Check this out. It's pretty funny.
It's a Jesus-a-fied version of Sir Mix-A-Lot's Baby Got Back.
November 16, 2005
November 14, 2005
Brit Overcomes AIDS With No Treatment, Doctors Astonished
File with the "how come I didn't hear about this from the American media" file.
Click here for full article.
After being diagnosed with the disease, Stimpson began taking a daily cocktail of supplements in a bid to keep as healthy as possible though he knew a cure was impossible. Because he was in the early stages of the disease he did not need to take special medication. Throughout the year, he underwent routine blood tests every other month and had check ups on his liver, heart, and immune system. Doctors were astonished at his continuing excellent health, unusual for an HIV sufferer. In October 2003, Stimpson was offered a repeat HIV test — and the result came back negative.
Click here for full article.
Quote of the Day
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, adn the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
November 11, 2005
Warner Gets Boost In Run for President
So I guess this is it...
Click here for the rest.
RICHMOND, Nov. 10 -- While working feverishly to help elect Timothy M. Kaine as his successor, Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) has been assembling a team to prepare for his own political future, which supporters said is likely to include a bid for the presidency in 2008.
Warner is preparing to hold a final fundraiser as governor at the Ritz Carlton in Tysons Corner next month, but next week he will formally launch his federal political action committee and unveil its Web site, and make his first political trip to New Hampshire, site of the nation's first presidential primary. There, he will host a luncheon for Democratic activists.
Click here for the rest.
November 9, 2005
The Morning After
Here's some news about yesterday's huge win for Tim Kaine and Mark Warner!
The New York Times -
Democrat Wins Race for Governor in Virginia
The Washington Post -
A Triumph For Warner, And a Guide For His Party
Bloomberg.com -
Virginia's Election of Kaine Lets Democrats Stand Up to Bush
USA Today -
Dems shut out GOP in 2 closely watched races
MSNBC -
Democrats win Virginia, New Jersey races
The New York Times -
Democrat Wins Race for Governor in Virginia
After a lengthy introduction by Mr. Warner, who called the outcome a triumph against negative campaigning, Mr. Kaine told a raucous crowd at a downtown hotel that the results proved that Mr. Warner's victory four years ago was not a fluke.
"We proved that people are more interested in fiscal responsibility than ideological bickering," Mr. Kaine said. "We proved that faith in God is a value for all and that we can all share regardless of our partisan labels. And we proved that Virginians want a governor who has a positive vision for moving this commonwealth forward."
The comeback victory by Mr. Kaine, who trailed for much of the campaign, provided a big boost to Mr. Warner, who had anointed Mr. Kaine his successor and is considering running for president in 2008.
The Washington Post -
A Triumph For Warner, And a Guide For His Party
Virginia's quadrennial search for a governor featured neither charismatic personalities nor dominant policy initiatives. But Democrat Timothy M. Kaine's resounding victory over Republican Jerry W. Kilgore nonetheless provided important political lessons for the commonwealth, and maybe the country.
The outcome marked what feels like a dramatic strengthening of Democratic appeal in Northern Virginia, the state's richest and most populous region. It showed that Republicans can no longer depend simply on the power of their party to win statewide and demonstrated the dangers of a negative campaign. It presented an intriguing campaign model for Democrats, in which religious faith plays an important role. And most of all it demonstrated the appeal of Gov. Mark R. Warner (D), for whom this could become the first stop of a presidential campaign.
"The real asset that Kaine had was this rather astonishing popularity of Warner," said Merle Black, a professor who studies Southern politics at Emory University.
George Mason University professor Mark J. Rozell agreed. "I think to a large extent [the story] is the Warner influence," said Rozell, who has closely followed the race. "He created the circumstances for a Democrat to win in a Republican-leaning state in the South."
Bloomberg.com -
Virginia's Election of Kaine Lets Democrats Stand Up to Bush
At about 9:05 p.m., almost simultaneously, CBS, ABC and the Associated Press call the race for Kaine. His supporters press forward en masse to get closer to the screen, roaring ``Tim Kaine, Tim Kaine!'' They boo a live shot from the Kilgore campaign, then cheer when the newscaster says the mood there is downcast.
Bruce Springsteen's ``Born to Run,'' pumped up, begins to play. The younger Kaine backers dance. Amid the Kaine signs waving in the ballroom is a solitary hand-drawn sign saying ``Warner in 2008.''
``I want Mark Warner to be our next president,'' says Charles Goin, 38, an engineer from Richmond, waving his poster. ``You can't win the presidency without the South and what's more southern than Virginia? And we didn't just win, we clobbered Kilgore.''
USA Today -
Dems shut out GOP in 2 closely watched races
Democrats scored victories in this year's two governor's races, keeping the seats in their party and denying Republicans a measure of comfort in a tough year.
Democrat Tim Kaine rode Virginia Gov. Mark Warner's soaring popularity to success over Republican Jerry Kilgore, adding cachet to Warner's expected 2008 presidential bid. Virginians generally vote Re-publican for president — they gave President Bush a 9-percentage-point victory last year — but for the eighth time in a row, they chose a governor from the party that doesn't hold the White House.
MSNBC -
Democrats win Virginia, New Jersey races
Kaine, Virginia's lieutenant governor, had fashioned his campaign around the theme of continuing the state's economic growth, which he said was fostered by incumbent Democratic Gov. Mark Warner, a man with 2008 presidential ambitions.
The victory was buoyant news for Warner, who campaigned far and wide across the state for the 47-year-old Kaine.
Standing side-by-side with Warner at his victory celebration in Richmond Tuesday night, the governor-elect alluded to Warner's presidential ambitions. "I'm looking forward to standing next to you at your next victory party."
November 8, 2005
Democrats and Iraq
Check out the roundup of Democratic prospects in 2008's presidential race and their current positions on Iraq courtesy of Chris Cillizza of The Fix, a blog on washingtonpost.com.
Click here.
Click here.
Election Day
If I were a Virginian, I would be voting for Tim Kaine today! So if you happen to be a Virginian, pretend you are me. Or just be you, and vote for him.
November 7, 2005
Interview with the Gov
Yesterday, Governor Mark Warner was on C-SPAN's Q&A. It was a great interview. You can read the transcript here. Here are some excerpts:
---
LAMB: If you were to leave office today, you would leave with an 80 percent popularity rating. The poll I read just before this one came out was 74 percent of the Mason-Dixon poll, the highest of any governor they‘ve ever rated. How is this – how did you do this? I mean, they say you never can raise taxes and survive. So how did you do it?
WARNER: Well, Brian, you know, one of the things I found in Virginia is a little bit of truth goes a long way. We told the truth. We said, here you go, we put in place things that seem to rational to me as a former business guy but maybe weren‘t so rational in politics.
We put a requirement for a six-year financial plan. And I did 50 town hall meetings, I even went straight to the people and said, all right, here‘s where we have cut and now remember, we started with cuts, we didn‘t start on the revenue side. We started with cuts, then we went to reforms.
And then we said we‘ve got to end up with a way that says we can either lose our triple-A bond rating, not meet our minimum requirements to public schools, or we can end up with tax reform that‘s going to have us pay a little more.
Now Virginia is still a very low-tax state. We‘re somewhere between again – how you slice it dice it, between 38th and 41st in the nation in tax rate. But I think the reason why I‘ve got these approval ratings is not necessarily the tax reform plan, but I think it has been more the approach.
One, I‘ve got a very bipartisan administration. I remember when I got elected, about a third of my cabinet, a quarter of my cabinet was Republican. That made the Democrats mad because I wasn‘t putting just Democrats in. It made some of the hardcore on the Republicans mad because it was peeling off a lot of the moderates.
Most of what we‘ve tried to do in Virginia, whether it‘s our education reforms, our revitalization in our rural communities, hadn‘t been Democrat or Republican, it has been what is in Virginia‘s best interest?
And every time that we‘ve that appeal people in both parties have stepped up and we‘ve managed to work together. And the thing that I feel best about in Virginia, you know, those numbers may be ephemeral about whether they go up or down, but there‘s not a day that goes by that people don‘t come up to me and say, you know, Governor, I‘m proud of where Virginia is at now, or, I‘m proud of where Virginia is headed.
That‘s a very different feel than most folks would say about where our country is headed at this point. And I think that is because it has been about the state‘s interest first and not mine or the particular party.
People want government to deliver and they want it to do it efficiently and they like when actually your elected leaders don‘t spend all their time fighting each other.
---
LAMB: Where are you on the Iraq war?
WARNER: Where I am on the Iraq war is I think Democrats ought to spend less time re-fighting how we got into the war and more time figuring out where we go from here. I think the president has a responsibility as our commander-in-chief to be more forthcoming about his plan about how we finish.
But I think a couple of things. I think, number one, you know, I don‘t believe an arbitrary deadline should be set. I think we, regardless of whether we like how we got there, we need to finish the task.
Two, I think we need to continue to put pressure on the Shias and the Kurds to include the Sunnis so that we don‘t have a division in that country.
Three, I think we need to move more of the rebuilding resources into the hands of the Iraqis as opposed to the American contractors there where we‘re spending 30 cents on every dollar doing security for the outside contractors. The more we can get Iraqis actually involved in the reconstruction of their country, the more they‘re going to have a stake. And remember, this is a country that did function for 40 years.
And four, let me just – and this doesn‘t have as much to do with Iraq, but I think it‘s a debate that we need in this country. I mean, our American military – and Virginia has got the highest concentration of military of any state in the country, our military is so superior to everyone else in the world that we can take out the command and control functions of the bad guys so quickly, and that‘s good news, because it makes these conflicts very short, not just Iraq, Afghanistan, you know, Somalia, Bosnia, all of our recent incursions.
But one of the things that we have to grapple with is how do you reestablish civil authority? And on that piece our record has not been as good. And where is that role of reestablishing civil authority, turning on the water, turning on the power, whose job is that going to be?
The military understandably I think is reluctant to take on that role. But we‘ve got to have a discussion about that because what we‘re doing right now by not having that fully thought through and having this long deployment I see as commander-of-chief of our National Guard that unfortunately we are in many ways really harming our National Guards and Reserves because not only in terms of lack of equipment and training, but more importantly – or equally important, we‘re seeing these members, who are great patriots, serve and proud to serve in Iraq, but they‘re not re-upping.
Because if you‘re mid career, you know, you can be deployed once, but being deployed two and three times and having that in your future, you just can‘t do it. So we are going to have to have, I think, a real, honest debate in this country about the force structure of our military as well as how do we control these incursions after we take out the command and control of the bad guys?
---
---
LAMB: If you were to leave office today, you would leave with an 80 percent popularity rating. The poll I read just before this one came out was 74 percent of the Mason-Dixon poll, the highest of any governor they‘ve ever rated. How is this – how did you do this? I mean, they say you never can raise taxes and survive. So how did you do it?
WARNER: Well, Brian, you know, one of the things I found in Virginia is a little bit of truth goes a long way. We told the truth. We said, here you go, we put in place things that seem to rational to me as a former business guy but maybe weren‘t so rational in politics.
We put a requirement for a six-year financial plan. And I did 50 town hall meetings, I even went straight to the people and said, all right, here‘s where we have cut and now remember, we started with cuts, we didn‘t start on the revenue side. We started with cuts, then we went to reforms.
And then we said we‘ve got to end up with a way that says we can either lose our triple-A bond rating, not meet our minimum requirements to public schools, or we can end up with tax reform that‘s going to have us pay a little more.
Now Virginia is still a very low-tax state. We‘re somewhere between again – how you slice it dice it, between 38th and 41st in the nation in tax rate. But I think the reason why I‘ve got these approval ratings is not necessarily the tax reform plan, but I think it has been more the approach.
One, I‘ve got a very bipartisan administration. I remember when I got elected, about a third of my cabinet, a quarter of my cabinet was Republican. That made the Democrats mad because I wasn‘t putting just Democrats in. It made some of the hardcore on the Republicans mad because it was peeling off a lot of the moderates.
Most of what we‘ve tried to do in Virginia, whether it‘s our education reforms, our revitalization in our rural communities, hadn‘t been Democrat or Republican, it has been what is in Virginia‘s best interest?
And every time that we‘ve that appeal people in both parties have stepped up and we‘ve managed to work together. And the thing that I feel best about in Virginia, you know, those numbers may be ephemeral about whether they go up or down, but there‘s not a day that goes by that people don‘t come up to me and say, you know, Governor, I‘m proud of where Virginia is at now, or, I‘m proud of where Virginia is headed.
That‘s a very different feel than most folks would say about where our country is headed at this point. And I think that is because it has been about the state‘s interest first and not mine or the particular party.
People want government to deliver and they want it to do it efficiently and they like when actually your elected leaders don‘t spend all their time fighting each other.
---
LAMB: Where are you on the Iraq war?
WARNER: Where I am on the Iraq war is I think Democrats ought to spend less time re-fighting how we got into the war and more time figuring out where we go from here. I think the president has a responsibility as our commander-in-chief to be more forthcoming about his plan about how we finish.
But I think a couple of things. I think, number one, you know, I don‘t believe an arbitrary deadline should be set. I think we, regardless of whether we like how we got there, we need to finish the task.
Two, I think we need to continue to put pressure on the Shias and the Kurds to include the Sunnis so that we don‘t have a division in that country.
Three, I think we need to move more of the rebuilding resources into the hands of the Iraqis as opposed to the American contractors there where we‘re spending 30 cents on every dollar doing security for the outside contractors. The more we can get Iraqis actually involved in the reconstruction of their country, the more they‘re going to have a stake. And remember, this is a country that did function for 40 years.
And four, let me just – and this doesn‘t have as much to do with Iraq, but I think it‘s a debate that we need in this country. I mean, our American military – and Virginia has got the highest concentration of military of any state in the country, our military is so superior to everyone else in the world that we can take out the command and control functions of the bad guys so quickly, and that‘s good news, because it makes these conflicts very short, not just Iraq, Afghanistan, you know, Somalia, Bosnia, all of our recent incursions.
But one of the things that we have to grapple with is how do you reestablish civil authority? And on that piece our record has not been as good. And where is that role of reestablishing civil authority, turning on the water, turning on the power, whose job is that going to be?
The military understandably I think is reluctant to take on that role. But we‘ve got to have a discussion about that because what we‘re doing right now by not having that fully thought through and having this long deployment I see as commander-of-chief of our National Guard that unfortunately we are in many ways really harming our National Guards and Reserves because not only in terms of lack of equipment and training, but more importantly – or equally important, we‘re seeing these members, who are great patriots, serve and proud to serve in Iraq, but they‘re not re-upping.
Because if you‘re mid career, you know, you can be deployed once, but being deployed two and three times and having that in your future, you just can‘t do it. So we are going to have to have, I think, a real, honest debate in this country about the force structure of our military as well as how do we control these incursions after we take out the command and control of the bad guys?
---
November 4, 2005
To Vote For or To Vote Against
With another election day quickly approaching, and seeing a daily barrage of advertising in the Virginia's governor's race (vote for Kaine!), the issue of voting principles resurfaced in my mind. Specificially, the concept of voting for someone versus voting against someone. There is a difference.
Last November, when Americans were given the choices of Kerry and Bush at the ballot box, I believe the majority of voters who voted for Bush were voting for Bush whereas the majority of those who voted for Kerry, were voting against Bush. Any election that includes a candidate who is running for reelection to the position basically boils down to whether people think the politician did a good job or a bad job in their post. However, a candidate's campaign fuel cannot solely be based on hatred of the opponent. When there is a huge scandal with the office holder leaving in disgrace, sure it could work. However, especially in a close election like we knew the 2004 presidential election would be, a different strategy should have been employed. If a piece of broccoli had been the Democratic nominee, I bet the percentage of the anti-Bush vote would have been pretty close to what it was for Kerry.
In order to be a good American, you must vote. You may hate the candidates. It may be picking the lesser of two evils. But you must vote.
Here comes the challenge. Since you are voting regardless, never vote against somebody. That's right. You read me. Only vote for somebody. Instead of picking the candidate who is "not as bad" as the other, vote for the good, however little, in the candidate you select.
You may think they are boring. They may not have the proper grasp on the issues that you think they ought to have. They may have gone to a rival college (unless that is a dealbreaker in your candidate selection). But find something that you genuinely like about the guy or gal. There may be 99 bad things about them. But find the one. And vote for them because of it. Everyone has at least one good thing about them, right?
The simple swich to voting affirmatively for a candidate makes the whole process more enjoyable--with citizens voting for good charactistics of their candidate instead of against the bad qualities of the other. And if everybody started voting for candidates instead of against them, maybe we wouldn't be bombarded with the typical candidate's campaign ad which, if the disclaimer of "this ad was sponsored by..." were removed, you would only see attacks upon the other candidate without any mention of the guy actually paying for it. A bit idealistic on humanity and campaigns? Maybe. But I think it's worth a shot.
Last November, when Americans were given the choices of Kerry and Bush at the ballot box, I believe the majority of voters who voted for Bush were voting for Bush whereas the majority of those who voted for Kerry, were voting against Bush. Any election that includes a candidate who is running for reelection to the position basically boils down to whether people think the politician did a good job or a bad job in their post. However, a candidate's campaign fuel cannot solely be based on hatred of the opponent. When there is a huge scandal with the office holder leaving in disgrace, sure it could work. However, especially in a close election like we knew the 2004 presidential election would be, a different strategy should have been employed. If a piece of broccoli had been the Democratic nominee, I bet the percentage of the anti-Bush vote would have been pretty close to what it was for Kerry.
In order to be a good American, you must vote. You may hate the candidates. It may be picking the lesser of two evils. But you must vote.
Here comes the challenge. Since you are voting regardless, never vote against somebody. That's right. You read me. Only vote for somebody. Instead of picking the candidate who is "not as bad" as the other, vote for the good, however little, in the candidate you select.
You may think they are boring. They may not have the proper grasp on the issues that you think they ought to have. They may have gone to a rival college (unless that is a dealbreaker in your candidate selection). But find something that you genuinely like about the guy or gal. There may be 99 bad things about them. But find the one. And vote for them because of it. Everyone has at least one good thing about them, right?
The simple swich to voting affirmatively for a candidate makes the whole process more enjoyable--with citizens voting for good charactistics of their candidate instead of against the bad qualities of the other. And if everybody started voting for candidates instead of against them, maybe we wouldn't be bombarded with the typical candidate's campaign ad which, if the disclaimer of "this ad was sponsored by..." were removed, you would only see attacks upon the other candidate without any mention of the guy actually paying for it. A bit idealistic on humanity and campaigns? Maybe. But I think it's worth a shot.
November 2, 2005
A November Smorgasborg
Today I had a couple topics I considered posting about, and after much deliberation, I decided to post them all (albeit briefly). That's right. Four for the price of one!
1. Samuel Alito
During my daily online newsbriefing, I saw this article in the Los Angeles Times that talks about how many Democrats actually like Alito. They say that he is not one of those conservative idealogues who have a particular ideology and when deciding cases, make sure that they do whatever it takes to reach that goal. He considers context and uses reason in arriving at his decisions. He even ruled against some "driving while black" cases. This sure doesn't like the maniac who is on a mission to take the rights of women and minorities away! Or at least the judge that MoveOn.com wants me to think he is.
Here's a clip:
2. Michael Steele
The more the Democrats hate Michael Steele, the more it makes me like him. And the more I hope he wins. I am very moderate politically, here supporting a Republican for Senate, yet supporting a Democrat (Mark Warner) for president in 2008. (Do people like me still exist?) Anyway, here is an editorial from the Washington Times on the whole hoopla over Steve Gilliard's racist blog posting about Steele.
Here's a clip:
An article entitled 'Party trumps race' for Steele foes, talks about the liberal double standard in politics when it comes to racial issues:
The article goes on to describe one of the "big" issues that some have with Steele:
So it's okay for Democrats to use the same facility but not for Republicans? Or only if a black person joined the country club in Elkridge, it would make it alright for people to hold events there without being called racist? So, let's say that there is a country club somewhere and membership is solely whites and blacks, but no Asians are members. Would it be okay for me to say the members are racist because there are no Asians? I guess it would be okay!
And for all the talk that supposedly Steele was only chosen for his race, how does that figure into the equation for supporters of race based affirmative action? Wouldn't that then be a huge victory for AA supporters? And whoever is left standing after the Martin O'Malley/Doug Duncan battle for the Democratic nomination for governor, I think it is a forgone conclusion that his running mate will be black. So if a Democrat picks a black running mate, it is not racially motivated, but if he marks the box one inch over on his voter registration card and marks (R), it makes it so? I just don't understand.
3. Gene Weingarten
One of my favorite columnists for the Washington Post is, without a doubt, Gene Weingarten. He definitely has made many of those real life observations that once he says them, you see how true they are as they play themselves out over and over again, but before he writes one, you simply don't even think about it.
Here is a great article from last year which is extremely funny and true.
A Course in Wife Sciences: In the game of marriage, there are players, and there are men
4. John Kerry
One of my biggest regrets of 2004 is voting for John Kerry. Although I did hold my nose, close my eyes, and ask for forgiveness when voting for him, whatever respect I did have for him at the time has diminished each and every time I have seen him make a television appearance or read one of his emails.
The latest email sent to his enthusiastic "johnkerry.com community" is about his goal to "Help bring 20,000 troops home over the holidays." Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not opposed for troops being reunited with their families. Once they are no longer needed in Iraq, they should be brought home. But while there is stuff for them to do, it would make sense for them to be there to do it.
During his campaign, one of Kerry's pledges was to increase the number of troops on the ground in Iraq because according to all accounts that he heard, more help was needed. President Bush, after all, didn't know how to listen to the officers on the ground and their pleas for help. We were overextending our military, I thought.
But now, here we are with Kerry now saying we need to bring 20,000 troops home. I wish he'd just explain the significance of the number, and why he thought if less than a year ago we needed far more troops, and now we don't, if he wanted to either concede that the troops were making good progress or he was wrong in his initial assessment or if he was simply being Cindy Sheehan's voice in the Senate. With Kerry, you really don't know. It could be all or none of the above.
1. Samuel Alito
During my daily online newsbriefing, I saw this article in the Los Angeles Times that talks about how many Democrats actually like Alito. They say that he is not one of those conservative idealogues who have a particular ideology and when deciding cases, make sure that they do whatever it takes to reach that goal. He considers context and uses reason in arriving at his decisions. He even ruled against some "driving while black" cases. This sure doesn't like the maniac who is on a mission to take the rights of women and minorities away! Or at least the judge that MoveOn.com wants me to think he is.
Here's a clip:
"I grew up in New York City, and I'm a political independent. But I liked Judge Alito because he was a judicial conservative, someone who believed in judicial restraint and was committed to textualism," he said. "His approach leads to conservative results in some cases and progressive results in other cases. In my opinion, he is a fantastic jurist and a good guy."
Some of Alito's former Yale Law School classmates who describe themselves as Democrats say they expect they will not always agree with his rulings if he joins the Supreme Court. But they say he is the best they could have hoped for from among Bush's potential nominees.
"Sam is very smart, and he is unquestionably conservative," said Washington lawyer Mark I. Levy, who served in the Justice Department during the Carter and Clinton administrations. "But he is open-minded and fair. And he thinks about cases as a lawyer and a judge. He is really very different from [Justice Antonin] Scalia. If he is going to be like anyone on the court now, it will be John Roberts," the new chief justice.
2. Michael Steele
The more the Democrats hate Michael Steele, the more it makes me like him. And the more I hope he wins. I am very moderate politically, here supporting a Republican for Senate, yet supporting a Democrat (Mark Warner) for president in 2008. (Do people like me still exist?) Anyway, here is an editorial from the Washington Times on the whole hoopla over Steve Gilliard's racist blog posting about Steele.
Here's a clip:
The slurs are unfit for a family newspaper and cannot be reprinted here. But they are the same old sludge Democrats have been throwing at Mr. Steele for years -- attempts to equate Democratic talking points with the black agenda and suggestions that Mr. Steele isn't authentically "black." It's telling that Mr. Gilliard, a black New Yorker whose popular site gets an estimated 15,000 hits a day, is a newcomer to Maryland politics, since that confirms what practically everyone already knows: Mr. Steele unnerves liberals and Democrats everywhere simply by being a black Republican.
This has been going on since before Mr. Steele was elected as Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich's running mate. In 2001, Maryland State Senate President Mike Miller Jr. called Mr. Steele "an Uncle Tom."
In what must rank as one of its most shameful moments, the reliably liberal editorial board of the Baltimore Sun wrote during the 2002 gubernatorial campaign that Mr. Steele "brings little to the team but the color of his skin." It has since had to eat those words. Mr. Steele has gone on to be a leading member of Mr. Ehrlich's administration, as the Sun itself acknowledged Thursday in an editorial on Mr. Steele's Senate bid.
The political rabble has shown its ire in ugly racial terms, too. In 2002, during a campaign debate with then-Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Steele-bashers threw Oreo cookies at him.
An article entitled 'Party trumps race' for Steele foes, talks about the liberal double standard in politics when it comes to racial issues:
State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.
"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."
Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.
"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."
The article goes on to describe one of the "big" issues that some have with Steele:
Still, Mfume spokesman Joseph P. Trippi said Mr. Steele opens himself to such criticism by defending Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. for holding a Republican fundraiser in July at the all-white Elkridge Club in Baltimore.
"The facts are the facts. Ehrlich went to that country club, and Steele said it didn't bother him," Mr. Trippi said. "I think that says something ... and should be part of this debate."
Several club members told the Baltimore Sun that, though blacks are welcome as guests and there is no policy banning blacks from membership, the club never has had a black member in its 127-year history.
Democrats also have used the club for various events, including Peter O'Malley, brother of and adviser to Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, a Democratic candidate for governor. Peter O'Malley held his wedding reception there in 2003.
So it's okay for Democrats to use the same facility but not for Republicans? Or only if a black person joined the country club in Elkridge, it would make it alright for people to hold events there without being called racist? So, let's say that there is a country club somewhere and membership is solely whites and blacks, but no Asians are members. Would it be okay for me to say the members are racist because there are no Asians? I guess it would be okay!
And for all the talk that supposedly Steele was only chosen for his race, how does that figure into the equation for supporters of race based affirmative action? Wouldn't that then be a huge victory for AA supporters? And whoever is left standing after the Martin O'Malley/Doug Duncan battle for the Democratic nomination for governor, I think it is a forgone conclusion that his running mate will be black. So if a Democrat picks a black running mate, it is not racially motivated, but if he marks the box one inch over on his voter registration card and marks (R), it makes it so? I just don't understand.
3. Gene Weingarten
One of my favorite columnists for the Washington Post is, without a doubt, Gene Weingarten. He definitely has made many of those real life observations that once he says them, you see how true they are as they play themselves out over and over again, but before he writes one, you simply don't even think about it.
Here is a great article from last year which is extremely funny and true.
A Course in Wife Sciences: In the game of marriage, there are players, and there are men
4. John Kerry
One of my biggest regrets of 2004 is voting for John Kerry. Although I did hold my nose, close my eyes, and ask for forgiveness when voting for him, whatever respect I did have for him at the time has diminished each and every time I have seen him make a television appearance or read one of his emails.
The latest email sent to his enthusiastic "johnkerry.com community" is about his goal to "Help bring 20,000 troops home over the holidays." Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not opposed for troops being reunited with their families. Once they are no longer needed in Iraq, they should be brought home. But while there is stuff for them to do, it would make sense for them to be there to do it.
During his campaign, one of Kerry's pledges was to increase the number of troops on the ground in Iraq because according to all accounts that he heard, more help was needed. President Bush, after all, didn't know how to listen to the officers on the ground and their pleas for help. We were overextending our military, I thought.
But now, here we are with Kerry now saying we need to bring 20,000 troops home. I wish he'd just explain the significance of the number, and why he thought if less than a year ago we needed far more troops, and now we don't, if he wanted to either concede that the troops were making good progress or he was wrong in his initial assessment or if he was simply being Cindy Sheehan's voice in the Senate. With Kerry, you really don't know. It could be all or none of the above.
November 1, 2005
Some Mark Warner articles
So there have been a few articles about Mark Warner in the past couple months which I failed to read when they first came out so I could share them with all of you, faithful readers of my blog.
Chasing Bubba - The Mark Warner 2008 prospectus
A Chance Peak at Warner's Ambitions - Talks about the significance of Warner's PAC website.
House Democrats Hitch Wagon to Warner - Talks about the long, beautiful coattails of Governor Warner in Virgina
Netting an Elusive Breed - by Mark Warner last fall. Talks about education.
Chasing Bubba - The Mark Warner 2008 prospectus
A Chance Peak at Warner's Ambitions - Talks about the significance of Warner's PAC website.
House Democrats Hitch Wagon to Warner - Talks about the long, beautiful coattails of Governor Warner in Virgina
Netting an Elusive Breed - by Mark Warner last fall. Talks about education.
My Profile
1) Your name: Ryan Abel
2) Location: Washington, DC by day, Silver Spring, Maryland by night
3) Age: 23
4) Job: Somewhere deep inside the pharmaceutical industry
5) Horoscope sign: I'd have to look it up... December 15 is my birthday
6) Eye color: Oh so chocolately
7) Original hair color: Black
8) Current hair color: Black with a smattering of silver
9) Smoker: Fortunately, no.
10) Favorite food: Anything with grilled chicken, green peppers, and onions (i.e. chicken fajita from Chipotle)
11) Favorite ice cream flavor: Edy's Double Fudge Brownie
12) Favorite drink or beverage: Lemonade
13) Favorite restaurant: Chi Chi Chi Chipotle.
14) Favorite color: Orange
15) Favorite actor: Tony Shaloub
16) Favorite actress: Dakota Fanning
17) Favorite TV Show: Monk, The West Wing, Lost
18) Favorite Movie: Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
19) Favorite song: Currently, "Wholly Yours" by the David Crowder Band.
20) Favorite musician or group: I love some good music, so I can't just go with one. My top six: Donnie McClurkin, Shaun Groves, David Crowder Band, Israel & New Breed, Fred Hammond, and Shawn McDonald.
21) Favorite animal: The Diamondback Terrapin
22) Favorite subject: God, government, and politics
23) What are you listening to right now: The ice I'm crushing in my mouth.
24) Day or Night? Depends on what's happening. Definately not much of a morning person, but I do like the sunlight of the day and the relaxation of night.
25) Summer or winter? Summer, most definately.
26) Beatles or Elvis? Both. Or Neither.
27) What brings you the most joy: The moment you realize you have a true friend.
28) What’s your greatest fear: Winning the lottery.
29) Who/where do you go to for advice: God, my buddies MD or RC, or somebody depending on the need.
30) One word that describes you best: Ummm.. nice?
2) Location: Washington, DC by day, Silver Spring, Maryland by night
3) Age: 23
4) Job: Somewhere deep inside the pharmaceutical industry
5) Horoscope sign: I'd have to look it up... December 15 is my birthday
6) Eye color: Oh so chocolately
7) Original hair color: Black
8) Current hair color: Black with a smattering of silver
9) Smoker: Fortunately, no.
10) Favorite food: Anything with grilled chicken, green peppers, and onions (i.e. chicken fajita from Chipotle)
11) Favorite ice cream flavor: Edy's Double Fudge Brownie
12) Favorite drink or beverage: Lemonade
13) Favorite restaurant: Chi Chi Chi Chipotle.
14) Favorite color: Orange
15) Favorite actor: Tony Shaloub
16) Favorite actress: Dakota Fanning
17) Favorite TV Show: Monk, The West Wing, Lost
18) Favorite Movie: Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
19) Favorite song: Currently, "Wholly Yours" by the David Crowder Band.
20) Favorite musician or group: I love some good music, so I can't just go with one. My top six: Donnie McClurkin, Shaun Groves, David Crowder Band, Israel & New Breed, Fred Hammond, and Shawn McDonald.
21) Favorite animal: The Diamondback Terrapin
22) Favorite subject: God, government, and politics
23) What are you listening to right now: The ice I'm crushing in my mouth.
24) Day or Night? Depends on what's happening. Definately not much of a morning person, but I do like the sunlight of the day and the relaxation of night.
25) Summer or winter? Summer, most definately.
26) Beatles or Elvis? Both. Or Neither.
27) What brings you the most joy: The moment you realize you have a true friend.
28) What’s your greatest fear: Winning the lottery.
29) Who/where do you go to for advice: God, my buddies MD or RC, or somebody depending on the need.
30) One word that describes you best: Ummm.. nice?
October 31, 2005
On Harriet Miers
Now that the whole Harriet Miers fiasco is over, and a replacement Supreme Court nominee has been put forward, there were two things that struck me.
The first was that as soon as Miers withdrew, all of the people who initially came forward issuing statements expressing disappointment were Democrats and liberal groups. Generally speaking, the theme of the comments dealt with the fact that President Bush's decisions were being dictated by the extreme right of his party. Specifically, Senator Harry Reid, Democratic Minority Leader stated, "The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination."
Now, with the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, who Reid had previously warned President Bush not to pick said, "I think it would create a lot of problems."
That should tell you something. All issues aside, politically speaking Miers obviously was not a smart choice. People from the opposing political party were on your side and members of your own are against you. Bad decision. And now, with the new guy nominated, the leader of the opposition party opposes your decision and your own party supports it. Good decision.
If your party has a solid majority in the Senate, your really shouldn't need to condede anything. If the tables were turned, and we had a Democratic president with the Democrats controlling the Senate and the Republicans were significantly opposed to the president's selection, should the Democrats care or cave to Republican concerns? Would it be nice in terms of bipartisanship and political unity? Yes. Is it necessary? No.
The second thing that struck me was James Dobson's (founder of Christian evangelical Focus on the Family) initial glowing support of Miers, but after her withdrawal, his expression of reservations of her sitting on the bench.
Should he have waited until after she withdrew to express this? No. So this leads to the question of whether his leadership is truly about the issues or if it is merely the maintence of a Republican voting bloc. There is a great article I read this morning that examines this issue precicely by W. James Antle, III called: Dobson's Choice: Values Voting or Evangelical Identity Politics.
I believe that Christian voters should support candidates whose values that they share. And leaders of Christian organizations have a responsibility to make it clear that they actually support the issues instead of merely endorsing a candidate for political purposes.
The upcoming battle over the Alito (a.k.a. Scalito) nomination will surely be an interesting one. Let's see how it turns out.
The first was that as soon as Miers withdrew, all of the people who initially came forward issuing statements expressing disappointment were Democrats and liberal groups. Generally speaking, the theme of the comments dealt with the fact that President Bush's decisions were being dictated by the extreme right of his party. Specifically, Senator Harry Reid, Democratic Minority Leader stated, "The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination."
Now, with the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, who Reid had previously warned President Bush not to pick said, "I think it would create a lot of problems."
That should tell you something. All issues aside, politically speaking Miers obviously was not a smart choice. People from the opposing political party were on your side and members of your own are against you. Bad decision. And now, with the new guy nominated, the leader of the opposition party opposes your decision and your own party supports it. Good decision.
If your party has a solid majority in the Senate, your really shouldn't need to condede anything. If the tables were turned, and we had a Democratic president with the Democrats controlling the Senate and the Republicans were significantly opposed to the president's selection, should the Democrats care or cave to Republican concerns? Would it be nice in terms of bipartisanship and political unity? Yes. Is it necessary? No.
The second thing that struck me was James Dobson's (founder of Christian evangelical Focus on the Family) initial glowing support of Miers, but after her withdrawal, his expression of reservations of her sitting on the bench.
Should he have waited until after she withdrew to express this? No. So this leads to the question of whether his leadership is truly about the issues or if it is merely the maintence of a Republican voting bloc. There is a great article I read this morning that examines this issue precicely by W. James Antle, III called: Dobson's Choice: Values Voting or Evangelical Identity Politics.
I believe that Christian voters should support candidates whose values that they share. And leaders of Christian organizations have a responsibility to make it clear that they actually support the issues instead of merely endorsing a candidate for political purposes.
The upcoming battle over the Alito (a.k.a. Scalito) nomination will surely be an interesting one. Let's see how it turns out.
October 28, 2005
The Sensible Center
A red-state Democratic governor explains how Democrats can win again with a positive agenda for the future.
By Mark Warner
Let me tell you about life in today's Washington.
In today's Washington, a fiscal conservative is someone who thinks the deficits can go on forever. He thinks that you can make the cost of the war go away by using Enronesque budgeting tactics of simply taking the costs off the balance sheet.
In today's Washington, politicians work deep into the night to try to write laws to interfere with the family of Terry Schiavo and ignore the fact that there are 45 million Americans with no health care at all.
In today's Washington, politicians refuse to unlock stem-cell research that could change the lives of millions of Americans with potentially curable diseases.
In today's Washington -- we see it day in and day out -- the heroes are political operatives whose only goal is to find the nastiest way to ruin their opponents, even if at the cost of our national security.
In today's Washington, it's all about the issues that divide us and about settling the scores of the past.
Yet in the heartland, in states like Virginia, folks are looking for something else, something I call the sensible center. The sensible center is wide open for any Democrat who can credibly make the case.
For years, the right wing of the Republican Party has asked its candidates to take socially extreme positions that are outside the mainstream. For the most part, those candidates took those positions, but once elected they only paid lip service to them. Some of that changed after the 2004 elections. They said, hold it: We control the White House, the Congress, the courts, the majority of the statehouses. Why aren't we getting our due? So now the right wing is asking for its pound of flesh -- on Terri Schiavo, stem cells, and a whole new series of litmus tests. Combine these actions with a failed fiscal policy and America's damaged reputation in the world, and that means a whole lot of moderate Republicans who consider themselves part of that sensible center are looking for a home. We Democrats can bring them back.
This is not some esoteric theory. I'm living proof of its accuracy. I'm very proud of the fact that I had a united Democratic Party behind me. But I would not be governor of one of the reddest states in America -- Virginia -- if I also hadn't been able to get support from a lot of independents and moderate Republicans. If Democrats are going to become the majority party in America again, we've got to do that all over the country.
How do we do that? We start by simply telling the truth; by being straight with people on issues from fiscal matters to America's role in the world. We do it by recognizing that in 2005, the issues in this country are no longer left versus right or liberal versus conservative; they are about the future versus the past. The Democratic Party has always been at its best when we've looked to the future. It's been our heritage. Roosevelt led us through the Depression and the Second World War. Kennedy challenged us to put a man on the moon. Clinton led us through the greatest economic expansion in American history. That is our Democratic record. We've done it before and we can do it again.
Sensible solutions. It's that legacy that inspired me. I came into office after a winning campaign that included a lot of folks in rural Virginia who hadn't voted Democrat in a long time. I've had some success in governing Virginia because we've focused on sensible solutions that look to that future.
When I was elected following a Republican governor, we first of all had to get our fiscal house in order. Virginia was a state in the red. My predecessor, who had been the chairman of the Republican National Committee, left me a budget shortfall six times greater than he publicly stated.
But we also used that crisis as a chance to totally reform Virginia state government.
We then went about reforming our tax code with a Republican legislature. That allowed us to make historic new investments in education, the key to our future. We kept the focus on making our academics more rigorous, and we made sure that those new dollars were held accountable in how they were spent in our schools.
Virginia today has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the whole country. Virginia has a booming economy. And after a two-year independent study by Governing magazine, Virginia was named the best-managed state in the country.
We did all this by focusing on what's important for the future of Virginia, not what's politically expedient. We did it with support from legislators of both parties. We found common ground in the sensible center. Imagine if that was the way it was done in Washington.
We live in an extraordinary time in America. Our challenges are enormous. American men and women in uniform are deployed around the globe on dangerous missions, in dangerous places, raising valid questions about the strength and size of our armed forces. We're in a struggle with a new enemy that can strike anywhere at any time, in a war unlike any that we have fought before.
Here at home, economic change is happening more rapidly than any of us thought possible. We feel like we're paying too much at the pump. We feel like we're spending too much time away from home. We worry that our jobs may be outsourced to Bangalore.
As a nation, we're getting older. Our social safety nets -- Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security -- need attention. Medicaid will bankrupt most states by 2020. Increasingly, there are going to be fewer workers responsible for more older Americans.
We actually run the risk of being the first generation in American history to leave behind a country weaker than the one we were born in.
A few months ago, I led a trade mission to India. I saw a number of things there that speak to me about where we need to be as a nation. I was struck by the crushing poverty. But I also saw something incredibly hopeful and inspiring. There was a project called the Hole in the Wall. Computers were literally placed in a hole in a concrete wall with a little tin roof over it. They turned on the computers in the morning; they turned them off at night. No teachers. I met a kid named Samir. He asked me how to spell my name so he could Google me. And these young people were emailing and instant messaging. They were doing exactly the same thing that my own daughters do with their computers at home.
The kids were remarkable. This experience said to me that the race is on for the future. Who's going to own it? Who's going to get there first? This is America's next great challenge, and we must start preparing right now.
I don't think we're prepared. Consider this: at a time when a commitment to education, technology, and research and development has never been more important, American R&D as a percentage of GDP has fallen to one-sixth in the world. The United States ranks 11th in the world in broadband deployment. Less than 15 percent of our high school students take enough science and math to qualify for any kind of engineering or advanced science in college. India alone produces four times more engineers each year than the United States. Our 15-year-olds now rank 28th in the world in math scores.
These are stark realities. We've got to face them. In Virginia, we have put down 700 miles of broadband in our rural communities so folks don't have to leave home to find a quality job. Even though our economy is booming, we still have 700,000 working-age adults -- nearly 20 percent of Virginia's workforce -- without a high school diploma. These people worked in jobs like textile, furniture, and tobacco. We partnered with NASCAR and started a "Race to the GED" program, encouraging people to go back and get a certificate so they can qualify for 21st century jobs.
In our high schools, no matter how rural, no matter how urban, we are offering the opportunity for students who are college bound to earn one semester's worth of fully transferable college credits -- get a jump start on college. We're saving parents $7,000 off the cost of higher education.
For non-college-bound students, we're saying, "Work with us." We'll guarantee you not only a diploma, but also an industry-recognized certification: computer technician, auto mechanic, nurse's aide. If that requires courses at the community college beyond high school, as part of our K-12 deal we will pick up the cost. We'll make sure you've got industry certification so that you can go out and get a good paying job as opposed to a minimum wage job.
We're also starting to reduce the perverse incentive that puts our least experienced teachers into our most underperforming schools. We're recruiting highly successful teachers and paying them a $15,000 bonus to go into our underperforming schools for three years.
Our goal is nothing less than to make the Virginia workforce the best educated, most innovative, best connected one in the country. We want Virginians to compete against anyone in the global economy. We should be doing it all over the country.
We don't have the luxury of waiting.
The last few years have seen the virtual elimination of time and space between Boston and Bangalore, between Shanghai and Chicago. These changes are affecting how we live, where we live, how we educate our kids, how we deliver health care, how we protect and preserve our national security. The rate of change is now on steroids. It's accelerating in an ever-quickening pace.
America no longer has the luxury of business as usual in Washington where they study, debate, disagree, go home, and put things off until the next Congress. The status quo is not going to cut it.
America is a country that was born of revolution, and Americans' best values are hard work and innovation. Our country has always been at its best when we've given everyone a fair shake and their own shot at the American dream.
It's always been Democrats who have always been able to see a little bit farther down that road. We are ready to shake things up. The time is right for us to lead again.
(DLC | Blueprint Magazine | October 21, 2005)
By Mark Warner
Let me tell you about life in today's Washington.
In today's Washington, a fiscal conservative is someone who thinks the deficits can go on forever. He thinks that you can make the cost of the war go away by using Enronesque budgeting tactics of simply taking the costs off the balance sheet.
In today's Washington, politicians work deep into the night to try to write laws to interfere with the family of Terry Schiavo and ignore the fact that there are 45 million Americans with no health care at all.
In today's Washington, politicians refuse to unlock stem-cell research that could change the lives of millions of Americans with potentially curable diseases.
In today's Washington -- we see it day in and day out -- the heroes are political operatives whose only goal is to find the nastiest way to ruin their opponents, even if at the cost of our national security.
In today's Washington, it's all about the issues that divide us and about settling the scores of the past.
Yet in the heartland, in states like Virginia, folks are looking for something else, something I call the sensible center. The sensible center is wide open for any Democrat who can credibly make the case.
For years, the right wing of the Republican Party has asked its candidates to take socially extreme positions that are outside the mainstream. For the most part, those candidates took those positions, but once elected they only paid lip service to them. Some of that changed after the 2004 elections. They said, hold it: We control the White House, the Congress, the courts, the majority of the statehouses. Why aren't we getting our due? So now the right wing is asking for its pound of flesh -- on Terri Schiavo, stem cells, and a whole new series of litmus tests. Combine these actions with a failed fiscal policy and America's damaged reputation in the world, and that means a whole lot of moderate Republicans who consider themselves part of that sensible center are looking for a home. We Democrats can bring them back.
This is not some esoteric theory. I'm living proof of its accuracy. I'm very proud of the fact that I had a united Democratic Party behind me. But I would not be governor of one of the reddest states in America -- Virginia -- if I also hadn't been able to get support from a lot of independents and moderate Republicans. If Democrats are going to become the majority party in America again, we've got to do that all over the country.
How do we do that? We start by simply telling the truth; by being straight with people on issues from fiscal matters to America's role in the world. We do it by recognizing that in 2005, the issues in this country are no longer left versus right or liberal versus conservative; they are about the future versus the past. The Democratic Party has always been at its best when we've looked to the future. It's been our heritage. Roosevelt led us through the Depression and the Second World War. Kennedy challenged us to put a man on the moon. Clinton led us through the greatest economic expansion in American history. That is our Democratic record. We've done it before and we can do it again.
Sensible solutions. It's that legacy that inspired me. I came into office after a winning campaign that included a lot of folks in rural Virginia who hadn't voted Democrat in a long time. I've had some success in governing Virginia because we've focused on sensible solutions that look to that future.
When I was elected following a Republican governor, we first of all had to get our fiscal house in order. Virginia was a state in the red. My predecessor, who had been the chairman of the Republican National Committee, left me a budget shortfall six times greater than he publicly stated.
But we also used that crisis as a chance to totally reform Virginia state government.
We then went about reforming our tax code with a Republican legislature. That allowed us to make historic new investments in education, the key to our future. We kept the focus on making our academics more rigorous, and we made sure that those new dollars were held accountable in how they were spent in our schools.
Virginia today has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the whole country. Virginia has a booming economy. And after a two-year independent study by Governing magazine, Virginia was named the best-managed state in the country.
We did all this by focusing on what's important for the future of Virginia, not what's politically expedient. We did it with support from legislators of both parties. We found common ground in the sensible center. Imagine if that was the way it was done in Washington.
We live in an extraordinary time in America. Our challenges are enormous. American men and women in uniform are deployed around the globe on dangerous missions, in dangerous places, raising valid questions about the strength and size of our armed forces. We're in a struggle with a new enemy that can strike anywhere at any time, in a war unlike any that we have fought before.
Here at home, economic change is happening more rapidly than any of us thought possible. We feel like we're paying too much at the pump. We feel like we're spending too much time away from home. We worry that our jobs may be outsourced to Bangalore.
As a nation, we're getting older. Our social safety nets -- Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security -- need attention. Medicaid will bankrupt most states by 2020. Increasingly, there are going to be fewer workers responsible for more older Americans.
We actually run the risk of being the first generation in American history to leave behind a country weaker than the one we were born in.
A few months ago, I led a trade mission to India. I saw a number of things there that speak to me about where we need to be as a nation. I was struck by the crushing poverty. But I also saw something incredibly hopeful and inspiring. There was a project called the Hole in the Wall. Computers were literally placed in a hole in a concrete wall with a little tin roof over it. They turned on the computers in the morning; they turned them off at night. No teachers. I met a kid named Samir. He asked me how to spell my name so he could Google me. And these young people were emailing and instant messaging. They were doing exactly the same thing that my own daughters do with their computers at home.
The kids were remarkable. This experience said to me that the race is on for the future. Who's going to own it? Who's going to get there first? This is America's next great challenge, and we must start preparing right now.
I don't think we're prepared. Consider this: at a time when a commitment to education, technology, and research and development has never been more important, American R&D as a percentage of GDP has fallen to one-sixth in the world. The United States ranks 11th in the world in broadband deployment. Less than 15 percent of our high school students take enough science and math to qualify for any kind of engineering or advanced science in college. India alone produces four times more engineers each year than the United States. Our 15-year-olds now rank 28th in the world in math scores.
These are stark realities. We've got to face them. In Virginia, we have put down 700 miles of broadband in our rural communities so folks don't have to leave home to find a quality job. Even though our economy is booming, we still have 700,000 working-age adults -- nearly 20 percent of Virginia's workforce -- without a high school diploma. These people worked in jobs like textile, furniture, and tobacco. We partnered with NASCAR and started a "Race to the GED" program, encouraging people to go back and get a certificate so they can qualify for 21st century jobs.
In our high schools, no matter how rural, no matter how urban, we are offering the opportunity for students who are college bound to earn one semester's worth of fully transferable college credits -- get a jump start on college. We're saving parents $7,000 off the cost of higher education.
For non-college-bound students, we're saying, "Work with us." We'll guarantee you not only a diploma, but also an industry-recognized certification: computer technician, auto mechanic, nurse's aide. If that requires courses at the community college beyond high school, as part of our K-12 deal we will pick up the cost. We'll make sure you've got industry certification so that you can go out and get a good paying job as opposed to a minimum wage job.
We're also starting to reduce the perverse incentive that puts our least experienced teachers into our most underperforming schools. We're recruiting highly successful teachers and paying them a $15,000 bonus to go into our underperforming schools for three years.
Our goal is nothing less than to make the Virginia workforce the best educated, most innovative, best connected one in the country. We want Virginians to compete against anyone in the global economy. We should be doing it all over the country.
We don't have the luxury of waiting.
The last few years have seen the virtual elimination of time and space between Boston and Bangalore, between Shanghai and Chicago. These changes are affecting how we live, where we live, how we educate our kids, how we deliver health care, how we protect and preserve our national security. The rate of change is now on steroids. It's accelerating in an ever-quickening pace.
America no longer has the luxury of business as usual in Washington where they study, debate, disagree, go home, and put things off until the next Congress. The status quo is not going to cut it.
America is a country that was born of revolution, and Americans' best values are hard work and innovation. Our country has always been at its best when we've given everyone a fair shake and their own shot at the American dream.
It's always been Democrats who have always been able to see a little bit farther down that road. We are ready to shake things up. The time is right for us to lead again.
(DLC | Blueprint Magazine | October 21, 2005)
October 27, 2005
Rising Kaine
Yesterday, I was reading blog posts across the internet about the Michael Steele announcement when I stumbled upon a blog which was extremely racist. The News Blog is operated by some guy named Steve Gilliard (apparently he is a somewhat well known blogger). There was a post regarding Steele's announcement where there is a doctored picture of him with the caption, "I's Simple Sambo and I's running for the Big House." You've got to see it to believe it.
Obviously, Gilliard is a liberal democrat.
So today, Tim Kaine's campaign (Democratic nominee for governor in Virginia,) requested that the site stop running ads that they had previously paid for. No reason was given as to why they wanted to stop running the ads but it is a bit obvious. But according to Steve Gilliard, Kaine is a coward.
Gilliard is miffed that the Kaine campaign didn't ask him to explain his actions before pulling the plug on the ads. Because if they had actually engaged him on the issue, they would surely change their minds! It was merely satirical after all. How could the Kaine campaign be so rude?
I've read some comments about the picture from people from both sides of the political spectrum but something jumped out at me. Gilliard is (apparently) black. One of his defenses was that people didn't take the time to find out that he was black. So does that make it ok? So if he was white and made the same racist picture, would it then be wrong? What if the tables were turned and it was a white conservative blogger who made the same picture for a black Democratic candidate for office? No doubt there would be a huge uproar by liberals everywhere slamming how insensitive the blogger was being. Apologies would be demanded. Politicians would be required to denounce the remarks. But luckily, it is a liberal making the racist statement and the victim is a black Republican. Those types of blacks are sell-outs to their race anyway, right?
Tim Kaine, I am so glad that your campaign no longer advertises on that racist site. Too bad you couldn't have quit sooner, or rather simply not advertised on there in the first place.
The sad part is unlike skinheads who are knowingly racist, this new generation of racists simply can't understand how racist they are. And they actually think that their actions are good!
Sometimes actions are all you need. It doesn't matter how you feel you need to explain what you have done and why you think it is okay. Wrong is wrong. And you, Steve Gilliard, are wrong. Once the campaign withdrew their advertising, instead of realizing, "Hmm... maybe, just maybe I have done something offensive" he goes on the defensive saying the problem is with Kaine. Um, sorry buddy. It's jerks like you that are the problem.
While I am not a Virginian who can vote in their election, I would most certainly cast my vote for Tim Kaine. Not only because he is Mark Warner's Lt. Governor and actually has a positive message and results to back them up, but because he makes racists like Steve Gilliard angry. Now, if only I could find a t-shirt that said, "MAKE A RACIST LIBERAL MAD. VOTE TIM KAINE."
Obviously, Gilliard is a liberal democrat.
So today, Tim Kaine's campaign (Democratic nominee for governor in Virginia,) requested that the site stop running ads that they had previously paid for. No reason was given as to why they wanted to stop running the ads but it is a bit obvious. But according to Steve Gilliard, Kaine is a coward.
Gilliard is miffed that the Kaine campaign didn't ask him to explain his actions before pulling the plug on the ads. Because if they had actually engaged him on the issue, they would surely change their minds! It was merely satirical after all. How could the Kaine campaign be so rude?
I've read some comments about the picture from people from both sides of the political spectrum but something jumped out at me. Gilliard is (apparently) black. One of his defenses was that people didn't take the time to find out that he was black. So does that make it ok? So if he was white and made the same racist picture, would it then be wrong? What if the tables were turned and it was a white conservative blogger who made the same picture for a black Democratic candidate for office? No doubt there would be a huge uproar by liberals everywhere slamming how insensitive the blogger was being. Apologies would be demanded. Politicians would be required to denounce the remarks. But luckily, it is a liberal making the racist statement and the victim is a black Republican. Those types of blacks are sell-outs to their race anyway, right?
Tim Kaine, I am so glad that your campaign no longer advertises on that racist site. Too bad you couldn't have quit sooner, or rather simply not advertised on there in the first place.
The sad part is unlike skinheads who are knowingly racist, this new generation of racists simply can't understand how racist they are. And they actually think that their actions are good!
Sometimes actions are all you need. It doesn't matter how you feel you need to explain what you have done and why you think it is okay. Wrong is wrong. And you, Steve Gilliard, are wrong. Once the campaign withdrew their advertising, instead of realizing, "Hmm... maybe, just maybe I have done something offensive" he goes on the defensive saying the problem is with Kaine. Um, sorry buddy. It's jerks like you that are the problem.
While I am not a Virginian who can vote in their election, I would most certainly cast my vote for Tim Kaine. Not only because he is Mark Warner's Lt. Governor and actually has a positive message and results to back them up, but because he makes racists like Steve Gilliard angry. Now, if only I could find a t-shirt that said, "MAKE A RACIST LIBERAL MAD. VOTE TIM KAINE."
October 26, 2005
Antiwar Brit Funded by Saddam?
The US Senate is currently investigating whether anti-Iraq war British Parliament Member George Galloway received funds from Saddam Hussein via the UN Oil-for-Food program.
Here are the five allegations from the Senate subcommittee:
Click here for the complete article from Vcrisis.
Here's an article from the British newspaper The Independent.
You can find a lot more information on this simply by searching for Galloway's name on Google. It would be quite interesting to find out if this is true, and if it is, whether it is an isolated incident or if there are other European leaders who were similarly anti-war whose special interest groups included Saddam Hussein.
Here are the five allegations from the Senate subcommittee:
1. Galloway personally solicited and was granted oil allocations from the Government of Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein. The Hussein regime granted Galloway and the Mariam Appeal eight allocations totaling 23 million barrels from 1999 through 2003;
2. Galloway's wife, Dr. Amineh Abu-Zayyad, received approximately $150,000 in connection with one of those oil allocations;
3. Galloway's political campaign, the Mariam Appeal, received at least $446,000 in connection with the oil allocations granted to Galloway and the Mariam Appeal under the Oil-for-Food Program;
4. The Hussein regime received improper "surcharge" payments amounting to $1,642,000.65 in connection with the oil allocations granted to Galloway and the Mariam Appeal; and
5. Galloway knowingly made false or misleading statements under oath before the Subcommittee at its hearing on May 17, 2005;
Click here for the complete article from Vcrisis.
Here's an article from the British newspaper The Independent.
You can find a lot more information on this simply by searching for Galloway's name on Google. It would be quite interesting to find out if this is true, and if it is, whether it is an isolated incident or if there are other European leaders who were similarly anti-war whose special interest groups included Saddam Hussein.
Control Me
A friend sent me this article today. It is quite freaky.
Here's a clip:
Remote Control Device 'Controls' Humans
Here's a clip:
The technology is called galvanic vestibular stimulation — essentially, electricity messes with the delicate nerves inside the ear that help maintain balance.
I felt a mysterious, irresistible urge to start walking to the right whenever the researcher turned the switch to the right. I was convinced — mistakenly — that this was the only way to maintain my balance.
The phenomenon is painless but dramatic. Your feet start to move before you know it. I could even remote-control myself by taking the switch into my own hands.
Remote Control Device 'Controls' Humans
October 25, 2005
Michael Steele for Senate
Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele today formally announced he will run for the U.S. Senate, recasting the successful political partnership that enabled him to become the first African American elected to statewide office.
Article here.
Today Michael Steele made it official... he's running for Senate. Not that today's announcement was a surprise to anybody. But this race surely will be an interesting one, and one that I will follow closely.
I, for one, think that he will make a good addition to the Senate. Check out his website for today's announcement speech. The site really could use some work, though. I think even I could have made a better one...
All politics aside, every once in a while a politican comes around that seems like he or she is actually a decent human being. Mike Steele is one of them.
October 24, 2005
What is a Friend(ster)?
After years of deliberately not joining online communities, a few months ago I caved and joined Friendster. Previously, I regularly received those email invites to join and reassure somebody of our friendship, but I just wasn't having it. I just saw it as too much work to keep a personal page updated. Yes, I can be that lazy.
After finally giving in to joining, I decided it would be fine because since "everybody" was on it, I could at least maintain some sort of contact with old friends from high school, those who have moved away, as well as just people who I am connected with but just don't get a chance to see that often.
When I signed up, I was sure that everyone on my Friendster list would be people I personally knew. Or rather, those whose first names I knew and could pull out of a lineup if I needed to. But I learned with Friendster, this isn't really the case. It is possible to have a Friendster whose personality you couldn't describe or face you couldn't identify even if your life depended on it.
I learned that there is a difference between a friend and a friendster.
Here are some of the post-joining dilemnas that I currently face.
1. The Friendster rejection.
Often I have received buddy requests from people who I don't know. People who maybe I should know, but for some reason I don't. Or maybe they know me, but I don't know them. Whatever the case may be, once you receive one such request, you have to decide either to reject them or simply ignore them. Both of which seem to be rather mean responses to these purported friends of yours. And being mean is just, well... mean.
2. Insanity
Whenever you have a "community" where people are connected by keyboards and monitors instead of face to face contact, you are sure to find a higher than normal percentage of oddballs who want to be your friend.
Here is a message I actually received on Friendster:
I seriously considered changing my name after reading this. Maybe something like Horace? or Alpern?
3. Creativity
I have no creativity to make a cool looking profile. It makes me feel inadequate as a human being. People have professional looking pictures where they wear nice clothing and stare off to the distance. Or look at the camera seductively. I go with webcam pics that make me look like an alien. Life doesn't get much harder than that!
4. Friendster mongerers
I know I have been asked to become Friendsters with people only because they need to win the "I have the most friends" award. When getting such invites, I wonder to myself if I should be a participant in their game, or this obsession that the inviter has. Its kind of like getting with a player fulling knowing you are getting played. I mean, who wants to be one of 500 other friendsters on a list? I mean, you are nothing but a conquest to them. But yet, you go along with it anyway. And you are getting played online for goodness sakes, without any of the in person benefits.
5. The harm of cancellation
Every now and then, I think about cancelling my Friendster membership. But I don't go along with it simply because now that I have made contact with some people, it would be a shame to cut those ties. Even though they are online ties. But prior to joining Friendster, connections were lost but now that some have been regained, it seems a shame to lose them once again. Or what if by once being a friendster and then not being somebody's friendster later, the individual thinks that you don't want to be their friend anymore even though you are just sick of Friendster? Quitting is rough...
My conclusion is this: Friendster is a cult. Where else can you meet up with folks from the looney bin who obsess over the perception of themselves by others, fear rejection, who go all out with their membership, and keep you locked in the fold?
Don't join, because once you're in, you are stuck.
And you become a friendster. You feel a strange tingling and then it's done.
Save yourself. It's too late for me...I'm one of them now.
And don't worry. We can still be friends, but not friendsters. Being friends is cooler, anyway.
After finally giving in to joining, I decided it would be fine because since "everybody" was on it, I could at least maintain some sort of contact with old friends from high school, those who have moved away, as well as just people who I am connected with but just don't get a chance to see that often.
When I signed up, I was sure that everyone on my Friendster list would be people I personally knew. Or rather, those whose first names I knew and could pull out of a lineup if I needed to. But I learned with Friendster, this isn't really the case. It is possible to have a Friendster whose personality you couldn't describe or face you couldn't identify even if your life depended on it.
I learned that there is a difference between a friend and a friendster.
Here are some of the post-joining dilemnas that I currently face.
1. The Friendster rejection.
Often I have received buddy requests from people who I don't know. People who maybe I should know, but for some reason I don't. Or maybe they know me, but I don't know them. Whatever the case may be, once you receive one such request, you have to decide either to reject them or simply ignore them. Both of which seem to be rather mean responses to these purported friends of yours. And being mean is just, well... mean.
2. Insanity
Whenever you have a "community" where people are connected by keyboards and monitors instead of face to face contact, you are sure to find a higher than normal percentage of oddballs who want to be your friend.
Here is a message I actually received on Friendster:
Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 15:14:00
Subject: Join the Ryan Revolution!
Message: Hey. My name is Ryan. I notice yours is also. This
is not, as you may be thinking, a coincidence.
How, you may ask, is it not?
Well, I put your name into the search engine, for a
start.
Heres the deal. Last year I was insufferably bored.
So I amassed an army of Ryans well, 60 or so -
off the Friendster database. It was fun to watch
them all join me, and to look at their profiles, and
go: Oh, he seems interesting, for somebody who
shares my name. But then they wanted to know
where I was going with it. And I didnt know. So I
skulked off and pretended I never did anything.
But now, I know!
And alas, I return to Friendster to find that half,
maybe more, of my militia have not signed in to
their account for at least six months. The truth is,
in the absence of firm leadership, my namesakes
have deserted me. So, it has come to this I need
new blood.
I call on you, as a new recruit, to join the growing
ranks of Ryan, and participate in a creative project.
Every month Ill come up with a new task, and as a
collective group we Ryans will show all those other
names just how damn inventive we can be. Ill try to
keep this going for a year, and itd be cool if you
could help me do it.
Interested? Then join us. Add me as a friend, and
Ill return the favour.
Faithfully,
Ryan
I seriously considered changing my name after reading this. Maybe something like Horace? or Alpern?
3. Creativity
I have no creativity to make a cool looking profile. It makes me feel inadequate as a human being. People have professional looking pictures where they wear nice clothing and stare off to the distance. Or look at the camera seductively. I go with webcam pics that make me look like an alien. Life doesn't get much harder than that!
4. Friendster mongerers
I know I have been asked to become Friendsters with people only because they need to win the "I have the most friends" award. When getting such invites, I wonder to myself if I should be a participant in their game, or this obsession that the inviter has. Its kind of like getting with a player fulling knowing you are getting played. I mean, who wants to be one of 500 other friendsters on a list? I mean, you are nothing but a conquest to them. But yet, you go along with it anyway. And you are getting played online for goodness sakes, without any of the in person benefits.
5. The harm of cancellation
Every now and then, I think about cancelling my Friendster membership. But I don't go along with it simply because now that I have made contact with some people, it would be a shame to cut those ties. Even though they are online ties. But prior to joining Friendster, connections were lost but now that some have been regained, it seems a shame to lose them once again. Or what if by once being a friendster and then not being somebody's friendster later, the individual thinks that you don't want to be their friend anymore even though you are just sick of Friendster? Quitting is rough...
My conclusion is this: Friendster is a cult. Where else can you meet up with folks from the looney bin who obsess over the perception of themselves by others, fear rejection, who go all out with their membership, and keep you locked in the fold?
Don't join, because once you're in, you are stuck.
And you become a friendster. You feel a strange tingling and then it's done.
Save yourself. It's too late for me...I'm one of them now.
And don't worry. We can still be friends, but not friendsters. Being friends is cooler, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)