on about Congressman Joe Barton, R (Texas) doing his own investigating of the findings and surrounding information of Dr. Mann of the University of Virginia who by studying the growth rings of a single tree claims to have evidence of global warming showing a spike in temperatures during the last century. This limited study has been used as 'proof' in the demand for the Kyoto Protocol.

The simple request for the computer code behind the study and the sources of the studies funding, has the global warming crowd in a dither. If one is on the side of truth, they will gladly provide all the evidence they have to show their position to be true. The resistence they have given does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling they are interested in the truth. In fact it supports the speculation that the global warming issue is an issue some have ridden to power on. Supporters see the global warming issue as a chance to weaken the US through an agreement like Kyoto knowing that the other signers would not keep it, but the US would. (think SALT and SALT II treaties)

Dr. Mann has finally agreed to release the computer code. If it is a true release, we will likely see the output hardcoded to "Evidence of global warming".

Here is the link:,2933,163999,00.html

Thursday, July 28, 2005

22 Years for a terrorist

The judge that gave this light sentence has committed a treasonous act against this country and endangered many. Not only will people be in danger when the guy gets out, other terrorists will see this as an act of weakness and be emboldened. The long speech only showed the judge knew he was doing the wrong thing. A tough sentence with a one liner would have done the job.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Dem's hypocrisy triggers gag reflex

For awhile now we have heard that there has been only one person convicted of the law Karl Rove is accused of braeking since it has existed. I guess somebody started wondering what ever happened to that guy and did a little digging. We are now reminded that this person was among the last minute pardons Bill Clinton handed out like candy before leaving office.

At the time there were conservatives that wanted to bring attention to the shady characters that Clinton pardoned, but the Dems would have no part of it. So Dem #1 pardons a man who revealed a covert CIA agent and the other Dems just go along with it. Suddenly, the Dems are concerned about this type of action when it is the hated 'architect'.

My expectation of both parties is consitency. If it is wrong for a Dem it is wrong for the GOP and vice versa. If someone is offended when the other party does something, they better be offended when someone of their party does the same thing. If not offended when someone of their party does something, don't trigger our gag reflex by suddenly being offended when the other guys do it.

Monday, July 25, 2005

John Major spot on

In a free country, her citizens enjoy the right to free speech whether it be the US or UK, or elsewhere. A non-citizen that has been granted the privilege of immigrating must know that it is just that: a privilege and not a right. One does not have the right to 'spew hate' toward the citizens that reside by right. If they cannot respect the privilege and accompanying responsibilities, deportation is not only fair - it is the right thing to do. One only needs to think of having a guest in their home. The guest resides by privilege. Activities such as bad-mouthing the host to their neighbors, threating violence or expressing what a good thing it is if someone else harms their host would definitely warrant expulsion.

Anita Hill reveals her true colors

Anita Hill has come out with criticism of John Roberts, showing that her opposition to Clarence Thomas' nomination was purely political. Of course close observers of hearings already knew that. That was the first time I ever saw people willing to lie under oath for a political agenda. (Note: as both sides took an oath and gave opposing stories, somebody lied under oath and there is a fair amount of evidence that it was Anita)

At the time she was so interested in blocking the appointment of a black man to the court, and now she complains that a white man has been nominated. It is unbeliveable that racism is only called when it is a white person making the statement. Here a black woman is displeased that somebody with a different skin color than hers is nominated. Of course the real issue now is what the issue was then, the perception that a conservative has been selected.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Kerry demands what he was unwilling to do

John Kerry is demanding the release of all documents and memos "in their entirety" of John Roberts when he served as counsel during the Reagan and Bush, Sr. administrations. This is not a reasonable request and he knows it. When the American people needed to see his military records "in their entirety" to be better able to make a decision on him, Kerry stonewalled. It seems hypocritical to make this demand.

Kerry's military records and Robert's records while White House counsel and Silicitor General are apples and oranges. A more apt comparison would be to ask Kerry to release all of his documents, notes and memos from his service on the senate national security committee. This would have been extremely unreasonable as is Kerry's request.

As legal counsel I would expect these documents and memos are confidential and that Roberts would be guilty of an eithical breach if he did release them. It would be like asking Johnny Cochran to release all of his notes from the O.J. Simpson trial.

Kerry knows Roberts cannot release these documents, and is creating a straw man for the Dems to attack upon refusal to comply. The informed voter will see through this ruse and reject it, but I have seen little evidence that the Dems are interested in attracting the informed voter. Their strategy always seems to gravitate around disinformation and misinformation.

Friday, July 22, 2005

OK, Dean you work on that for 20 years

Howard Dean wants to "reach out" to pro-life voters. After decades of treating the pro-life group like the plague, Dean wants to bring them into the Democrats tent. After several conventions of a total lockout of anyone who is pro-life from even speaking it seems they have ran some numbers and realize they are toast.

"I think we need to talk about this issue differently," said Dean. "The Republicans have painted us as a pro-abortion party. I don't know anybody in America who is pro-abortion."

Nobody is 'pro-abortion'? The Dems can't deny their consternation when even one woman is talked out of an abortion. Parental notification? NO! Pre-abortion counseling offering alternatives? NO! Commercials showing life as a beautiful choice? Can't have that. How about passing laws protecting babies from failed abortion attempts that are born alive? No way! Let 'em die! Can we educate the public that woman have died from abortions or from the RU486 pill? Can we let them know there may be a link between abortions and higher rates of breast cancer? NO! NO! NO! If that is not pro-abortion I don't know what is.

I would welcome the Dems opening up their party and platform to those with an alternative view like pro-life. However, if they think that just talking about it a little bit should result in support at the polls I think pro-life voters should give them a couple of decades to see if they are serious - not half of an election cycle. See you in 20 years, Howard.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Give John Howard a Logic gold star

John Howard effortlessly shot down the notion that any terrorist attacks are caused by participation in Iraq. He basically pointed out attacks that happened before the invasion of Iraq actually began: Sept. 11 and the Bali bombing where 88 Australians were killed.

Several other attacks could be mentioned: Achille Laurel, Beirut, World Trade Center 1993, the USS Cole.

While current terrorist attacks may be accompanied by rhetoric about Iraq, history shows they would still be happening even if we never invaded Iraq. Terrorists simply use Iraq as the excuse du jour to do what they would be doing anyway: killing as many innocent people as possible out of hatred and intolerance.

Good job Mr. Howard with a good dose of logic.

Failed bombs

When I read today that some of the terrorist's bombs failed to explode, I immediately thought of Russia. It is kind of like the game "what's the first thing that comes to your mind when I say _____?" The first thing that comes to my mind when I hear "failed bombs" or "duds" is Russia. While I am not making any accusations with this slim evidence, it seems to me I have read alot of stories referring to failures in Russian ammunition. Just an observation.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Kennedy's obsession with water

This is not original, as I have heard it referred to on several radio shows. It is amazing how many times Ted Kennedy makes references to water. With the Chappaquiddick drowning eternally over his head, one would think he would make every effort to avoid making any statement that might conjure up an image of the drowning Mary Jo Kopechne. However, Kennedy seems to gleefully engage in these metaphors such as "in over our head", "white washing", "drowning" and many others. Either he suffers from a Macbeth type obsession, or he downright enjoys tweaking the nose of the world by gloating over the fact that he got away with it. Only in this life, Ted.

Schumer on the hunt

If Chuck Schumer has his way, John Roberts would need to recuse himself from future cases. How can an appointee sit before the senate judiciary committee and tell how he would vote on possible cases, without then being in a position where he would have to recuse himself. First, how good of a justice can you be if you decide on rulings before you hear them? At the case opening, would he say, "I already know how I am going to rule on this case, so I'm going golfing while the rest of you listen to the specifics?" That would be ridiculous. Second, how could a justice sit through the case without his Senate testimony replay in his mind? How could he be impartial? He would have to recuse himself due to an inability to be impartial.

If course Chuck Schumer does not want Supreme Court justices to be impartial. He wants them to know how they would rule even before hearing opening arguments. Nor does Schumer want them to adhere to the Constitution. As long as his agenda is past, he doesn't care if they site case law from Zimbabwe in order to do so. I wish just once a conservative judge would site a foreign constitution to rule something like taxes couldn't be more than 5% - then see the liberals squeal as they are stuck with their own dart.

Look for Schumer to make a complete spectacle of himself during this process. I wonder if paper bag sales will go up in New York during these hearings.

Another try at the stealth approach

It is a shame that conservatives must roll the dice in order to try to get an acceptable Supreme Court appointee. In spite of all the trouble Democrats gave Bork and Thomas, the Republicans recognized Clinton was elected by the people and had the right to nominate extreme ACLU leftist Ruth Ginsberg. They questioned her, registered their philosophical differences and gave her a vote. Instead of reciprocating, Democrats must simply think Republicans are chumps and continue to obstruct high court nominations.

If not for the blocking of the nuclear option, Bush could have nominated an open conservative judge underlining his right as president to do so. Instead a stealth appointee must be made where there is little or no audit trail to conclusively show how he thinks. While the Dems grill him to attempt to find how he might vote, conservatives are praying he is a Scalia and terrified he might be a Souter. This approach has not yielded good results in the past, but it is likely the only way a candidate is even going to get through.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Follow the steps

Here is a perspective on the Rove story that I have not seen laid out. If we go step by step from worst scenario to most benign it shows some interesting things:

*-Rove 'hunted' down the information that Plame was a covert agent and maliciously outed her to get revenge on Wilson
*-Rove knew by word of mouth that Plame was a covert agent and maliciously outed her to get revenge on Wilson
*-Rove knew by word of mouth that Plame was a covert agent, but to correct the misconception that Wilson was sent by Cheney to Niger outed her
*-Rove knew Plame worked for the CIA and called the media to name her as the person who recommended Wilson to correct the misconception that Wilson was sent by Cheney to Niger
*-Rove knew Plame worked for the CIA and in calls from the media about other issues attempted to correct the misconception that Wilson was sent by Cheney to Niger by naming Plame as the one who actually recommended Wilson
*-Rove knew Plame worked for the CIA and in calls from the media about other issues attempted to correct the misconception that Wilson was sent by Cheney to Niger by alluding to the one who actually recommended Wilson not by name but as "Wilson's wife"

In order for this to be a criminal or unethical act all of the following criteria must be met:

- Plame was a covert agent for the CIA
- Rove knew Plame was a covert agent for the CIA
- Rove gave the name to the press
- Rove plotted to leak Plame's covert status to the press

However, none of the four are true. Plame was not by definition covert. Since she was not covert, Rove could not have known something that is false. Rove did not give her name to the press, but alluded to her as Wilson's wife. While Rove may have plotted to defend the administration against false accusations, he could not have plotted to out her covert status since she was not covert. Liberals are habitually offended when they accuse conservatives and they accually defend themselves. (not unlike they are defended when a gun owner defends himself when a criminal breaks into his home in the middle of the night) In the list the first 3 would be in the criminal and unethical arena. From 4 down, there is neither criminal or unethical activity. If you boil it down to facts, the truth is likely in the last scenario which is 3 full steps from illegal or unethical activity.

This is such a dead story, but with liberal news agencies in such trouble with viewership and circulation they are willing to sink their credibility to keep the story alive for a little longer.

Friday, July 15, 2005

Credibility meter on empty for Reid, Durbin

In the continuing charade that Karl Rove has done something wrong/criminal and deserves to go the top Senate Dems Reid and Durbin tried to slip verbage into a spending bill to strip Rove of his clearance. The statement reads that security clearance be removed for anyone "who discloses, or has disclosed, classified information, including the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not authorized to receive such information."

It was blocked, but they should have let it go through. Rove would not qualify under that wording, but both Reid and Durbin would. Additionally John Kerry would qualify for that discipline by naming Fulton Armstrong, a real covert agent during the Bolton confirmation hearings. Reid and Durbin have alluded to classified FBI files in order to sway public opinion obviously working under the "greater good" philosophy. It would have been great fun if that had passed, Bush signed it and promptly moved to remove the clearance of these three.

To stoop this low merely as a political ploy in my mind has robbed them of the whatever remaining credibility they had. The gauge is on "E" and the light is flashing.

Update: Apparently Armstrong is no more covert than Plame is, so I will withdraw my charge against Kerry. I will say, though, that if the media would treat these equally both Kerry and Rove would either be in the hot seat together (for outing non-covert agents) or not in the headlines at all for these matters.

Media playing stupid part 2

Another way the media plays stupid when it comes to putting a stick in the eye of a conservative deals with quotes. A conservative says "xyz" and the quote is recorded, documented, witnessed, etc. Along comes a liberal and without blinking claims the conservative said "xyb" in order to support their claim. The media interviewer does not stop and say, "Excuse me, but he actually said 'xyz' not 'xyb'. They let it ride and treat it as if a point was scored. When tables are turned, they will make sure they correct the conservative misquote.

An example of letting the misquote ride is George Bush's claim that he would fire anyone proven to have broken the law. Liberals all over are claiming he said he would fire anyone involved in the leak. Yet the water carriers gleefully report the misquote as fact with no caviat.

I wonder if they play stupid so often, they lose the ability to discern between playing stupid and being stupid. Like mom always said, don't cross your eyes because they might stick that way.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Where are the no-nukes?

A Chinese official has threatened to lob nukes at us if we interfere with their take over of Taiwan. Time to export some no-nukes to China to make their life miserable for awhile. Of course I don't ever recall a single no-nuke demonstration that was not targeted for the US to disarm. China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea can have all the nukes they want without fear of being demonstrated against: but not the US.

Cold hard facts vs. lame innuendo

When you compare Republican and Democrat comments on the Karl Rove/Plame issue, it becomes obvious which side uses cold hard facts to support their claims and which side uses lame innuendo to throw on the wall hoping it will stick. Compare the following links. Print them out. Take a black permanent marker and mark out anything that is not supported by facts and/or documentation. Also eliminate anything that is not directly related to the issue. You will be left with a professionally written report, and a practically all black report. Think of a court of law. Which would be admitted into evidence and which would be assaulted with objections such as "Speculation", "Irrelavent", "Hear-Say", etc.

GOP Link:

DNC Link:

Hillary - political calculation

Like keeping a car in a driving lane by continues minor left/right adjustments, every action/statement by Hillary is a political calculation. It is getting so obvious that the knee-jerk reaction is to ask, "Why is she doing that"? Look at two recent issues: border control and troop size. On the border control issue she gets on a soap box and lecture the Bush administration on not doing enough. No legislation introduced and no proposed answers - just criticism. On troop size, you heard very little speeches yet she co-sponsors a bill to raise troops by 30000.

If a legislator has core values, they would tend to handle issues the same: speak out on the issue to gain support and introduce legislation to resolve. Logical analysis may reveal why Hillary chose two different methods. If you look at them through the prism of her goals to weaken the Republicans and strengthen her candidacy, it makes sense.

High profile criticism of the border without actually doing anything about it, may fool some conservatives and centrists while not offending her politically correct base. A low profile introduction of troop size legislation may attract conservatives, but is quiet enough to not offend the base. Also, with campaign claims of a secret plan for a draft and difficulty meeting current recruitment targets - raising the target will provide an opportunity to stir up more talk about the draft and lack of desire to sign up.

The bottom line is that she is too politically motivated to justify changing to a favorable opinion of her based on any action between now and 2008. Every day she will wake up wondering how she can fool more people into thinking she is something that she is not.

Another media trick: playing stupid

It seems that whenever it will cause problems for a conservative, the media does their homework. They turn over every rock to know laws, customs and facts so they can endlessly talk about it in report after report.

When the lamest of accusations is made against a conservative and a simple cursory glance at the facts will expose it as such - the media suddenlyplays stupid. In the Rove/Plame issue you do not even need to turn over any rocks to find the whole thing is a farse - the facts are lying on the ground in the open.

Three glaring facts show that was no criminal or unethical actions on Rove's part. 1) Plame has not been a covert agent for 9 years, so she was not a covert agent. Translation for the slow ones: you can't "out" a covert agent if they are not covert. 2) A simple view of the law in question shows several steps one must take to break it; and you must do ALL not just one to break it. 3) It has been proven that Plame did recommend Wilson to go to Niger, not Cheney. This is but one of several lies that Wilson has told in this affair, yet the media keeps going back to Wilson to lap up more lies.

It is unclear when the media will ever feel any shame at being a lapdog for the Democrats. Or when they will don paper bags over how obviously poor their work is becoming. They have the constitutional right to be stupid, dishonest and partisan and somehow they are satisfied being shills instead of working at having a respectable career.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

WSJ Editorial praises Karl Rove

Interesting link from WSJ Opinion page praising Rove:

Of course the media only thinks a whistleblower is good if they come from the left and hurt the right!

A question to ponder

Instead of an opinion post, here is a question to elicit opinion: If every hidden detail, every conversation in dark smoke filled rooms, every document obtained about the Democrat and Republican parties: who would receive the most damage? If every plot were known to deceive the public on this issue or that, who would have the most egg on their face?

While both parties would have bad eggs here and there, which would be revealed as the most corrupt, deceitful and criminal?

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Desperate for a resignation

After the humiliating corruption of the Clinton administration, Democrats have been desperate for 5 years now to see a high level Republican resignation. Starting at the top, they have relentlessly beat the "resign" drum at any whiff of misdeed (manufactured, twisted or otherwise). They have gone after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Delay and now Karl Rove.

Even the least inspection of the facts show that this is a non-issue. Only after wiping the drool off one's mouth would they draw a conclusion of criminal or even ethical breach. Democrats with the most reason to hang their head in shame are those most tenacious in attacking Rove. This administration has proven again and again that it does now kowtow to pressure. They will not give in to this lame attempt, either.

Works every time

From Kennedy to Reagan to Bush and even in other countries cutting taxes always results in increased revenues. In spite of the rabid complaints during the recent election cycle that Bush broke the bank by cutting taxes, we are now seeing the fruit of that move by dramatically increased tax revenues. Liberals wanted so badly to either get the cuts repealed or elect a democrat before yet another successful tax cut would be revealed. They could then attribute any raised revenues to the repeal or to the newly elected democrat. While liberals like revenues, they enjoy taxation and the power that goes with it much more. This country never runs defecits for lack of revenue. Deficits are always due to spending more than is brought in. Cutting the tax rates across the board works every time to bring in more cash.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Hillary - Best defense a strong offense

Hillary Clinton has made two major statements recently regarding the handling of North Korea. First, to criticize the way the Bush administration is handling it. Second, to make a proposal on how to handle the North Korea situation.

The fact that a Democrat is going beyond criticism and suggesting a solution is enough to raise your eyebrows in surprise. So what is going on? I believe Hillary knows that the North Korean debacle is one of the greatest weaknesses of her husband's administration. In a nutshell their deal with N. Korea was payment not to develop nuclear weaponry. We paid, they continued to develop them and are now a threat to our national security.

If Hillary is silent about this, she will get creamed on it during a presidential campaign. She does not have the luxury to distance herself in any way from Bill, so it is not as easy as saying it was his administration. After all, we do remember her statement "We are the president." So her plan is to attempt a few years out to diffuse it by declaring a plan that is identical to Bill's. When questioned on that point, she will claim that their plan did work. Then Bush got in office and botched it up. She may even be gambling on things getting worse in order to underscore that point. She is also gambling on the support of her water carrying media friends and the stupidity of a significant segment of voters to pull it off. Be on the lookout in the next few years for more strategic steps to close some very gaping holes in her viability.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Bush court statements wrongly criticized

I was listening to a talk radio show this morning who was highly critical of Pres. Bush's remarks about the nomination process. The items rebuked were 1) concern about the dialogue and tone of the debate 2) his offence at the criticism of Gonzales 3) not having a litmus test. This host was calling for the tone to be a hotly contested debate instead of gentlemenly, get over criticism of Gonzales and that he should have a litmus test.

I then saw the context of these statement in a USAToday interview at:

He only stuck up for Gonzales when asked about it and did not go out of his way to bring it up. And the same with the other two items, they were responses to questions asked of him and were consistent with what he said in the past on these items. I understand the catalyst behind those words is the fear that another Suetor, Kennedy or even O'Connor will be selected. I also have those fears, but the answers in the interview made me feel better about the situation. For Bush to use heated rhetoric or to telegraph his plan is a sure recipe for failure. It all boils down to how much he is like his father. If he is too much like his father, we will get a liberal judge. If he is what I think he is, we will get a judge we are 85% satisfied with - which is someone to the right of O'Connor but to the left of Scalia.

I have the same misgivings as this host, but that does not warrant taking statements out of context and assigning your own meaning.

Monday, July 04, 2005

Two-thirds of college students have no problem with theft

A recent survey shows that 2/3 college students do not think it is wrong to download music or viedeos for personal use without payment. What logic other than "I want it" leads someone to believe they are entitled to a free copy of a recording after a person goes through all the obstacles to get to a point where his work is worthy of recording, a song with music and lyrics is created, much expense is made to record and mix the finished product, and much expense to market the finished product.

It all boils down to "it is there, I want it and the technology exists to take it". The bottom line is that it is theft, and 2/3 of our students have no conscience regarding this matter.

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Will they protest a China-Taiwan war?

When China attacks Taiwan what will the anti-war protesters do? Will we see thousands taking to the streets in the US and Europe? Will they stop traffic and keep people from their work? Will they criticize the Chinese government?

Or will they make lame comparisons to the Southern US states and the Civil War? Or will they be silent.

I predict they will make lame excuses or be silent unless the US joins in. Then, let the protests begin. This will show once again, it is all about bashing the US.

Will conservatives pay a price for the Schaivo case?

Will conservatives pay for attempting to stop the purposeful starvation of Terri Schaivo? If it were not hyped, I don't believe many people would think of their action as any breach of wrongdoing. The only way it will be harmful is if the right type and amount of spin is placed on the story at just the right time. Without political groups telling people how to think, most will see it at worst as politicians erring on the side of life and at best they will see that two separate but equal branches of government acted for or against the taking of Terri's life. There was not one passive and correct branch being usurped by an active and incorrect other branch. Both were active in their efforts to either save or end Terri's life.

But in reality, the 2 biggest lightning rods for this case (Jeb Bush and Bill Frist) are in their final terms due to term limits (by law or self-imposed). The goal of the left is to take the spin against these two and make it stick to the other conservatives.

Though conservatives would rather it just go away, they really need to go on the offensive. Now they need to do their research and prepare for about 6 months before election time and begin to educate the people on what is really going on out there. Stories are beginning to trickle in showing how all over the country - under the radar - the euthanasia crowd is working to take the lives of those who are inconvenient, under the guise they are in terminal or very poor health. It starts with the health issue, but often is a matter of a desire to shirk responsibility in the care of a loved one.

If the people are educated properly, this issue will not only fail to hurt conservatives - it can actually help them.

The willingness to lie

No matter which side of the aisle you are on, it is inarguable that time after time we are seeing politically motivated lying on the rise. When you read a story about some wild charge against a politician and then see 2 or more people tell completely different facts then somebody is lying. The best recent example of this is the Schaivo case. You had family members, friends, nurses, doctors, etc. all providing very vivid and detailed accounts of events and her condition that were always at odds with the detailed account by a corresponding member on the other side. This was not a case of misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Somebody on one side or the other was lying. Even in the autopsy report, you had the ME making claims to her condition, countered by a medical expert giving a detailed report showing how these findings could not be true.

With the internet, there is the risk of purposeful lying on one side or another resulting in hundreds of blogs willfully or as dupes repeating the lies. This is not to say that conventional media does not engage in the same behavior because they do.

How can you tell who is lying? One post does not suffice for that answer, but the bottom line is that it takes due diligence and research. Don't just trust a person or source because they agree with your philosophy. Be wary of a person or source that does not back up their claims with credible sources. If they only quote "experts", "some", "associates of..." or other sources you can't access directly be very skeptical (even if they agree with you). Be wary if the bulk of sources are partisan figures (e.g. it must be true about Bush because Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and Michael Moore say it is true). Examine potential motives beyond partisanship. (e.g. would McCain have any reason to want to 'stick it to Bush' or is this a potential presidential candidate fishing for a spotlight). Finally, even if it is a document of official record; can I trust it. Could it be forged? Could the creator of the document be such a partisan that he is willing to lie on it?

We are fighting against organized partisans willing to lie: government officials, media oulets, political organizations, teachers/professors, organized labor groups, scientists, even religious leaders. Do your homework, and don't jump on a bandwagon unless you know it to be true.

Friday, July 01, 2005

Let the fireworks begin

Let the fireworks begin and I am not talking about July 4th. The upcoming Supreme Court battle is likely to make a fireworks display look like a sparkler by comparison. Recently all the fireworks seem to be coming from the Dems, with the GOP in their smoking jackets saying "I'm sorry you feel that way, dear chap". It is time for the GOP to grow a spine and turn this into a real exchange of ideas. Fiery debate is good as it tends to clearly define each side. The big blur lately is disgusting.

It will be interesting to see if the agreement by the two sets of seven will hold up where it counts, or if some of the 7 GOP members will realize they were had. I predict the nuclear option will soon be revisited, unless of course a Souter, or Kennedy type is nominated.

Iranian new president a terrorist?

After an "upset" victory (yeah right) by the hardliner Mahmood Ahmadinejad, we now find that he is likely one of those involved with the hostage taking during the Carter administration. Though, the Iranian governement denies he was involved, the pictures showing the terrorist compared against the new president are very damning. He has very distinctive features that would be hard to mistake. In addition to the pictures, several of the former captives have passionately identified him as the cruel, hateful captor that called them "pigs" and "dogs" years ago.

So what is the world body going to do about this. Iran is a sovereign nation, so there is no authority to intervene in their election process. However, the world body should not overlook their responsibility in denouncing the man and his sordid past. His current direction is also worthy of verbal rejection. The track record of the world body shows they are only interested in criticizing the US while overlooking the cruelty of countries like Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, Sudan and others. I predict little or no focus on this issue.

How will the US political parties react? Will the Democrats spend the same time and passion against him as they have on Gitmo and Abu Grahib? Actually the dems should have a real ax to grind against this guy, since they attribute the hostage crisis as the main reason for the downfall of Carter. (as opposed to high taxation, interest rates and unemployment; spineless and foolish negotiations with the USSR; giving away the Panama Canal; boycott of the Olympics; the complete weakening of our armed forces,etc) If the Dems do speak up, it will be the Carter loss (that still stings today) driving it.