Bush and Rumsfeld - Why so late?

BUSH STIFF ARMS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
Late move confuses both sides as questions fly; We have the 'answer' to why it happened so late

So Rummy and Bush decided to make the 2006 election period extremely interesting. And that is an understatement. From all reports and sources, it can be gathered that would Rumsfeld have resigned his post in September with Bush's approval, Republicans would have had a greater chance at keeping control.

So why did they wait till Nov 8th to announce the resignation. A resignation that, again, from all reports can be gathered, was in the stream of conciousness for at least a few weeks before the election. Bush even made up his mind on the Sunday before the election day. So, what is the purpose of this? Shouldn't Bush have helped the party by announcing this before the election?

My Dad and I think we have an answer. Bush's answer is that he didn't want to make it a political issue. This is a good, and necessary, political answer. But signs point to Bush stiff arming his own party. The Republican party was facing, and had faced, all kinds of corruption issues. They were madly overspending, much to their own demise and Hypocirsy, since the Newt Gingrich GOP prided itself on constraint, balanced budget, and a corruption free environment.

The Republicans in congress also fought against some bills that Bush wanted passed, such as immigration reforms. These bills were halted, torn apart and killed in the Capitol, logn before they had the chance of reaching the White House. So, what do you do with a Congress that is flailing, unsopportive of your homefront agendas, and helping to make you look bad?

You let Rummy resign after the Dems beat the party handily.

You don't campaign big on supportive issues such as the economy.

You don't campaign in tough races.

Don't be fooled. Carl Rove is a campaign genius. If this wasn't a 'good' strategy for Bush, he wouldn't have let it happen. But, I think they see internal issues in the GOP that they didn't and don't like, so they turned their backs.

Bush knows how to work with blue dog Democrats. He did so in Texas as governor, and many great things were passed for the state. Ronald Reagan also knew how to do it, and did it his entire 8 years in office. (There were also more Democrats in congress then, than the newly elected 228 democrat member house and 51 member senate)

And lastly, by having Democrats win, and then giving them what they wanted (as you sometimes do to a child to let them learn a lesson: that what they want isn't always best for them) in firing Rumsfeld, they now can no longer blame him for the current affairs in the war. They'll only have themselves to blame, because now the silver lining is exposed.

Now the silver platter is theirs to drop. Time will tell if Nanci Pelosi can live up to her words, and truly work with the President as she said in her victory speech. I should add that only two days before, she called the President an idiot and other malicious names.

Take it or leave it, this is our theory.

Polls Mostly Correct - Gridlock and Rising Stock Market Ahead

NANCY PELOSI TO BRING 'CALIFORNIA GRIDLOCK' TO WASHINGTON

Gridlock is usually good for the stock market

With some analysts saying that the stock markets are undervalued some 25% and the probability of more concise and refined legislation, including the hope of decreased spending as legislation gets halted, and some budgets get sliced and diced, the stock markets should rise to great levels. However, a consevative majority congress should still be in support of the current Defense spending, which will be good for defense contractors, helpiong the Dow Jones even more.

Expect the new balances in the Congress to keep both parties on their feet, especially about taxes. I don't expect to see tax legislation passed that would raise taxes, as the populus, whether Republican or Democrats, are conservative. Taxes will not be able to be raised as the legislation will not be passed, because neither type of conservative likes raised taxes.

This will be great for business.

The election also sets an amazing stage for the upcoming presidential election. Interesting, because changes to the War in Iraq will not be able to pass without serious scrutiny and bipartisanship. Even with this, however, the President will continue to control the war, although congress could be able to force some moderate changes.

The only thing I don't like (and many democrats like Harold Ford feel the same way), is that Nanci Pelosi will be house speaker. If you thought Hastart was bad, just wait to see what she'll conjure up. Hopefully, the Bush administration and the House will be able to come together on these issues, rather than causing bitter divisions within the federal government. I highly doubt that would be good for America.

If the Republicans can still hold a majority, or at least tie the Senate, we may see interesting governmental actions there as well. This will be interesting to watch from a government history standpoint, especially if the Vice President has to exercise his tie breaker votes, etc.

To add to this, I see it interesting that Senator Lieberman was re-elected as an Independent (Largely from Republican voters, I would bet). His support of Judeo-Christian values should help make close votes in the senate quite fun to watch. I think analysts have missed the point that Lieberman will be a boon to Republicans more than he will to democrats when it comes to actual votes on the floor. I don't think they have considered this when talking about seat powers and majorities in the senate.

In any case, the next two years will be a fun political show to see which party can produce the best legislation for the country, Iraq, and the economy, which is soaring at this point.

It will also spawn a great political debate setup for the Presidential election in 2008. Where will Hillary Clinton differ with Mitt Romney or Senator John McCain? The next two years will tell. If you ask me, these years may actually make both sides sick of Clinton and McCain, setting up another Gubanatorial presidential hopeful: The "Blue State" Republican Mitt Romney (Frmr Gov. Mass), who I think can mediate both parties very well. Now, for Vice President...

Election 2006 - How will this one fare?

Bush and the Republican side - Holding On for the ride

For the first time in more than 6 years, the Republican party is looking to eek out a narrow party line victory that may prove to be one for the history books. And with a rising economy, and all finacnial signs pointing to the direction of a narrow republican win, it just might work out for them

Although the major sentiment is that the Dems will gain enough seats to gain the majority, some pollsters are saying that historically, it would be a tough win. They cite the fact that the party with the most campaing money usually wins in a year that the stock markets are up significantly. And it must be remembered, that one of the larges influential voting pools are investors, numbering in the tens of millions, making up a huge faction of the 33% of registered voters that normally vote each election season.

Simply put, it is nothing but aatounding how the possiblilty of a republican hold is even plausible at this point, but it is a no brainer that the gains have coincided with good strategic moves by Republicans and the White House to shift the spotlights from problems within the party, and problems with the War, to domestic issues. North Korea even helped this by shifting focus, and current unilateral moves against the country from the US and Allies has showed that the White House has clout.

Add to that the muscle flexing Bush showed all of us who want to win the war by once again aknowledging faults made, but also showing that the strategy will continue to evolve toward the ultimate goal of a United Iraq. (I fail to say 'victory' because the Iraq war was won when Saddam's government toppled. That was an offensive war. The current war is a different, defensive war against invaders and traitors to Iraq. Much like the US had in 1812, shortly after the formation and solidification of this Union. All too often, we forget that we faced the same difficulties the Democracy of Iraq faces today. We fought many continued battles even after the Revolutionary War with other countries, and in 1812 with Great Britain, all who wanted to take over this new, 'feeble' government.

Bush showed that he has more knowledge and control of this thing than any of us thought, and showed that he is working a great friendship with the People of Iraq and their new government, and that he will not put up with failure, whether from us or them. He also showed that his staff understands politics, announcing these new idioms only 2 weeks before a very important election.

Why a Democrat victory could be OK

Since the Dems will not be able to win with an extreme majority, this will make the next 2 years of politics interestng. I actually prefer a two party city, BUT ONLY WHEN THE TWO PARTIES WILL NEGOTIATE AND COMPROMISE. This one could go either way. With Nanci in the hot seat, we could see a spectacle of hate mongering and what I call "push button politics" from the democratic party. If this happens, the 2008 presidential election would be in favor of a Republican candidate. If neither party will come to terms, and instead slings mud all over Washington, not only will the next 2 years be gruesome, but the 2008 election will be downright devisive.

However, I like what I see in most of the democrats that are looking to be elected. Most of them are moderate or conservative. Heck, I even like Harold Ford! Either way, I like the prospect of a Republican congress or a gridlocked congrress for one reason. Business. Both are historically good for the stock market (not necessarily the economy, though) and actually a gridlocked congress has the best numbers. Let us remember, that the great econimic boom of the mid nineties was headed by a Republican congress. And so is the current one. So we'll see what happens at election time, and see if history holds true with gridlock.

As a student of government politics, I am intrigued.

More comcast for me

Guys,

FYI.....

I just ordered comcast high speed internet service for my home, to go with
my comcast cable TV/DVR. I will be paying $33/mo. for each of these two, so
$66 and the extra ten for the DVR. I am cancelling my verizon wireless as
my internet provider because it has givne me too many problems and costs me
$80/month. I am still keeing my T-moblie cell phone service, because then I
don't have to have a land line phone, and I take my cell with me everywhere.

Comcast is a Utah based company and they are beating the competition in this
market hands down.

Love to all.....a happier camper to be Nev

_________________________________________________________________
Search�Your way, your world, right now!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG

e coli outbreak in spinach

Dear readers,

I wanted to pass this photo on to the general public, which I received from a friend of mine. The photo above shows a bag of spinach, prepackaged, with a frog inside of it.

I am a student of science, and most know that e coli usually grows on meat products. Well, I would bet that the e coli outbreak may have had something to do with dead frog materials and eggs being packaged with the spinach. This frog was still alive, I believe, so it must have hatched from an egg that was packaged inside of the bag.

The truth about tough interrogation

"If you watch us often, you know one thing that sets me off is when guests come on the program and say stuff that isn't true. That's what's going on with this so-called torture deal - the far left believes the Bush administration wants to torture people for sport and asserts that making terror suspects uncomfortable is actually torture. In addition, they claim tough interrogation methods never lead to valid information. Today, the Senate continues to debate the coerced interrogation issue. Talking Points believes there will be a compromise - the CIA will be allowed to use some so-called coercive interrogation methods. And that's a good thing, because they do work on some bad people. American interrogators did rough up some captured Al Qaeda terrorists, and those men did give up vital information that that badly damaged terror operations. That is the truth."

ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross joined The Factor with evidence that coercive interrogation can be effective. "The CIA broke 14 high value leaders in secret prisons," Ross declared. "They used coercive techniques. They started with a slap in the chest, then cold rooms, then sleep deprivation, then waterboarding, where you think you are drowning and about to die. In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the information he gave up was very valuable regarding one plot which would have involved an airplane attack on the tallest building in Los Angeles. It's clear that in several cases coercive interrogation does seem to have an effect, and that's the bottom line." The Factor reiterated that harsh tactics can be useful. "In all 14 cases coerced interrogation was used, and in all 14 cases they gave it up. And you say more than a dozen plots were stopped. I want to make it crystal clear that what we have said is true."

Next, Human Rights Watch's Caroll Bogert joined the program with a diametrically opposed viewpoint. "Torture is a method that should never be used by the United States. Sleep deprivation over days is a form of torture, and waterboarding is unquestionably a form of torture." The Factor reminded Bogert of evidence to the contrary. "Brian Ross just said that 12 plots were thwarted that would have killed thousands of Americans. Are you going to sit there and say those deaths would have been allowed?" "I can't confirm or deny Brian Ross's reporting," Bogert replied, "but you can't say that traditional means of law enforcement would not have produced that same information. You can trick people, you can talk tough with people. I would not deny that torture may in some circumstances produce evidence, but at what cost?"

 

Taking action against terrorists

"Let's stop all the nonsense, shall we? A month ago two Fox News journalists were captured in Gaza - their lives were obviously in danger. If a terrorist was captured and had information about where those guys were being held, are you telling me the authorities can only ask them name, rank, and jihad number? Is that what you're telling me, John McCain, Colin Powell, and other senators who oppose coerced interrogation? The military, thanks to the McCain bill, can not do anything to coerce information out of suspected terrorists. Now there's a debate over what the CIA can do. The President wants the agency to be able to use the following techniques: cold rooms, forced standing, sleep deprivation, slapping a suspect's belly, and using loud noise and bright lights. In an unbelievably foolish display, far left Princeton professor Paul Krugman poses this question: 'Why is President Bush so determined to engage in torture?" Well, here's your answer, professor - the President is trying to stop attacks on Americans. We tried to get some of the senators opposed to coerced interrogation on The Factor this evening, but most of them are hiding under their desks. That's because they know the American people realize this whole debate is absolutely ridiculous. We're fighting a war here, and all the theory in the world is not going to defeat the enemy, who is laughing at us as this debate takes the Senate floor this week."

The Factor was joined by former US Senator and current FNC analyst Al D'Amato. "This is going to hurt McCain," D'Amato predicted. "He is absolutely wrong when he equates sleep deprivation with torture. We talk about homeland security - how did we interrupt a number of attacks? By using those methods we were able to stop terrorism." The Factor posed a real-world scenario. "If one of your children is captured, and the CIA picks up a guy who is in the cell that did the kidnapping, is John McCain going to tell me the CIA can not do anything other than ask the guy's name and where he's from? These senators can not answer that question, and that is the reality. Coerced interrogation is necessary to protect every citizen in America."

 

ABC film on 9/11 follows in Moore's footsteps

By Dan K. Thomasson
Scripps Howard News Service

      WASHINGTON — When my youngest son was barely a teenager, he engaged me in a debate over the Kennedy assassination, announcing authoritatively the existence of a huge conspiracy that reached to the highest levels of government.
      It was clear that his opinions had been formed through the magic of Hollywood and the fertile imagination of Oliver Stone, whose docudrama about that tragedy was mainly fiction verging on propaganda.
      All my entreaties about the lack of substantive proof — in fact, the overwhelming evidence to the contrary — failed to sway him that day. Thankfully, as he matured, he began to understand that there is no end to the distortion of history for commercial purposes by those who put entertainment first and fact second. Feeding the public need to place blame as a balm to national trauma can be hugely rewarding financially.
      The recent ABC television spectacular purporting to map the path to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks is just another in a long line of efforts to accomplish that. Ostensibly based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, its factual flaws were embarrassingly obvious and caused a firestorm of protest from Democrats, who saw it as just another attempt to influence the upcoming elections by dumping much of the failure to thwart the terrorists on the back of President Bill Clinton.
      Well, welcome to the world of Michael Moore.
      If memory serves, Moore's attempts to portray George W. Bush as a bewildered, blubbering incompetent in a 2004 presidential election year "documentary" about the first hours and days after the attacks brought about the same response from the Republicans, as it should have.
      The difference between the two films is that Moore eschewed professional actors, making his twists more credible, but none the less distortions. In fact, Moore has become the propagandist of choice for the left.
      At least ABC tried to clean up its presentation. Moore never did.
      The truth is, there probably is enough blame to go around for failing to head off the incredibly improbable 9/11, just as there was 65 years ago in the apparent refusal to heed the signs of an impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
      For years after, conspiracy theorists — including leading Republicans — accused President Franklin D. Roosevelt of doing nothing to stop the assault he knew was coming as a way of dragging the nation into World War II. Their charges were grounded in circumstantial evidence that included sloppy handling of decoded Japanese messages clearly indicating that something was afoot in the hours immediately preceding the air strike. As it was, the commanding officers of both Navy and Army forces in Hawaii became scapegoats unfairly.
      During the years preceding 9/11, any number of mistakes can be cited that might have prevented that event. A litany of the intelligence failures alone dating to Jimmy Carter would fill volumes. Crucial among them was the decision to downgrade the CIA's covert operations. It is certainly clear now that during much of the decade before the attack no American agency regarded Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as a serious threat to the U.S. mainland. In the months just before 9/11, the documented lapses of the FBI and CIA are monumental.
      Let's be fair. Neither Clinton nor Bush should be held personally accountable for that hideous morning five years ago. Bush had been in office only eight months, after all.
      Both, like the rest of us, were the victims of the incompetent intelligence.
      But in the long run, the arguments about who did or didn't do what along the path to 9/11 are only useful if they provide a plan aimed at preventing a recurrence and there is a willingness to follow it.
      The 9/11 Commission provided a solid, comprehensive, historic report, outlining the deficiencies and recommending the path to follow to minimize the possibility of another horrible incident. Its work deserved better.

---

Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service

Red Hot Torture

By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com

Thursday, Sep 14, 2006

 

Thanks to the New York Times, we now know the dreaded torture methods

the sadistic CIA used on captured al-Qaeda big shots shortly after the 9/11

attack. I warn you: Reading this column any further will subject you to

unvarnished brutality.

According to a front page article in the Times on Sunday, September 10th,

Pakistani authorities captured Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaeda's personnel director,

a few months after the terror attack five years ago. Zubaydah, wounded in

the confrontation, was turned over to American authorities and whisked

away to Bangkok, Thailand, where FBI interrogators began questioning him.

According to unnamed sources in the Times article, the FBI and CIA clashed

over whether to use soft or tough questioning methods on the captured

terrorist. Because it had jurisdiction, the CIA took over, and the inquisition

began. Agency interrogators stripped Zubaydah, put him in a freezing room,

and subjected him to Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Not the vegetables, the rock group.

Apparently, the CIA sadists cranked up the volume on some Red Hot Chili

Peppers recordings and Zubaydah broke. Wouldn't you?

Now, I am not making this up. The dreaded torture machine that is the Bush

administration unleashed the Red Hot Chili Peppers on an al-Qaeda big shot.

How could they?

According to the article, Zubaydah gave up a number of his fellow killers,

including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11. But come on,

the ends do not justify the means. Using the Chili Peppers is beyond the

pale.

Somewhere, Attila the Hun is weeping with laughter.

But this whole thing is deadly serious. Thanks to the American thugs at Abu

Ghraib and the hysterical left-wing press, the entire world thinks the USA is

a nation of brutes who torture for pleasure. Human rights groups can't

condemn us fast enough for our terrible treatment of people captured on the

battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. Guantanamo Bay is a Gulag, Dick

Cheney is Henrich Himmler. And the beat goes on.

But amidst all the hew and cry, there are few specifics. As far as I can

determine, waterboarding—that is, submerging a suspect in water—was

used a couple of times, but is now banned. Stress positions and sleep

deprivation have been used in limited situations. And now we know the

Peppers were in play.

Of course, in reporting the interrogation story, the Times played up the

conflict between the FBI and the CIA big, but buried the lead. In the final

two paragraphs of the lengthy report, the importance of the Chili Pepper

story emerges. Times reporter David Johnston quotes yet another

anonymous "government official" as saying, "The fact of the matter is that

Abu Zubaydah was defiant and evasive until the approved procedures were

used. He soon began to provide information on key Al Qaeda operators to

help us find and capture those responsible for the 9/11 attacks."

That sounds like a good thing to me, but I do have some advice for the CIA

the next time around: Use Ludacris, and you'll get bin Laden.

##

 

Put Up or Shut Up

By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com

Tuesday, Aug 29, 2006

The TV Emmy Awards were broadcast a few days ago and it was the usual:

a bunch of smug, self-satisfied show biz types cloyingly parading their liberal

views in front of an adoring Los Angeles audience. I mean, come on, you

show biz people are supposed to be creative—how about something new and

exciting: Maybe demonstrating to the country you might have a clue about

what's going on in the world.

I am an independent who believes good policy can be found on both the left

and the right. For example, Al Gore has the right idea about global warming,

and President Bush is correctly defining Islamic fascism. It annoys me

greatly that some Americans are so fanatical about ideology that they have

lost the ability to think. Many of those Hollywood types mugging to the

camera the other night are in that category. Largely dressed in borrowed

clothes and spouting borrowed ideas, these people constantly vilify

conservatives as complete idiots. How irresponsibly condescending.

So let's be straight here. My money says Tina Fey doesn't know anything

about the roots of terrorism or how to prevent the next terror attack. The

woman can sneer all day long, but I'll put her on my TV program in a

heartbeat if she wants to prove me wrong.

Neil Young can write all the mediocre music he wants about how evil the

Bush administration is, but while he is rockin' in the free world, I know it

wouldn't be free if Young were in charge.

My pal Jon Stewart and his legion of writers think they're ultra cool and hip

because they embrace every left wing cause that comes down the pike.

Yeah, you won an Emmy, Stewart, but the fix was in. The choir to whom

you preach dominates the award voting. You Daily Show guys can be funny

but how many Americans want you people standing between them and Iran?

Maybe Larry David, but that's it.

One of the few positives in the Emmy program was host Conan O'Brien, who

was funny in a good-natured way. Although he didn't say so, I believe

O'Brien understands the absurdity of these entertainers displaying their

knee-jerk left-wing politics in an entertainment venue. Even if you're a

liberal, you've got to see how obnoxious this is.

So I say this, Bill Maher. You're a witty guy, but out of your league on

complicated matters like national security. When you can tell me what Ansar

al-Islam was doing in Northern Iraq, then I might watch your HBO show.

When George Clooney can explain exactly how the Pakistani secret police

broke a captured al-Qaeda big shot who subsequently gave up the London

terrorists arrested for planning an attack on American airliners, then I'll rent

"Syriana."

When the pouty Dixie Chicks, who are having big trouble selling concert

tickets this summer, can tell me the origin of the Islamic Brotherhood, then

I might go to one of their shows.

But I'm not holding my breath on any of these challenges. As the saying

goes: Opinions are like lips, everybody has them. But some opinions, like

some lips, are razor thin, and there ain't enough collagen in the world to

help these misguided showbiz people.

 

 

War does make enemies mad

Ted Wilson is right. War does make our enemies mad. Imagine that! I guess the Japanese were pretty mad when they employed Kamikaze pilots during World War II. Maybe we should have told them we were sorry and brought our boys home. Certainly, by fighting on we were "adding to the enemy's enthusiasm for terrorism and recruiting suicidal bombers" as Wilson so eloquently stated. Let's just apologize and leave Iraq. That will put a halt to that nasty terrorism stuff.

Frank Trinnaman

Alpine

 

 

The Iraq Solution
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com Thursday, Aug 24, 2006
War is a performance business. That is, if you get in it - you better win it. Stalemates are not acceptable, especially in America where we worship victory and do not suffer defeat easily. Despite what revisionist historians say, the USA did not lose militarily in Vietnam, we simply did not defeat the communist enemy. And shortly after we withdrew, they violated the signed treaty and took over South Vietnam. Today, we are facing a similar situation in Iraq. The latest Opinion Research poll says 61% of Americans now oppose the Iraq war, just 35% support the action. But this is misleading. The opposition is not against the campaign to bring democracy to Iraq, the dissent is about our performance there. In other words, if the coalition was winning in Iraq, the folks would be behind the effort. The far left is trying to make this a moral issue, it is spinning that somehow America is bad for deposing a murderous dictator and making free elections possible. If that's bad, then George Washington is Satan. That's how dopey the moral objection to Iraq is. But the folks are correct when they say that unlimited sacrifice in Iraq is not good for the nation. So far, the USA has spent hundreds of billions and lost thousands of good people to death and grievous injury in that chaotic place. If victory is not assured, then we need to change direction. There is no question that Iran, the world's most dangerous country, is behind much of the instability in Iraq. If the USA follows John Murtha's advice and pulls out quickly, Iran will partner up with the killer Shiite cleric al-Sadr and dominate Iraq. That will heighten Iran's power in the Gulf region and give Hezbollah and other terrorist outfits including al-Qaeda far more opportunities to develop their homicidal plots. So cutting and running is irresponsible and dangerous to America, and anyone who promotes that strategy should be aggressively challenged. But the Bush administration does owe a new battle plan to the fallen American soldiers. If the sectarian violence cannot be brought under control by, say, the end of this year, then a partitioning of Iraq should occur. Already, the Kurds in the north have a state that pretty much does what it wants without Baghdad's approval. Similar states could be established in the Shia south and the Sunni triangle with Baghdad becoming an open city. There would be a centralized government in the capital but all three states would largely be autonomous, sharing oil revenue based upon population. Iran would influence the Shia, no question, but it would not be able to dominate the entire country if the U-S kept a strong presence to make sure coups did not take place. This might be the best solution to a bad situation. President Bush should realize his current Iraqi policy is not acceptable to most of the folks. If Mr. Bush continues to stay the course based simply upon hope, his party and his legacy will suffer dramatically. So, once again, no good deed goes unpunished. The United States and Britain held a mass murderer, Saddam Hussein, accountable for his misdeeds and his repeated violations of the Gulf War ceasefire. They removed him and gave millions of Iraqis a chance at freedom. That was noble. But the action has gone unappreciated because the world is not a noble place. Time to recognize that and impose a new, workable solution.
##
Would you like to read more of Bill's newspaper columns? Premium Members of BillOReilly.com have access to Bill's Article Archive that contains dozens of his best articles.

 

Re: What A Propaganda Article Brought To You By Qwest

You've delivered again! My admiration grows, Nephew.

Uncle Nevin

>From: "Tijs Limburg" 
>Subject: Re: What A Propaganda Article Brought To You By Qwest
>Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:45:57 -0600
>
>Garth,
>
>They also forgot one thing, that is that most household phones these days
>use power due to their portability as wireless handsets. I haven't seen a
>phone that doesn't use power in years. And as you pointed out, cell phones
>can be charged in a car if needed. Try charging a handset in a car! As
>well, my cell phone batteries last for days. I think on average I charge
>my
>phone 3.5 times per week. I don't think power outages are even an issue.
>If your power is our more than a few hours, it is usually due to something
>severe enough to knock down power poles, which means landline telephony
>won't work either because those lines are down also.
>
>Remember how they tell everyone not to make calls during an earthquake in
>order to keep the lines that do work open for emergency crews? Well, cell
>phones relieve that problem. And the towers themselves are extremely
>resilient Let's remember that when September 11th happened, people were
>able to use cell phones without many problems. I remember cell phone usage
>during that time was at record volumes as relatives from all over were
>calling the cell phone numbers of loved ones in NY to see if they were
>affected. Try that with a copper land line. (Oh, and did I mention that
>the long distance call for all of those who used a cell phone was free?)

_________________________________________________________________
Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline

Understanding Iran & Lebanon

Understanding Iran & Lebanon

By Bill O’Reilly

"President Bush firmly believes the terror war is playing out in Iraq and that if Iran gets influence there, which it would should America leave, terrorism becomes dramatically stronger. Millions of Americans do not support the President on Iraq, but overall the President is correct about worldwide terrorism. It's not going away, even if we do get out of Iraq. Last week the UN talked tough about separating Hezbollah and Israel. This week France, which led the cease fire movement, shocked many by offering just 400 troops. Once again France epitomizes the world and its failure to confront the murdering terrorists. As the prime terror facilitator, Iran must be having a blast. It well understands that France and most of Europe is weak and scared, and that China and Russia see any weakening of the US as more important than fighting terror. The hateful Iranian leadership will defy the UN on nukes because it knows the UN is also weak and afraid. Back here we're a divided country - far left ideologues oppose most anti-terror methods. But there is a divide between the far left and the regular folks. I believe many Americans understand the terror danger, but are tired of bad news from Iraq. But being tired is no excuse - we all have an obligation to pay attention to this war and to vote for people not along party lines, but for those who have a clue as to how to win this terror war."

Response to Letter

See the response to the Letter referred to in "Update on Hollywood Post" by Gloria C. Hunt, Constituent Services Coordinatorof the Office of the Governor for the state of utah.

This is the first response in what will likely become many.

Click the Title for a quick shortcut

Re: What A Propaganda Article Brought To You By Qwest

Garth,

 

They also forgot one thing, that is that most household phones these days use power due to their portability as wireless handsets.  I haven't seen a phone that doesn't use power in years.  And as you pointed out, cell phones can be charged in a car if needed.  Try charging a handset in a car!  As well, my cell phone batteries last for days.  I think on average I charge my phone 3.5 times per week.  I don't think power outages are even an issue.  If your power is our more than a few hours, it is usually due to something severe enough to knock down power poles, which means landline telephony won't work either because those lines are down also. 

 

Remember how they tell everyone not to make calls during an earthquake in order to keep the lines that do work open for emergency crews? Well, cell phones relieve that problem.  And the towers themselves are extremely resilient  Let's remember that when September 11th happened, people were able to use cell phones without many problems.  I remember cell phone usage during that time was at record volumes as relatives from all over were calling the cell phone numbers of loved ones in NY to see if they were affected.  Try that with a copper land line.  (Oh, and did I mention that the long distance call for all of those who used a cell phone was free?)

 

RE: What A Propaganda Article Brought To You By Qwest

Garth,

It appears you have a good case for another letter to the editor to the
Trib. go for it!

Nev

>From: "Limburg, Garth" <
>Subject: What A Propaganda Article Brought To You By Qwest
>Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:25:54 -0600
>
>An article appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune today (8-21-2006) trying to
>scare the hell out of anyone who doesn't have a landline telephone or is
>contemplating dropping the one they have. It appears that someone over
>at Qwest got to the Tribune and convinced them that the issue has merit
>enough for an article. The bottom line of the article is that everyone
>needs to maintain a landline telephone for emergency and safety reasons.
>If this is such a concern of Qwest why the $25.00 a month charge for a
>copper wire coming into your home or apartment? As part of that $25.00
>a month charge why does Qwest continue to collect (they give you no
>choice) access charges to their network and extended area calling
>charges to places you never call? They can't give you a good reason why
>a residential line costing $11.00 a month suddenly balloons to $25.00.
>Must be the charges that still pay for the Spanish-American War of 1898
>(which Congress has ordered removed by-the-way). Qwest tries to explain
>the necessity of a landline telephone this way:
>
>
>
>The landline is necessary because the battery in a cell phone can't be
>charged during a power outage while a landline telephone will continue
>to work even with the power out.
>
>
>
>Emergency calls to 911 can't be traced back to an exact location using a
>cell phone while landline telephones give 911 operators exact locations
>of the emergency.
>
>
>
>First, doesn't Qwest know that cell phone batteries can be charged in an
>automobile? Da! Besides that, most homes and apartments have more than
>one cell phone user today. What is the chance that all the cell phones
>in one place have batteries that need to be charged during a power
>outage?
>
>
>
>Second, hasn't Qwest heard of enhanced 911? Unbelievable! After the
>guy in Provo died in his apartment about two years ago because he didn't
>have a landline telephone and called 911 on his cell phone and the 911
>operator screwed up by not getting the right address from the guy so he
>died! The family sued Provo City and the City as well as every other
>911 call center in the State has moved over to enhanced 911 service that
>now automatically picks up the location from the cell phone call. Of
>course there was no mention of this in the Tribune article.
>
>
>
>It is amazing how stupid Qwest is and how desperate they are to maintain
>their landlines by scaring people. I am extremely disappointed that the
>Tribune would fall for this garbage and actually print it. -Garth-
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

Qwest is Full of it!

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Limburg 
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 3:52 PM
To: Limburg, Garth
Subject: Re: What A Propaganda Article Brought To You By Qwest

What a joke. Why are they trying to keep people in the dark and
behind the technology age? They and other telecommunications companies
like AT&T are trying to make us think we need more than we really do.
How many phones does one person need? Isn't the goal of technology
today to make things smaller, more simple, easier to use, and more
affordable. Unfortunately those blinded by the corporate world where
more is better (in their case more money and more stuff for the
consumer) they will see themselves clouded and cluttered with the
past. Of course for a company like this to make money they must use
every effort to be the Harold Hill travelling salesman Instead of
these companies investing in the future where they could profit even
more from the capabilities of fiber opticts, voice over ip services,
and the new age of cell phones, they fight against these technologies
like it's an ugly step child. There future however is determined. They
are courageous captains that are going down with the sinking ship.

RE: What A Propaganda Article Brought To You By Qwest

I have not had a land line for over 3 years.  The only down side that I have found is that I drop a call once in a while. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Limburg, Garth 
Cc: Tijs Limburg; Eric Limburg; Nevin Limburg; 
Subject: What A Propaganda Article Brought To You By Qwest

An article appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune today (8-21-2006) trying to scare the hell out of anyone who doesn’t have a landline telephone or is contemplating dropping the one they have.  It appears that someone over at Qwest got to the Tribune and convinced them that the issue has merit enough for an article.  The bottom line of the article is that everyone needs to maintain a landline telephone for emergency and safety reasons.  If this is such a concern of Qwest why the $25.00 a month charge for a copper wire coming into your home or apartment?  As part of that $25.00 a month charge why does Qwest continue to collect (they give you no choice) access charges to their network and extended area calling charges to places you never call?  They can’t give you a good reason why a residential line costing $11.00 a month suddenly balloons to $25.00.  Must be the charges that still pay for the Spanish-American War of 1898 (which Congress has ordered removed by-the-way).  Qwest tries to explain the necessity of a landline telephone this way:

 

The landline is necessary because the battery in a cell phone can’t be charged during a power outage while a landline telephone will continue to work even with the power out.

 

Emergency calls to 911 can’t be traced back to an exact location using a cell phone while landline telephones give 911 operators exact locations of the emergency.

 

First, doesn’t Qwest know that cell phone batteries can be charged in an automobile?  Da!  Besides that, most homes and apartments have more than one cell phone user today.  What is the chance that all the cell phones in one place have batteries that need to be charged during a power outage?

 

Second, hasn’t Qwest heard of enhanced 911?  Unbelievable!  After the guy in Provo died in his apartment about two years ago because he didn’t have a landline telephone and called 911 on his cell phone and the 911 operator screwed up by not getting the right address from the guy so he died!  The family sued Provo City and the City as well as every other 911 call center in the State has moved over to enhanced 911 service that now automatically picks up the location from the cell phone call.  Of course there was no mention of this in the Tribune article.

 

It is amazing how stupid Qwest is and how desperate they are to maintain their landlines by scaring people.  I am extremely disappointed that the Tribune would fall for this garbage and actually print it.  –Garth-

What A Propaganda Article Brought To You By Qwest

An article appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune today (8-21-2006) trying to scare the hell out of anyone who doesn’t have a landline telephone or is contemplating dropping the one they have.  It appears that someone over at Qwest got to the Tribune and convinced them that the issue has merit enough for an article.  The bottom line of the article is that everyone needs to maintain a landline telephone for emergency and safety reasons.  If this is such a concern of Qwest why the $25.00 a month charge for a copper wire coming into your home or apartment?  As part of that $25.00 a month charge why does Qwest continue to collect (they give you no choice) access charges to their network and extended area calling charges to places you never call?  They can’t give you a good reason why a residential line costing $11.00 a month suddenly balloons to $25.00.  Must be the charges that still pay for the Spanish-American War of 1898 (which Congress has ordered removed by-the-way).  Qwest tries to explain the necessity of a landline telephone this way:

 

The landline is necessary because the battery in a cell phone can’t be charged during a power outage while a landline telephone will continue to work even with the power out.

 

Emergency calls to 911 can’t be traced back to an exact location using a cell phone while landline telephones give 911 operators exact locations of the emergency.

 

First, doesn’t Qwest know that cell phone batteries can be charged in an automobile?  Da!  Besides that, most homes and apartments have more than one cell phone user today.  What is the chance that all the cell phones in one place have batteries that need to be charged during a power outage?

 

Second, hasn’t Qwest heard of enhanced 911?  Unbelievable!  After the guy in Provo died in his apartment about two years ago because he didn’t have a landline telephone and called 911 on his cell phone and the 911 operator screwed up by not getting the right address from the guy so he died!  The family sued Provo City and the City as well as every other 911 call center in the State has moved over to enhanced 911 service that now automatically picks up the location from the cell phone call.  Of course there was no mention of this in the Tribune article.

 

It is amazing how stupid Qwest is and how desperate they are to maintain their landlines by scaring people.  I am extremely disappointed that the Tribune would fall for this garbage and actually print it.  –Garth-

Update On Hollywood Post

I have added a "comment" on the response to the "Hollywood" post entitled "I Agree, Nevin". It is a letter that I have now sent sent to politicians and political pundits on the 20th of August. The letter includes references you may want to look up dealing with current debates by ICANN, the Internet governance board, and descisions they are making that could affect you and I. I have researched their debate, and thus have come up with the conclusions and opinions stated in the posted follow-up comment. Your support for our view on this type of legislation and action is going to be neccessary to get these types of motions passed by government officials. Please visit www.house.gov and www.senate.gov to write your Congressmen and notify them of your support of our viewpoiont. Lets get a petition started!

Please also feel free to use the letter to send to your Congressmen!

You can take a shortcut to "I Agree, Nevin" by clicking the title of this article.

Profile in Sanity

Profile in Sanity

By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com

Thursday, Aug 17, 2006

We are living in treacherous times and terrorists well understand that; even

when one of their murderous plots is uncovered, the fallout from the

aborted action is a big win for them. After British authorities prevented a

couple dozen Muslim fanatics from blowing up a number of American

jetliners, the ensuing airport chaos caused pain and inconvenience for

thousands of people. Unfortunately, that will continue for the foreseeable

future.

Osama and his pals must take great joy at watching 80-year old

grandmothers being patted down and their creams confiscated by jumpy

security people. This is the ultimate al Qaeda reality program: "Survivor:

Airport."

Add to that the foolish political bickering over who is protecting Americans

better, and you have great joy in Mudhutville; the hiding Qaeda leadership

wins again.

Of course, the sane way to protect Americans in the sky is to stop looking

for nail files and begin profiling people who might actually cause terror

damage. That is not "racial" profiling; that is "terror" profiling. Most of the

recent terror activities have been perpetuated by young Muslim men. So it is

these people that need greater scrutiny when they check in for a flight.

I know that's mean, but believe me when I tell you that if the Irish

Republican Army was attempting to blow up American planes, I'd have no

problem being patted down before I stepped on a plane. I would understand

and appreciate the common sense behind the close look. I would not

consider myself a victim, but would be furious that my ethnic cousins were

causing so much trouble.

I believe some Muslim-Americans feel the way I do. They understand that

some of their co-religionists are remorseless killers.

But not all Muslims think that way, and certainly the ACLU and other far-left

groups oppose profiling. They fight hard against most strategies designed to

make terror attacks more difficult. Except, of course, when it involves them.

You may remember the New York Civil Liberties Union sued when the NYPD

instituted random bag searches on the subway. Yet a sign at the NYCLU

building warned that the organization had the right to search the bags of all

people entering there. Hypocritical? You make the call.

The biggest problem we have in America when it comes to defeating

terrorism is that some of us live in the real world, and some of us live in a

theoretical zone where all problems could be solved if only we just talked

things over with those who want to kill us. For those people, actions like

profiling, unilateral military campaigns, and tough interrogation methods are

simply too drastic. These Americans believe aggressive terror

countermeasures actually encourage violence against us and create more

willing terror killers.

Looking back, the actions of Presidents Clinton and Bush in his first year

pretty much ignored the growing terror threat from the Muslim world. Little

aggressive action was taken against al Qaeda when it blew up our

Embassies in Africa and attacked our warship off the coast of Yemen.

There was no airline profiling going on when 19 Muslim killers boarded three

airliners on 9/11, all with one way tickets to hell. Had we been wiser then,

three thousand Americans could be alive today.

But we were not wise then, and we are not wise now, either. Call it what

you will, but lay off Granny at the airport and zero in on higher risk subjects.

 

I Agree, Nevin

Nevin,

 

This is something I have never understood about Hollywood.  Even the staunch and unfogiving RIAA has allowed for edited versions of CDs to be sold without the explicit lyrics of the original versions.  And I don't think the art of music has suffered much from this.  But, if I remember correctly and corect me if I'm wrong because I was very young when that all occured, but it seems to me that the change was brought on by the government.  And that wasn't the only thing of the sorts that the government pushed through.  Remember TV ratings?  Remember the video game ratings legislation?  So it seems to me we need to push this the same way all of the previously mentioned changes were made and get the government on our side. And while were at it, lets get them to act on laws for the internet similar to city "red light districting" to put all of the smut where it belongs: off of .com (which stands for commercial) domains and onto domains that deal with their particular type of "business."  This would be similar to how cities are allowed to restrict certain type of businesses to specific parts of the city.  And if people say that this somehow violates any bill of rights, lets consider the fact that "time, place, and manner" restrictions are part of government power.

 

As well, let also remember that when you go to a library, you wouldn't expect to find a book entitled "The History of America" in the 500 section, because that is the Sciences section.  You would find that book in the 900's.  So why sould we expect anything from the interet? Afterall, isn't it just a massive collection (collection (of books) in latin "librarium, or in greek "bibloteca") and therefore, a massive library of information?   So lets get it categorizd further.  Just as in a library, as it stands on the interent you would not expect to see a university at www.university.com, rather, it would be www.university.edu . This is the same with government, non-profits, etc.

 

And lastly, while I am speaking on the subjects of libraries and the like, there is something that most collections of any type of information have.  And that is an index.  So, what is the problem with allowing DVD players to be programed via an index to skip certain parts of the movie, wether it be profanity or video content?  Each DVD has an embedded time stamp for each frame, and thus DVD players could easily be programmed for example to skip over the frames with time stamps between 1:23:33 and 1:33;55, as ane xample.  So what I'm saying is that Hollywood wouldn't even have to cut their movies up!  All they would have to do is release an index pertaining to the movie and where mature content might be.  Simple.  And they could make extra money doing it!  As well as could the manufacturers of electronic equipment.  This would become the "V-chip" of this decade. 

 

But, it will take government action as far as I can tell.