Puhlease!
First of all, there are not porn ads on this page. You have to sneak into the comments portion of this blog, in which anyone can post any text message they want.
There is no restriction on what can be posted there and honestly...here's a little shock for you...I don't post the comments there! Other people do.
If something is posted there illegal, I will obviously remove it.
As for this "porn ad", I am tragically disappointed in the site. I am almost embarassed to say it left me with something to desire.
If you think that's "pornography", I hate to think what you think of Gil's column every Sunday in the local paper.
Now there's some exploiting!
Home of the ReBirTheRs
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Putting Gil in context
This week, Gil gives a partial quote from Thomas P. Cadmus, national commander of The American Legion. In the course of doing so, he makes another big flub.
Here is the complete quote from the Legion Press Release.
Did you catch it? Here is another classic flub!
Remember, delegates are "representative" of the members. (They DO speak for the legion members). And all delegates - yes, "all" - as in 4,000 - passed this resolution that attended this event.
Representatively speaking, all Legion members did support this quote via their delegates.
I can't even fathom that someone would write another flub like this in their column only two weeks after announcing that he didn't realize his own county of Lancaster resides totally within Congressional District 16.
And take notice of the context of the initial quote. What Gil didn't tell us that the quote was about people like Jane Fonda, who later is reported to have given an apology about the incident (although it was generally not well-received - especially not by Vietnam veterans).
How can you leave out an essential part of the quote like that?
Perhaps Gil will one day admit to his own mistakes, much like Jane Fonda. Or perhaps not. You will alway have those who refuse to respect the wishes of our nation's veterans.
Sure, you are free to make the mistake. And you are also free to suffer the consequence of making the mistake. "Freedom" is not as Gil envisions it, with limitless bounds that permits you to say anything you want without criticism. That is not "freedom" at all. That is actually quite a totalitarian vision of "freedom" of his own.
Here is the complete quote from the Legion Press Release.
The resolution passed unanimously by 4,000 delegates to the annual event states: “The American Legion fully supports the President of the United States, the United States Congress and the men, women, and leadership of our armed forces as they are engaged in the global war on terrorism.”
"For many of us, the visions of Jane Fonda glibly spouting anti-American messages with the North Vietnamese and protestors denouncing our own forces four decades ago is forever etched in our memories. We must never let that happen again. I assure you, The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom loving peoples."
"No one respects the right to protest more than one who has fought for it, but we hope that Americans will present their views in correspondence to their elected officials rather than by public media events guaranteed to be picked up and used as tools of encouragement by our enemies. It would be tragic if the freedoms our veterans fought so valiantly to protect would be used against their successors today as they battle terrorists bent on our destruction."
"Let’s not repeat the mistakes of our past. I urge all Americans to rally around our armed forces and remember our fellow Americans who were viciously murdered on Sept. 11, 2001. We must commit ourselves to stand united together to defeat terrorism once and forever."
August 23, 2005
Did you catch it? Here is another classic flub!
Though Cadmus is the American Legion’s national commander, I’m sure he doesn’t speak for all Legion members.
Smart Remark
The resolution passed unanimously by 4,000 delegates to the annual event..."
Remember, delegates are "representative" of the members. (They DO speak for the legion members). And all delegates - yes, "all" - as in 4,000 - passed this resolution that attended this event.
Representatively speaking, all Legion members did support this quote via their delegates.
I can't even fathom that someone would write another flub like this in their column only two weeks after announcing that he didn't realize his own county of Lancaster resides totally within Congressional District 16.
And take notice of the context of the initial quote. What Gil didn't tell us that the quote was about people like Jane Fonda, who later is reported to have given an apology about the incident (although it was generally not well-received - especially not by Vietnam veterans).
How can you leave out an essential part of the quote like that?
Perhaps Gil will one day admit to his own mistakes, much like Jane Fonda. Or perhaps not. You will alway have those who refuse to respect the wishes of our nation's veterans.
Sure, you are free to make the mistake. And you are also free to suffer the consequence of making the mistake. "Freedom" is not as Gil envisions it, with limitless bounds that permits you to say anything you want without criticism. That is not "freedom" at all. That is actually quite a totalitarian vision of "freedom" of his own.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
You heard it here first
Not only have I had Rep. John Conyers directly respond to my posts, now Rush Limbaugh is making some of the same points I've been making over the past few days regarding "Casualties in Context".
You heard it here first, @ Smart Retorts!
You heard it here first, @ Smart Retorts!
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
No good comments this week
This week wasn't really good for blatant mistakes in Gil's column. After the flub of District 16, Gil kept a close eye this week on his facts.
About the closest I came to finding a mistake was Gil calling Robert Casey Jr. an "anointed nominee" of sorts. It's not technically a mistake, I suppose. I guess you can call senators running for office "nominees". I usually think of them more as "candidates" than nominees, though. After all, who really "nominates" senators? They're elected, not appointed. But technically, you could get away with it, I suppose, depending on your definition of nominee. After all, there are presidential nominees.
And I suppose that technically he never came out and said Pennacchio was pro-choice. He sort of implied that Casey had an advantage over Pennacchio on this issue implying there was a difference of opinion. Because truthfully, Pennacchio's position on his website states that he wants abortion to be "rare". And he talks about a "pro-life" America. Technically, not a mistake. A little misleading maybe, but not a mistake.
Other than that, not much to fact check in this article, I noted.
Still, it's sort of iffy for being on the front page of the Lancaster section which does not identify the column as being editorial in nature (which is where it really belongs). Definately not a good place to get your factual news.
About the closest I came to finding a mistake was Gil calling Robert Casey Jr. an "anointed nominee" of sorts. It's not technically a mistake, I suppose. I guess you can call senators running for office "nominees". I usually think of them more as "candidates" than nominees, though. After all, who really "nominates" senators? They're elected, not appointed. But technically, you could get away with it, I suppose, depending on your definition of nominee. After all, there are presidential nominees.
And I suppose that technically he never came out and said Pennacchio was pro-choice. He sort of implied that Casey had an advantage over Pennacchio on this issue implying there was a difference of opinion. Because truthfully, Pennacchio's position on his website states that he wants abortion to be "rare". And he talks about a "pro-life" America. Technically, not a mistake. A little misleading maybe, but not a mistake.
Other than that, not much to fact check in this article, I noted.
Still, it's sort of iffy for being on the front page of the Lancaster section which does not identify the column as being editorial in nature (which is where it really belongs). Definately not a good place to get your factual news.
No U.S. soldiers died in Iraq these days
Since some in the media have taken it upon themselves to make a big deal out of the deaths of our U.S. soldiers (accidental or otherwise), I have decided to balance their act by making a big deal out of days when U.S. soldiers DON'T DIE.
Those most recent days where no U.S. soldiers died in Iraq due to hostile actions were August 17 and 19.
Do you think that these same journalists will write columns about that? Maybe they should. It would show that they really do appreciate our armed forces and aren't merely exploiting their deaths to make an anti-war political statement.
Of course, somehow, I don't think you'll be reading it anytime soon.
Those most recent days where no U.S. soldiers died in Iraq due to hostile actions were August 17 and 19.
Do you think that these same journalists will write columns about that? Maybe they should. It would show that they really do appreciate our armed forces and aren't merely exploiting their deaths to make an anti-war political statement.
Of course, somehow, I don't think you'll be reading it anytime soon.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Blogosphere Day
Total Take on & since Blogosphere Day (post-reporting period): At least $120,000 from small donors.
Swing State Project
July 22, 2005 (July 19 - "Blogosphere Day")
BURLINGTON, VT -- In only 48 hours, Democracy for America has raised nearly $80,000 in an e-mail solicitation for Paul Hackett's race for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District. The e-mail from DFA Chair Jim Dean was sent to Democracy for America supporters across the country.
July 21, 2005
Democracy for America
Isn't it funny how Swing State Project takes all the credit for raising that money due to "Blogosphere Day" when it was really DFA that raised the biggest chunk through email solicitation rather than blogging?
Don't cite nonhostile fatalities when opposing U.S. hostilities in Iraq
I have a good discussion going on Talkback Lancaster.
Many people out there are writing editorials or other columns in the newspapers about Iraq War fatalities. Why? Often these people don't personally know anyone that has died in the Iraq War. Yet they go around boasting numbers as high as 2,000 men and women that died in the Iraq War. They often use these figures to excuse their opposition to the Iraq War.
What they neglect to tell you is that roughly 400-500 of that figure includes non-hostile fatalities, which could be as simple as a soldier choking to death in the mess hall. Yes, it's sad whenever a soldier loses their life. But this example is not a good reason to oppose the Iraq War, is it?
ICasualties.org provides the distinction in their data (drawn from several sources including Centcomm and DoD). Their number is about 1,447 U.S. soldier deaths whose deaths were accountable to hostility in Iraq.
Most people haven't been informed of that.
Why use non-hostile fatality statistics for your reason against hostile U.S. action?
I believe the numbers are being misused in a way that exploits (in a political manner) the deaths of some of our soldiers.
If you cite the number, that's fine. Just don't misrepresent it as a total of hostile U.S. fatalities in Iraq. That number is significantly lower.
Many people out there are writing editorials or other columns in the newspapers about Iraq War fatalities. Why? Often these people don't personally know anyone that has died in the Iraq War. Yet they go around boasting numbers as high as 2,000 men and women that died in the Iraq War. They often use these figures to excuse their opposition to the Iraq War.
What they neglect to tell you is that roughly 400-500 of that figure includes non-hostile fatalities, which could be as simple as a soldier choking to death in the mess hall. Yes, it's sad whenever a soldier loses their life. But this example is not a good reason to oppose the Iraq War, is it?
ICasualties.org provides the distinction in their data (drawn from several sources including Centcomm and DoD). Their number is about 1,447 U.S. soldier deaths whose deaths were accountable to hostility in Iraq.
Most people haven't been informed of that.
Why use non-hostile fatality statistics for your reason against hostile U.S. action?
I believe the numbers are being misused in a way that exploits (in a political manner) the deaths of some of our soldiers.
If you cite the number, that's fine. Just don't misrepresent it as a total of hostile U.S. fatalities in Iraq. That number is significantly lower.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Oh, the stupidity!
Moonbat Lee41 (aka Hindenburg) has come forward to tell us not to worry about the statistics on http://www.icasualties.org because they are not properly making a distinction between hostile and nonhostile fatalities in Iraq.
He then cites four U.S. servicemen and the way they perished, saying that they were listed as "nonhostile".
One little problem.
They're listed as hostile.
But it gets worse.
He goes on to say:
There they go inflating figures again!
If you visit the Icasualties.org website, you can see he's listing numbers that not only include non-hostile fatalities, but also fatalities from all nationalities. That fact alone reduces the total by about...oh, 200! (And as far as I'm concerned, you can reduce that number by about 500 more if you are talking about soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq due to resistance/insurgency.)
Why, oh why, do these men feel the need to inflate these numbers, so?
The fact is that there are about 1,447 U.S. soldier fatalities classified as hostile in Iraq since the start of the war.
He then cites four U.S. servicemen and the way they perished, saying that they were listed as "nonhostile".
One little problem.
They're listed as hostile.
But it gets worse.
He goes on to say:
If you take the 1,857 deaths in Iraq (specifically attributed to Operation Iraqi Freedom) and the 224 deaths in Afghanistan (specifically attributed to Operation Enduring Freedom), that's 2,081. I believe the Bush Administration groups Iraq and Afghanistan as the 'War On Terror'. Therefore there have been over 2,000 brave service men and women who have died in the War On Terror.
There they go inflating figures again!
If you visit the Icasualties.org website, you can see he's listing numbers that not only include non-hostile fatalities, but also fatalities from all nationalities. That fact alone reduces the total by about...oh, 200! (And as far as I'm concerned, you can reduce that number by about 500 more if you are talking about soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq due to resistance/insurgency.)
Why, oh why, do these men feel the need to inflate these numbers, so?
The fact is that there are about 1,447 U.S. soldier fatalities classified as hostile in Iraq since the start of the war.
Blogs and Paul Hacketts campaign
A lot of people going around Lancaster shouting at the top of their lungs that Paul Hackett's campaign did fairly well because of bloggers. If you don't know who he is, he ran for Congress in Ohio for the 2nd District. He would have been the first Iraq War veteran if he had won (but he didn't).
They say that Hackett received $475,000 in online contributions due to the efforts of bloggers. And that seems to be partly true.
Hackett does appear to have received $475,000 in online contributions. But was it all due to blogs?
Doubts were immediately raised in my mind.
For example, I discovered this link.
So at least $80,000 was raised without the help of blogs. This was a link I found in about 1 minute on Google. Who knows how many other organizations sent out an email solicitation? And who knows how much more was raised after the 48 hours?
I've also been told Howard Dean sent out an email solicitation as well. How much do you think that email raised without the help of blogs?
Think about how many ways online you could be directed to the contribution website of Paul Hackett. Do you really think blogs played any kind of significant role in this?
Numerous email solicitations, numerous websites (like the Ohio Democratic Party website which directed visitors to donate), banner and popup ads, and a variety of other forms of media like TV and radio, too. Those can all direct individuals to the contribution website of http://www.hackettforcongress.com without the help of blogs.
In reality, I believe that blogs did not play a significant role in raising this money.
And what does it matter? Hackett didn't win anyway. Just another deceptive Democrat down the tubes. It's just sad when you have to brag about how close you came to not losing this time in an election.
Has the Democratic Party really come to this?
They say that Hackett received $475,000 in online contributions due to the efforts of bloggers. And that seems to be partly true.
Hackett does appear to have received $475,000 in online contributions. But was it all due to blogs?
Doubts were immediately raised in my mind.
For example, I discovered this link.
BURLINGTON, VT -- In only 48 hours, Democracy for America has raised nearly $80,000 in an e-mail solicitation for Paul Hackett's race for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District. The e-mail from DFA Chair Jim Dean was sent to Democracy for America supporters across the country.
So at least $80,000 was raised without the help of blogs. This was a link I found in about 1 minute on Google. Who knows how many other organizations sent out an email solicitation? And who knows how much more was raised after the 48 hours?
I've also been told Howard Dean sent out an email solicitation as well. How much do you think that email raised without the help of blogs?
Think about how many ways online you could be directed to the contribution website of Paul Hackett. Do you really think blogs played any kind of significant role in this?
Numerous email solicitations, numerous websites (like the Ohio Democratic Party website which directed visitors to donate), banner and popup ads, and a variety of other forms of media like TV and radio, too. Those can all direct individuals to the contribution website of http://www.hackettforcongress.com without the help of blogs.
In reality, I believe that blogs did not play a significant role in raising this money.
And what does it matter? Hackett didn't win anyway. Just another deceptive Democrat down the tubes. It's just sad when you have to brag about how close you came to not losing this time in an election.
Has the Democratic Party really come to this?
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Where am I?
Oh, Gil. You make me blush and giggle.
This week, he states this in his column about "blogs":
So I looked at the Congressional District map to determine if "most" of Lancaster county was in the 16th Congressional District.
It looks like Lancaster county is entirely in District 16. So I checked this site called "Free Help with USA Immigration - 16TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
Surprising, it lists counties included in the 16th Congressional District. If you visit this link, you will see at the bottom that it states:
Not "most". All.
Gil brags about Paul Hackett nearly defeating the Republican candidate Jean Schmidt in Ohio. But as this article from Wikipedia states (linked above on keyword Paul Hackett), Hackett launched an allegedly deceptive campaign that did not mention that he was a Democratic candidate.
Gil gives the reason for this close margin as "blogs".
Hmmmm...blogs. Deceptive commercials. Desperate stuggles for jobs.
Whatever the reason, Gil doesn't mention that Hackett lost the three most populous counties in the Ohio District, Hamilton, Warren, and Clermont. The Republican candidate won those counties by numbers as high as 58% of the vote. It was the four smaller counties in the district that made the election so close, as shown here, courtesy info from the same Wikipedia article:
I always thought that close doesn't count except in horseshoes. I guess the people that elected the Republican in Ohio felt the same way after this election?
This week, he states this in his column about "blogs":
After all, the 16th District, which encompasses most of Lancaster County, is solidly Republican; last time Herr ran against Pitts, in 2004, he got twice as many votes as she did.
So I looked at the Congressional District map to determine if "most" of Lancaster county was in the 16th Congressional District.
It looks like Lancaster county is entirely in District 16. So I checked this site called "Free Help with USA Immigration - 16TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
Surprising, it lists counties included in the 16th Congressional District. If you visit this link, you will see at the bottom that it states:
(16) THE SIXTEENTH DISTRICT IS COMPOSED OF...ALL OF LANCASTER COUNTY
Not "most". All.
Gil brags about Paul Hackett nearly defeating the Republican candidate Jean Schmidt in Ohio. But as this article from Wikipedia states (linked above on keyword Paul Hackett), Hackett launched an allegedly deceptive campaign that did not mention that he was a Democratic candidate.
Hackett's ad began with a clip of President George W. Bush speaking to troops at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on June 28, 2005, "There is no higher calling than service in our armed forces." Hackett's commercial then noted his service in the Marine Corps. The Washington Post noted the commercial "avoids any hint that the lawyer is a Democrat." Republicans were displeased. The Republican National Committee's lawyers wrote him saying the commercial deceived the public with "the false impression the President has endorsed your candidacy." Robert T. Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, told The Cincinnati Post the commercials were "a blatant effort to dupe voters."
Gil gives the reason for this close margin as "blogs".
The Cincinnati Post editorialized Hackett's success in the eastern counties was in part from "the increasingly desperate struggle in rural areas to provide enough decent jobs for those who want them."
Hmmmm...blogs. Deceptive commercials. Desperate stuggles for jobs.
Whatever the reason, Gil doesn't mention that Hackett lost the three most populous counties in the Ohio District, Hamilton, Warren, and Clermont. The Republican candidate won those counties by numbers as high as 58% of the vote. It was the four smaller counties in the district that made the election so close, as shown here, courtesy info from the same Wikipedia article:
| Candidate | Party | Hamilton | Warren | Clermont | Brown | Adams | Scioto | Pike | Totals | Percent |
| Jean Schmidt | Repub | 25,048 | 7,556 | 17,320 | 3,100 | 1,911 | 2,638 | 1,559 | 59,132 | 51.74 (Elected) |
| Paul Hackett | Dem | 23,657 | 5,420 | 12,439 | 3,950 | 2,101 | 4,925 | 2,659 | 55,151 | 48.25 |
I always thought that close doesn't count except in horseshoes. I guess the people that elected the Republican in Ohio felt the same way after this election?
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Does the left boost figures in Iraq casualties?
The other day, someone posted to the Lancaster Online messageboard that "1800" soldiers have been killed in the Iraq war. The implication was clear, these soldiers died due to a hostile enemy in Iraq.
What wasn't told was the full story at icasualities.org. According to that site:
Hostile US Fatalities Since May 1, 2003: 1318
Before that, there were 109 hostile U.S. fatalities. That's 1,427.
The rest of the "1800" figure comes from "nonhostile" fatalities. These deaths are in non-combat situations or zones and are something as simple as a vehicle crash, accident, or illness.
This doesn't diminish these soldiers' service. But it does shed some interesting light on those implying that "1800" soldiers died in Iraq because we allegedly provoked a war (which Democrats supported, by the way).
These figures have been inflated by roughly 25%, implying incorrectly that all these soldiers fell to a hostile enemy. But that isn't so. It means that they are using these unfortunate incidents to politicize things.
Interestingly, Gil avoids this directly, although he does use the highest casualty count week in Iraq in a while (last week, 12 soldiers were killed in hostile action as opposed to "more than 24" this week).
And it would be interesting to know when Gil's column was finalized. Was he including the nonhostile fatalities in his figures? It doesn't necessarily appear that he was, but it's a possibility.
He certainly is trying to feed on our sympathies and following the strategy set forth by DKos. And while we all do feel sorrow for any lives lost, it's important for us to understand that our soldiers are preventing future terrorist attacks against us from the No. 2 Al Qaeda who is known to be in Iraq. (Of course, some probably still think there is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, even with the No. 2 guy running around the country terrorizing it.)
Gil asks "For what?" How sad, really, that he would diminish the sacrifices of those soldiers by asking such a question, implying that they died for nothing.
I suppose Gil has forgotten 9/11/01 already.
No matter what Bush does, some people just cannot be happy. Just look at how Michael Moore treated Bush for sitting calmly in a classroom with school kids on that terrible day.
If Bush did nothing, we'd be hearing gripes about how Bush does nothing. When he takes action, then we hear gripes about that.
Instead of complaining, how about coming up with a solution?
What wasn't told was the full story at icasualities.org. According to that site:
Hostile US Fatalities Since May 1, 2003: 1318
Before that, there were 109 hostile U.S. fatalities. That's 1,427.
The rest of the "1800" figure comes from "nonhostile" fatalities. These deaths are in non-combat situations or zones and are something as simple as a vehicle crash, accident, or illness.
This doesn't diminish these soldiers' service. But it does shed some interesting light on those implying that "1800" soldiers died in Iraq because we allegedly provoked a war (which Democrats supported, by the way).
These figures have been inflated by roughly 25%, implying incorrectly that all these soldiers fell to a hostile enemy. But that isn't so. It means that they are using these unfortunate incidents to politicize things.
Interestingly, Gil avoids this directly, although he does use the highest casualty count week in Iraq in a while (last week, 12 soldiers were killed in hostile action as opposed to "more than 24" this week).
And it would be interesting to know when Gil's column was finalized. Was he including the nonhostile fatalities in his figures? It doesn't necessarily appear that he was, but it's a possibility.
He certainly is trying to feed on our sympathies and following the strategy set forth by DKos. And while we all do feel sorrow for any lives lost, it's important for us to understand that our soldiers are preventing future terrorist attacks against us from the No. 2 Al Qaeda who is known to be in Iraq. (Of course, some probably still think there is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, even with the No. 2 guy running around the country terrorizing it.)
Gil asks "For what?" How sad, really, that he would diminish the sacrifices of those soldiers by asking such a question, implying that they died for nothing.
I suppose Gil has forgotten 9/11/01 already.
No matter what Bush does, some people just cannot be happy. Just look at how Michael Moore treated Bush for sitting calmly in a classroom with school kids on that terrible day.
If Bush did nothing, we'd be hearing gripes about how Bush does nothing. When he takes action, then we hear gripes about that.
Instead of complaining, how about coming up with a solution?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)