Dedication

Ok enough with the political stuff for one post--time for a story that will make you feel good. First a little plug for a cool site I check out every time I am online and that brought this story to my attention. Deadspin is a major sports themed blog that is updated daily by talented and funny writers. The site's writers not only publish and commentate on the major sports stories, but also find obscure stories that you will not find on espn.com or cbssportsline. Check it out if you have the time.

Jason McElwain is a high school senior from New York. Like many high schoolers, he enjoys basketball. He would have loved to play for his high school team Greece Athena, but Jason is autistic. Instead Jason helped out as team manager. Finally in the last home game of his senior year his coach Jim Johnson decided to reward Jason for his dedication and allow him to suit up for the game, but Greece Athena was in a meaningful game and there was no guarantee Jason would see action. With four minutes left and Jason's team up big, coach Johnson called his number.

What happens next is truly remarkable and hard to do justice with words. These videos show the story much better then I could tell it. On the right hand side click the most popular tab and have a look.

The first link no longer works. Here's one that should work for awhile...video

Bush's Perplexing Port Stance Continues

Beep Beep Beep.....This off the wires......Bush administration refuses to admit mistake or listen to any kind of reasonable alternative view. This Deja vu?

What is going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.? As this situation gets more and more bizarre, I become more and more worried about what Bush and his advisors are thinking at this point. This is either stupidity in it's simplest form or there is something to this story that has yet to come to light.

First this little revelation...

WASHINGTON President Bush wasn't aware that shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports were being sold to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until after his administration had approved the deal, the White House said Wednesday.

Susan Page, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-22-bush-ports_x.htm

Ah WHAT?!?

We believe once Congress has a better understanding of the facts and the safeguards that are in place that they will be more comfortable with the transaction moving forward.

Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary

Hopefully a "better understanding" then Bush had once it was approved. I feel dizzy.

It shouldn't have happened, it never should have happened... The quicker the Bush administration can get out of the deal, the better... There's no question that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there and money was laundered through there... From our point of view, we don't want foreigners controlling our ports. From their point of view, this is a legitimate company that had a legitimate bid and won, and here are all these congressmen saying all these things about not wanting this company. It looks to them like it's anti-Arab.

Thomas Kean, former R-Gov. New Jersey; Chairman of the 9/11 Commission

Someone hold me.

Kean makes an interesting point. Not only is it potentially harmful in the future in terms of security, but is definitely harmful now in public relations with the Middle East. Bush is making the valid concerns of Congress look like simple racism. Great, now this is harmful on more then one level.

Not really shocking that the UAE gave 100 million for Katrina Relieft which may have greased the wheels on this deal a little bit, but I think there is more to this story. I'll keep my one reader (maybe) updated.

Veto

It has been awhile since I have posted on this thing. Even though no one reads it, I figured it would be a good way to fill time with not being in school this semester.

President Bush is in the sixth year of his presidency and has yet to veto any kind of bill. With republican control of both houses for almost all those years, on the surface that is not really surprising. Also consider the recent history of the veto. Democrat Bill Clinton served as President during a Republican majority in congress for most of his 8 years in office and only used the veto 37 times.

So I guess Dubya is getting antsy because he is threatening to dust off the old executive veto power if a certain issue does not go his way. Increased unnecessary spending? Yeah I know, that was a funny one. No it is not a pork bill. Actually the bill has to do with national security. Makes sense, this was a big reason the American people reelected Bush II. So what is that irresponsible congress up to? Cut of national/homeland security? Nope. Congress too lenient on immigration? Try again. Border control? Warmer.

Recently the Bush administration approved the sale of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company to Dubai Ports World. Ok, so what is the big deal? Well the sale of this London company means that Dubai Ports World, a company run by the state of the United Arab Emirates, will be running the operations of major ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. One red flag is raised.

The United Arab Emirates is not Iran, but there should be some concern. Even though we are not talking about Iran or North Korea here, the UAE is not exactly Canada.

Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

TED BRIDIS: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060222/D8FTUD90B.html
Two red flags raised.

Ok on the surface this looks bad, but Joe Citizen does not know what the President or members of congress know. The opposition is just probably the Dems and a few Republicans that have a grudge with the White House trying to make the administration look bad...

"We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government."--House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois

"overly secretive process at the federal level."--Gov. Robert Ehrlich, R-Maryland

"The administration should freeze the contract ... until a full and thorough investigation is carried out,"--Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y (Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee)

"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE who avows to destroy Israel," --Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina

Of course the usual suspects of Hillary, Schumer, and the rest of the left are jumping on this, but when in this era of bitterness between parties it is shocking the left and right can agree on anything. Three red flags raised.

Well the President Bush has threatened a veto if congress acts to stop this sale, but why? Here are some quotes on his reasoning behind it.

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world,"
--The good track record of hating Israel and being a hub of smuggling in the Middle East?

"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction, but they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."
--Ah the trust us we have looked into it argument.

"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."

So the question is why does Bush make his stand here? It is curious. This certainly conflicts with his wire tapping arguments. Better safe then sorry when it comes warrentless wire taps, but hey the ports will be fine. Bush has looked into this, that should be good enough for the American people and their representatives in congress. I swear Dubya is asleep at the wheel. Bush continues to disappoint most real conservatives over and over again.

Bravo Congress, make the President use his first veto on this or better yet override it.

Legacy

"I George W. Bush do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."

Today (Inauguration Day) I was sitting in the student center watching President Bush reaffirm his oath to protect the constitution of the United States. I sat and wondered, "what could he be thinking right now?" Only 42 other men in 200 plus years have been able to take that oath. Even fewer have been able to take it more then once (18 to be exact, now 19). Men like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, Cleveland, McKinnely, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Coolidge, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton. Quite the company Bush II has put himself in. Men who have: established a solid foundation for the nation during it's infancy, reunited the United States through a civil war, lead in times of tremendous progress, won world wars, and help in the fall of communist Russia are all represented in this list.

So the question again, "what was Bush thinking as he took that oath?" Well I obviously will never exactly know, but I know what I would be thinking. I would think about how I will stack up against those other great presidents. The word legacy is used often when the president is nearing the end of his public service. Basically what will Joe American high schooler read about in his history book when Bush 43 comes up? I see three potential scenarios...

1. Bush is viewed as a great leader in times of crisis on a par with FDR. 9/11 being his defining moment with the stable democratic Iraq his grand finale.

2. Bush is viewed as rising to the occasion on 9/11 and providing solid leadership in a time of crisis. The folly of the second Gulf War will have him remembered as a good not great president.

3. 9/11 fell into Dubya's lap and basically won him a second term. Any president would have looked like a hero in that situation. He then used that new found public trust to deceive the American people into supporting a war to finish off his daddy's business. To top it off Iraq became an unstable country and many American lives were lost.

The ultimate goal of the next four years of the Bush Administration will be to make #1 true. Will that happen? Probably not. The most likely scenario is #2. Unfortunately Iraq will end up putting a giant black mark on what could have been a presidency on par with the likes of Reagan. Democracy in Iraq is just too daunting a task for any man. Too much religious radical thought is present there for a democratic republic to function. The Iraqi people do not want democracy bad enough to die for it or they would have overthrown Sadam long ago. In fact, many in Iraq are willing to die to ensure democracy does not work in Iraq. The biggest shame of the whole thing is young men are losing their lives for this lost cause. The war on terror and the war in Iraq are two different things. If anything, Iraq has taken away from the war on terror.

Some would argue that those expectations are way too high and impossible to reach, but being President requires doing the impossible. So if George W. Bush somehow makes Iraq work he will have accomplished the impossible, he will have a legacy that will approach that of Reagan, but that is unlikely to happen in the mind of this writer. Unfortunately, Bush 43 will be remembered as "The President that lost his focus."

Bet ya Dubya wasn't thinking that.

Reg-gie, Reg-gie...

Last week sunday I was woke up to a text message on my cell phone from my friend Lorenzo. "Dude Reggie White died." I couldn't believe it. For those who don't know, Reggie White is, in the opinion of many, the greatest defensive lineman ever to play the game of football. He set the career sack record (later broken by Bruce Smith who stayed in the league for two or three years, playing part time, just to break the record) and caused many offense tackles to lose sleep on saturday nights. He took over games and made the job for the other 10 guys on defense easier in one way or another--hard to believe a man so strong could die from sleep apnea at age 43.

He was a great football player, but that was not what made his early death so tragic. Reggie was a great person. "Minister of Defense" was his nickname because he was an ordained preacher and never hesitated to use his football fame to talk about his faith. Team Bible studies and leading post-game prayers only scratched the surface of the impact Reggie had in bringing God into football. He left the Philadelphia Eagles for the Green Bay Packers in free agency because he felt that is where God wanted him to be. He made several community service commitments to the cities of Green Bay and Charlotte (his home town). His heartbeat was urban inter-city projects which is an area unfortunately ignored by too many Christians. He was a great father and husband.

Though under fire for comments against homosexuality, the vast majority of football fans respect Reggie White as a player, but more importantly respect him as a person and his faith. He brought God to the minds of possibly millions of people. Reggie was a great example of a great person. He will be greatly missed.

Thanks for the great football memories Reggie, but more importantly thanks for being an example of a Godly man for all to see.

4 More Years

One big question exists for me after this election. Is Karl Rove a genius or did John Kerry and the Democrats run the worst campaign in a long time? I give Rove all the credit in the world for running a great campaign but the truth is the Kerry camp along with the DNC ran a really poor campaign. A few observations...

Iraq
Kerry was never able to get a sound and coherent message out about Iraq. I still am not totally sure what his actually view on the war is. This is where Howard Dean would have been a much better candidate for the dems. He could have pounded at Iraq over and over because he has always had a solid anti war stance.

Economy
Unfortunately for Kerry, the more time passed the better the economy got. Really not much he could do about that. However, states like Ohio which the economy has been slower to recover should have been won by Kerry handedly. Ohio should have been a state blue.

Morality
This is the issue (according to exit polling which all the sudden we are trusting even though they said Kerry would win Florida and Ohio and well the election, but whatever) that won it for Bush. This is where just being a democrat hurt Kerry. Pro-Gay and Pro-Abortion is anti-traditional values. Homosexuality and abortion weren't really talked about much on the campaign trails, but Homosexuality became a backdoor (no pun intended) issue when 11 states put a gay marriage ban referendums on the ballots. That brought out the morality vote and had a huge affect on this election.

Identifying with the electorate
This is where Kerry lacks the most in my opinion. I mean how does the average American relate to a guy has been rich his whole life, doesn't know the name of lambeau field, and throws like a girl. Not to mention his senatorial droney voice. Bottom line, people didn't buy into Kerry. I have yet to talk to anyone who voted for Kerry because they liked him. They voted for Kerry because he was running against Bush or because they were lifelong dems. It is very hard to win an election just simply being the anti-incumbent. You have to be able to stand on your own.

Wildcards
Kerry's senate record. Did he ever bring up anything he accomplished in his 20 years in Washington? Bush pounded on that off and on for the whole campaign and I believe it had an affect.
Swift Boat Vets for Truth. They basically wasted all the effort put into the democratic national convention. Whether you believe the swift boat vets or not, they put that seed of doubt in your mind about his integrity and whether or not he was worthy of being commander and chief.

So that's why Bush won or better said why Kerry lost. Liberals across America are still feeling the shock and are a bitter bitter lot, but I don't know how they can change this. The nation seems to be drifting right, meaning if the Democrats don't change they will lose more seats and the presidency in '08. A couple things I would do immediately to turn things around if i were a leader in the democratic party: 1. Fire Terry McAuliffe, sure he can raise money but he's been an overall failure. A fresh start is needed. 2. Find a good old boy Southern Democrat to prime for '08, Northwest liberals aren't going to cut it for a long long time.

Here's hoping Bush has a successful next four years and doesn't make me regret voting for him. He'll deffinitely have more room to do what he wants now considering he doesn't have to worry about reelection and has a majority in both houses.

Moore is Less

Outside of President Bush, there is no more polarizing man (right now) in the US then Michael Moore. I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 about a week after it came out. It is an interesting film that will get a reaction out of anybody. The other Moore film I have seen was "Bowling for Columbine" which I enjoyed and found to actually be a documentary that was certainly deserving of an oscar. F 9/11 gave me a different reaction. Many have called the film propaganda--certainly true, but for me it was one giant hate-fest for the grand old party and rich people; the manifestation of both being President Bush.

Moore is extremely good at what he does, playing to emotions of hate, anger, and envy. F 9/11 summed up to me as, "Bush is a rich, lying, thief who you should hate just as much as I do." I'm not going to even bother going into the details of bin laden's family never really being allowed out of the country by Bush or the 9/11 commission, the senate investigation, and the British investigation clearly stating Bush did not lie but was given bad information which he acted on. For Moore that matters little, the important thing is that he energizes liberals for this upcoming election and maybe even sway a few independents.

What is scary is the hero Michael Moore has become to so many liberals. I mean honestly, do democrats like John Kerry? Sure some may actually like the man, but most democrats voted for Kerry because they thought he was the most electable (which I disagree with, I found Edwards a much more appealing candidate for moderates and independents) and not because they were impressed with Kerry. The dems have become the "Anybody but Bush" party. For this reason democrats have gravitated toward Moore. They like him because he's a fighter, intelligent sounding, and funny. The problem is they don't only like him, but they believe everything he says and spread his lies to those they know. As much as President Bush has hurt the unity of this country with his action, Michael Moore has intensified that disunity even more with his words and his film.

As I sat in that movie theater watching F 9/11 end with Bush stumbling over his words in a speech, I wondered to myself what everyone around me thought about the movie. My question was quickly answered with cheering and clapping. I could only smile and think, "Is this nation ever going to recover from the deep seeded hate?" Unfortunately I don't think we will; well not as long as people like Michael Moore continue take Machiavellian means to their ends.

Decision 2004

Well its that time again. President Bush will take on long time Senator John Kerry in November for the position of most powerful man in the world.  Just think about the job of President first off. Domestically, the President has to further an agenda that will improve areas of need such as the economy, social security, and medicare/cade. Of course, Bush or Kerry will not get the exactly what they want or not even close to what they want because representatives and senators will do their best to get as much pork as possible and in some cases will try to kill bills to make the President look bad. Foreign policy will be the President's number one concern next term. Both Kerry and Bush are aware that a terror attack under their watch will not be forgiven and will lead to a one term presidency for Kerry or a Democrat winning in 2008 for Bush. Finally, look good doing it. Today's President can not just simply be good at his job, he has to be charismatic and connect with a large segment of Americans.

Being President takes a special person. For all the jokes and cracks about Bush's intelligence, anyone would acknowledge he is doing an extremely tough job and most would acknowledge he has done atleast a decent job as President. The biggest feather in his cap is his leadership post 9/11. This is why that aspect of his presidency has been challenged so often by the Democrats. Despite these attacks, the majority of Americans still think he is the more capable in foreign policy/leading the war of terror then John Kerry.

"July 01, 2004
Issue of Terrorism Continues to Favor Bush
Most Americans believe 9/11 attacks could not have been prevented
by David W. Moore and Jeffrey M. Jones
A recent Gallup survey finds that a majority of Americans approve of the way President George W. Bush is handling terrorism and believe that he, rather than likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, would do a better job of handling the issue. About 4 in 10 Americans assign at least a moderate amount of blame to the Bush administration for the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but about the same number also blame the Clinton administration. Most Americans, however, believe the 9/11 attacks could not have been prevented."

I agree with most Americans on this issue. Sure, Iraq has not been all peaches and cream, but I would rather have a pro-active President who actively seeks out threats and deals with them asap. Kerry voted to give the President the power to go to war in Iraq, yet later voted against  the 80 billion to fund the troops and rebuild Iraq. That is enough for me to seriously question Kerry's foreign policy. Those two votes prove to me that he would be a President without convictions who simply will do what public or possibly international pressure will tell him to do.

I admitedly do not like Bush's handling of the economy. Tax cuts are fine with a surplus, but increases in spending and tax cuts with a deficit simply does not make sense. The problem is Kerry really has not given a plan to counter Bush's handling of the economy.

So right now I'm leaning toward voting for Bush, but I will be watching the conventions and debates closely. One thing is for sure, this is going to be close and both parties are out for blood.   

Liberal

Ever wonder if someone is a liberal? There's a fool proof test to know for sure. A person's reaction to simply the word liberal is all you need to know. If the person wishes to distance himself from the word liberal then he's not a liberal (well one exception, when the person is running for office). If the person says something to the affect of, "I'm not, but what's wrong with being a liberal?" or openly embraces the label, he is a liberal.

So now that you know who's a liberal, now you need to know why liberals are dangerous. They are dangerous for the same reason "right wingers" are dangerous. Being an extremeist is never good. Case and point example religion. Look not farther then bombed out abortion clinics and the big hole in the ground that used to be the world trade center. In America, political extremeists may not kill people (although I know of some people who would claim Bill Clinton has), but they will do whatever else they can to further their positions.

The most dangerous part of being on the political far left and far right in America is the affect it has on this country's unity and reputation. The most common attack on the unity of the country is the president being acted by the opposing party. Bill Clinton, for all his faults, was wrongly accused of using the military action in Kosovo to divert attention from his impeachment. George W. Bush, for all his faults, was wrongly attacked for those words in the State of the Union about Iraq trying to buy yellow cake from Africa. These tactics of attacking the President, whether true or not, polarize the country and a polarized country does not progress.

Another attack on the unity of America is the issue of patriotism. The right wing waves flags to a fault and drop F bombs on people they disagree with on the senate floor (sorry I hate Cheney, couldn't help myself). Anyone who doesn't fully support the war in iraq or say nothing but "Bush is a great leader" are unpatriotic. Liberals on the other hand act more often like they wished they lived in France. A proclaimed liberal who I work with says his favorite rendition of the national anthem was by Roseanne and he would dodge a draft if faced with that situation.

As for the country's reputation, Michael Moore and the rest of Hollywood types continue to bash America in European press. While the right continuely discredits the United Nations and all other countries who have disagreements with American pro-war policies.

Bottomline, be open minded. No one is always right. The choice is clear, be a moderate.

Greed

I've worked on an assembly line during the summer. Its not a bad job and it pays ok, well I thought it payed ok until today. Today I found out a part we make about 200 of a week is sold individually for a sum of money that is more then I make in a month. Yet, American companies continue to "out-source" labor and layoff workers (the company I work for also has a history of this).

Now I'm all for innovative businessmen making a good profit and being set for life, but not at the expense of middle income hard working people with families to support. Too often capitalism and freedom/liberty/patriotism are all viewed as the same. Today's American capitalism is anything but patriotic; it is simply greed.