July 28, 2006
Yesterday the following question showed up on the JT website; Pick Wisconsin's best governor since 1979:
The question was pulled off the front page rather quickly, my guess is they did not much care for the results.
53 (15%) Jim Doyle (2003-present)
4 (1%) Scott McCallum (2001-2003)
224 (64%) Tommy Thompson (1987-2001)
13 (4%) Anthony S. Earl (1983-1987)
57 (16%) Lee S. Dreyfus (1979-1983)
Frankly I'd like to meet the idiots who voted for Scott McCallum.
15% for the sitting Guv seeking re-election. That ain't good, even in an unscientific poll.
FYI, The Journal Times is still completely absent on all the various investigations into the Governor's proclivity to obtain huge campaign contributions from people looking to obtain state business.
July 27, 2006
Called a visiting dignitatry an Anti-Semite.
Compared a sitting Congresswoman to Stalin.
And, called for an end to divisiveness.
Is there any figure more divisive than this man?
Is there any rhetoric more over the top than his?
This is the face of the new Democratic party. If you have not noticed, the most radical parts of the left have taken complete power. There is no room anymore for moderate Democrats.
He graciously agreed and I thank him for his contribution.
Thanks to Fred for the opportunity to open up this discussion at RDW ---
Here's what we're talking about:
"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."Supporters argue we need this language in our Constitution to prevent a threat to marriage from "activist" courts. But court decisions in Washington, New York, and five other states have put to rest any notion of a judiciary hellbent on steamrolling gay marriage across the country. And, more to the point, if the ban's authors meant only to limit the courts, then they've taken a sludge hammer to something tweezers would have managed just fine.
They've crafted a piece of work that's about far, far more than marriage. What we're being asked in Wisconsin is not if we want to ban gay marriage, which is already illegal, but if we want to bar gay families from any state-provided protections and responsibilities.
Gay families are all too often left out of this debate. The 2000 census found 8,232 gay couples live in Wisconsin -- in every single county. It further reported that in the Midwest 34.7% of lesbian couples and 22.9% of gay male couples are parenting children.
These families are not some abstract menace; they're real everyday people striving to do good by their loved ones and their communities.
Nor are the protections they're denied inessential trivialities. My partner and I know a couple who've been together over fifteen years and are now raising two incredible kids. One of the women works for the public schools, and her family health coverage allows the other to be a full-time stay-at-home mom. This ban seriously threatens to make that family's health coverage unconstitutional and, in the process, to take a mom's full-time support away from her two kids.
Sure, when gay families can afford it, they pay lawyers thousands and thousands of dollars to achieve a fraction of the protections married couples get from a city clerk (average Wisconsin license fee, $70). But all the lawyers in the world still can't provide basic essentials -- like the ability to provide children with two legally recognized and responsible parents, to use medical and family leave to care for a sick partner, or to inherit jointly owned property without substantial tax burdens.
These are the kinds of legal protections that become most crucial during moments of crisis, and the government provides them in order to strengthen families because strong families make for strong, stable societies. It's in all of our interest to make it easier for families to care for loved ones when it's needed the most. Libertarians in particular know that when families care for their members, the government doesn't have to.
Regardless of what people think about allowing gay couples to obtain marriage licenses, we should be working to help strengthen and protect families' stability, not to make life more difficult for them. Long-term, committed gay couples should not be legal strangers.
Polls show that most people agree with this claim. Some, when they think about it, arrive at a belief that gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. Others arrive at a compromise position of civil unions, which offer many of the protections and responsibilities of "marriage" but not the social recognition provided by the name. This compromise position is where things ended up in both Vermont and Connecticut.
But our ban's authors want to take even compromise off the table. The second sentence of Wisconsin's proposed ban unequivocally denies civil unions, and if passed it would undoubtedly lead to lawsuits over what few protections gay families currently have. At taxpayer expense.
Just last week, Fred rightly noted that excluding gay people from employment is a gross violation of basic ethical principles. Excluding gay families from essential protections and responsibilities is a similar violation.
This constitutional amendment a radical, far-reaching, extreme piece of work. It would harm families, not protect them. And it deserves to be voted down in November.
Jim Doyle is a lying opportunist.
Shall I repeat that?
Jim Doyle is a lying opportunist.
Listen, I have no problem with political rhetoric. However, Jim Doyle's heart-pulling stem cell ad is a bald faced (pun intended) lie.
In this ad they actually make the case that Mark Green is in favor of "outlawing" stem cell research.
I will not allow this post to fall into another debate on stem cells. If you want to do that go to this post, we have a lively debate on that topic already in progess.
This ad by Doyle is a lie, it is not a misrepresentation or a distortion of any truth, it is a lie.
If a Republican tried to tell a whopper this big it would be all over the news, yet Jim Doyle can pull this over on the leftie Cheesepapers.
He will not get away with that here. So pay attention Wisconsin, your Governor is a liar, and he wants to scare you into your vote.
Because he knows that is the only way he is going to get it.
Is this becoming clear yet?
Pile this on top of the shameful act of several leading Dems in boycotting Mr. Al-Maliki and what do we have?
A disgusting and typical display of partisanship before statesmanship yet again.
Al-Maliki is a visiting dignitary from a country struggling to achieve its independence from a brutal dictator and a bunch of murdering thug cowards who hide behind children and shadows to launch their sneak attacks on the innocent.
For the party that has spent so much hot air complaining about how we are viewed around the world to act like such a bad host, shame on them. I'm not really surprised by their actions, so once again they show themselves to care more about their own political capital than anything else.
July 26, 2006
#1 "We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."
#2 "Only thing worse than a Frenchman is a Frenchman who lives in Canada"
#3 "What do you expect from a culture and a nation that exerted more of its national will fighting against Disney World and Big Macs than the Nazis?"
#4 "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
#5 "As far as France is concerned, you're right."
A bigger question looms from this announcement however. This excerpt is from an article in the RJT on June 6, 2006. The day of the latest RUSD referendum.
Even under a successful referendum, the district still plans to eliminate 50 positions and make nearly $2.7 million in cuts to balance the budget. Those cuts include eliminating low enrollment courses at the high school, assigning course overloads to 30 staff members at the high school level and eliminating 14 educational assistants.
The referendum succeeded, Unified claimed cuts were still necessary, why I am reading story after story of expanding and adding programs?
This is a brilliant column.
More of John Kerry's Retroactive Campaign Promises
On Sunday, John Kerry said of Israel's war against Hezbollah, "If I was President, this wouldn't have happened," adding, "we have to destroy Hezbollah."
But wait a minute -- Hezbollah didn't attack us on 9/11! Wouldn't fighting Hezbollah distract us from the urgent task of finding Osama bin Laden?
Democrats can't come out and admit that they refuse to fight any war in defense of America, so they utter the "Where's Osama?" incantation to pretend that they'd be doing something. To wit: dedicating the entire resources of the U.S. military to locating Osama bin Laden.
Thus, in the third presidential debate, Kerry complained about the cost of the war in Iraq, saying the war was "the result of this president taking his eye off of Osama bin Laden."
After making the capture of Osama bin Laden their sole objective in the war on terrorism, now Democrats expect us to believe they would have been fighting every other Muslim jihadist on the planet like mad -- just not one of the main sponsors of Islamic terrorism, Saddam Hussein.
But they'd be merciless with every other mass-murdering, Islamic terror-sponsoring lunatic.
Israel's recent tussle with Hezbollah reminds us how absurd the Democrats' fixation on Osama is.
America has been under attack from Muslim extremists for nearly 30 years. Not just al Qaeda and certainly not just Osama bin Laden. Here's the highlights reel for anyone still voting for the Democrats:--
November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.--
1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.--
April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.--
October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. --
December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80. --
September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.--
December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.--
June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.--
October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.--
December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans. --
April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.--
December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.(Then came an amazing, historic pause in Muslim extremists' relentless war on America after Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by doing the opposite of everything recommended by Democrats, depriving Islamic terrorists of their Soviet sponsors. This confuses liberals because they don't understand the concept of terror sponsors, whether it's the Soviet Union or Iraq.)--
February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al Qaeda) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.--
Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.--
November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.--
June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al Qaeda) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.--
August 1998: Muslim extremists (al Qaeda) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.--
October 2000: Muslim extremists (al Qaeda) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.--
Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al Qaeda) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.
America's war with Islamic fanaticism didn't start on 9/11, but it's going to end with 9/11 -- as long as Americans aren't foolish enough ever to put a Democrat in the White House.
July 25, 2006
I was stunned by it. John Lehman is a liberal's liberal. To read his campaign materials you would think he was a conservative.
Among his more ridiculous claims was that he supported a property tax freeze. He voted against the property tax freeze every time it came in front of him. I suppose he supports the Governor's freeze, you know the freeze that actually increases taxes by 4.2% per year.
I thought I would do a public service and post some of John Lehman's actual record. (for those who would like to separate hype from reality)
- Lehman voted against the property tax freeze (2003 AB 466, 2005 AB 58)
- Lehman voted against making the fuel and electricity manufacturers use sales tax exempt (2003 AB 507) . (This bill passed 85-14. Lehman was one of only 14 noes. Can you name a Senate district more heavily-dependent on manufacturing jobs? I can't. And Lehman voted AGAINST making it easier for manufacturers to keep jobs in Racine)
- Lehman voted against repealing the Jobs Tax (2003 SB 197) (This bill was also known as the single sales factor bill. If you aren't familiar, here is how the old system worked. Unlike our neighboring states, Wisconsin used to tax multi-state corporations based on a formula of their sales, property and payroll in Wisconsin. Basically, if a multi-state corporation decided to open a new plant in Wisconsin - adding property and payroll - they were rewarded with higher taxes. Now ain't that spiffy for bringing new jobs into the community)
- Lehman voted against lowering the gas tax (2005 AB 100 the budget)
- Lehman voted against eliminating the tax on the social security benefits enjoyed by our seniors (2005 AB 100- the budget)
- Lehman has been quoted saying that raising the sales tax is a good idea to fix budgets.
- Lehman supports the so-called Wisconsin Health Plan (a government-run health mandate with a $12 BILLION price tag). This would be paid for by a 12% tax on businesses and a 2% tax on employees.
- Lehman voted against angel and venture tax credits that encourage investment in the high-wage tech jobs of the future (2003 SB 261). (this bill passed 93-6, is it becoming clear yet that John Lehman votes against business grandh adn for higher taxes on business all the time?)
- Lehman voted against Tommy Thompson's across-the-board income tax cut (1997 AB 768)
I'm sorry I was not home when Mr. Lehman came to my door. I would have loved to asked him why he hates incentives to bring in new business, while at the same time asking why he loves to vote for higher taxes as much as he does.
Well, then there is my favorite Lehman quote of this campaign, he said, if you want smaller government and lower taxes then McReynolds is your man.
So he is John, so he is.
Fact. George Bush has funded embryonic stem cell research on existing lines, in fact he has doubled funding on it.
Fact. Embryonic stem cells have to date cured or treated precisely nothing.
Fact. There are currently 72 treatments in use for non-embryonic stem cells.
Fact. George Bush has put zero restrictions on private research into embryonic stem cell research.
Fact. Liberals are distorting this issue and telling lies on a complicated issue strictly for political gain.
Fact. It is unhonest to say in a blanket manner that George Bush or Mark Green are opposed to stem cell research in general or embryonic stem cell research in particular.
Fact. The bill that all the hubbub was about dealt with the creation of human embryos strictly for medical experimentation and the federal funding of said research. That is cloning, it is illegal and immoral and I am gratified it was struck down.
Fact. Jim Doyle and his campaign are lying in saying Mark Green is against stem cell research.
These are the facts, they are not in dispute.
Let me repeat that last fact. JIM DOYLE AND HIS CAMPAIGN ARE LYING.
How many more lies will we get from the Doyle campaign?
Fat stem cells turn into muscle in experiment
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Stem cells taken from human fat can be transformed into smooth muscle cells, offering a way to treat many kinds of heart disease, gastrointestinal and bladder ills, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.
While the experiment does not quite offer a way to turn a pot belly into a flat stomach, the researchers said the transformed cells contracted and relaxed just like smooth muscle cells.
These cells help the heart beat and blood flow, push food through the digestive system and make bladders fill and empty, the researchers reported.
July 24, 2006
NEW YORK (Reuters) -
The remains of actor James Doohan, who played the starship Enterprise's chief engineer "Scotty" on "Star Trek," will be blasted into space in October, the company organizing the flight said on Monday.
The actor who inspired the catchphrase "Beam me up, Scotty" -- even though it was never actually uttered on the show -- died a year ago at the age of 85.
On the program, when Capt. James Kirk ventured off the spaceship Enterprise and faced peril, he would demand Scotty "beam" him back up to the safety of the ship.
Houston-based commercial company Space Services originally planned to blast Doohan's remains into space last year but the flight was delayed to allow more tests on the rocket.
Space Services spokeswoman Susan Schonfeld said the new launch date was set for October. Doohan's ashes will be blasted up along with the remains of around 100 other people, including astronaut Gordon Cooper, who first went to space in 1963.
After a short flight the rocket will return to earth with the capsules holding the remains. A second flight in December or January will send a capsule containing Doohan's remains into orbit where it will remain for several years, Schonfeld said.
"Whatever goes up must come down," Schonfeld said, adding that the capsule would eventually drop out of orbit and burn up in the earth's atmosphere.
To mark the flight to his final frontier, Doohan's family will hold a service for fans on the day of the launch to pay tribute to him, and Schonfeld said thousands were expected to turn up, many in costumes from "Star Trek."
I have been evacuated from New Orleans because the flood took my old trailer and beat up car. I thought I might go into business to supplement my welfare check.
My friend over at Wells, Iowa received a check for $1,000 from the Government for not raising hogs. Right now I'm getting extra help from the government and Red Cross while I'm displaced but when that stops I want to go into the "not-raising-hogs" business.
What I want to know is, in your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to raise hogs on, and what is the best breed of hogs not to raise? I want to be sure that I approach this endeavor in keeping with all governmental policies. I would prefer not to raise razorbacks, but if that is not a good breed not to raise, then I will just as gladly not raise Yorkshires or Durocs. As I see it, the hardest part of this program will be in keeping an accurate inventory of how many hogs I haven't raised.
My friend, Peterson, is very joyful about the future of the business. He has been raising hogs for twenty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was $422 in 1968, until this year when he got your check for $1000 for not raising hogs. If I get $1000 for not raising 50 hogs,
will I get $2000 for not raising 100 hogs? I plan to operate on a small
scale at first, holding myself down to about 4000 hogs not raised, which will mean about $80,000 the first year. Then I can afford an airplane.
Now another thing, these hogs I will not raise will not eat 100,000 bushels of corn. I understand that you also pay farmers for not raising
corn and wheat. Will I qualify for payments for not raising wheat and corn not to feed the 4000 hogs I am not going to raise?
Also, I am considering the "not milking cows" business, so send me any information you have on that too. In view of these circumstances, you understand that I will be totally unemployed and plan to file for unemployment and food stamps.
Be assured you will have my vote in the coming election.
P.S. Please notify me when you are giving out more free cheese.
1. This is really going to suck. (lefties writing like they understand conservatives, icky poo)
2. What are they doing with Grey's Anatomy? (Mrs. RDW is going to be ticked.)
3. Ann Coulter Insane?
ABC reportedly has huge hopes for a new series to air this fall called "Brothers & Sisters," which will follow the hit "Desperate Housewives" on the schedule. Calista Flockhart, best known as Ally McBeal, plays a conservative radio host turned TV pundit. Others in the high-powered cast include Patricia Wettig, Rachel Griffiths, Ron Rifkin and Sally Field.
Flockhart recently explained, "I really want to go back to work. It just seemed like the perfect time and the perfect project."
Asked to describe the pundit, producer Ken Olin (formerly a star of “Thirty Something’) said, "She's not Ann Coulter. She's not insane."
Writer Jon Robin Baitz added, "No, I think she's a thoughtful conservative. She's ideologically, in some respects, very much in mind with the older parts of the party, the sort of Eisenhower Republican, the William Buckley conservative. She's also a humanist.
"She's not someone who is apologetic about being a conservative. But it's very, very interesting and compelling to us to try and understand this, to leave behind some of the smug presuppositions of the two coasts, . . . to look at evolving patriotism and evolving traditionalism," he said, according to an article by Dave Walker of New Orleans’ Times-Picayune."
For years and years, the left has looked at the right in complete incomprehension and felt, 'We just can't connect.' And maybe there's an effort in the show to try and bridge that in some way.”
July 23, 2006
Madison woman gave $275,000 to defeat marriage ban, record shows
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press MADISON —
A Madison philanthropist has given $275,000 of her personal fortune to try to defeat a state ban on gay marriage and civil unions, according to a filing made public on Friday.
Dale Leibowitz was the largest donor to Fair Wisconsin, the political action committee leading the charge against the constitutional amendment that appears on the ballot on Nov. 7, according to the group’s campaign finance report.
Other major donations to the group included $80,000 from the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights group, and $25,000 from the state teachers’ union, the filing with the state Elections Board shows. Esmond Harmsworth, a Boston literary agent, also pitched in $25,000.
Overall, Fair Wisconsin raised $1.3 million between March 1 and June 30. After expenses, the group has $1.08 million cash on hand.
Anyone catch it?
Come on, you can do it.
Why is the Teachers Union donating $25,000 to a movement to defeat the ban on gay marraige?
What exactly does this have to do with education?
By Woody Baird, Associated Press Writer July 21, 2006
MEMPHIS, Tenn. --A knife-wielding grocery store employee attacked eight co-workers Friday, seriously injuring five before a witness pulled a gun and stopped him, police said.
Elartrice Ingram, 21, was charged with nine counts of attempted first-degree murder, police said. The attack apparently stemmed from a work dispute, investigators said.
Five victims, one in critical condition, were admitted to the Regional Medical Center, the main trauma hospital for the Memphis area. Three others were less badly hurt and treated at another hospital.
Ingram, chasing one victim into the store's parking lot, was subdued by Chris Cope, manager of a financial services office in the same small shopping center, Memphis Police Sgt. Vince Higgins said.
Cope said he grabbed a 9mm semiautomatic pistol from his pickup truck when he saw the attacker chasing the victim "like something in a serial killer movie."
"When he turned around and saw my pistol, he threw the knife away, put his hands up and got on the ground," Cope told The Associated Press. "He saw my gun and that was pretty much it."
Police arrived within minutes and took the Ingram into custody.
H/T Displaced Ched Head.