Outside the Perimeter

Let's talk about the issues, baby

Setting themselves up to ignore any questions about the centerpiece of John Kerry's campaign, the Viet Nam war, the Public Editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in an article titled "We'd do more with less about candidates" in today's paper:

Let's ignore the polls for the rest of the election, especially those in the vaunted battleground states. If someone gets a TV appearance, posts something on a Web site, or writes a book to make a charge about something that happened or didn't happen with either of the candidates 30 years ago in Vietnam, or Alabama, let's check out the best available independent reporting on it and determine, first, whether it is even a story worth covering.

In other words, let us wise men at the AJC keep a monopoly on information, and ignore everything else. And what are the burning issues that the AJC should cover? Mr. King gives us a list:

Let's take a page of the newspaper, every other day or so, and tack our own course away from the campaign trail. Let's write a story focusing on how Americans are able to pay for health care now and in the future. Let's look at the new Medicare prescription drug payment program and see if it works. Let's ask how close we are to achieving energy independence now and in the future.

And after that, let's examine how important is it to keep Americans in good jobs with good benefits and how important is it to keep American companies competitive in a global marketplace.

And while we are at it, let's ask: Are voters comfortable about stretching the bounds of science and human development so that we can treat debilitating and deadly diseases? Also, let's see how voters feel about the 40-year struggle for civil rights for all Americans. Has it accomplished enough of what was envisioned?

If the answer to the first question is yes, then let's ask what role the government should play in accomplishing that goal. If the answer to the second question is no, let's ask how far voters feel the government should force us to go.

Are those issues heady enough for you?

Translated: The AJC will concentrate on liberal hot button issues.

But what about the most important issue of the day, keeping Islamic fundamentalists from blowing up, poisoning, irradiating, or otherwise killing and whole bunch of Americans? Mr. King does not mention that. See, the question of leadership in the War on Terror might lead us back to what John Kerry feels is his best qualification for that job - his role in the Viet Nam war and the aftermath. And that vetting of his leadership is not going so well, for some reason. So no wonder the AJC does not want to cover it.

SBVFT

I have been watching the coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth with not just a little bit of dismay. It seems to me that most of the coverage has been mostly directed at attacking the credibility of the Swift boat vets, while very little investigation has been done of the actual charges that these men bring.

For example, take a look at the Luckovich cartoon in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

I was not in Viet Nam (I was 3 years old in 1969), so I have no idea what really happened. I do think it's fair for both sets of Viet Nam vets to tell their story, without ad homonym attacks, so the truth can be established.

And I don't think, unless you too were a Swift Boat Vet, that you should savage them. These men risked their lives also and we owe them the respect of listening to what they have to say.

Finally, I don't know about Kerry's personal courage in Viet Nam. I do know that his speech yesterday was pretty chicken shit. Instead of "turning his boat into the enemy", he ignored them and attacked President Bush, from behind, instead. If he wants to meet these men honorably, his former comrades-in-arms, I can respect that. As it is - it look as if he is running away and attacking in a different direction.

Kids for Executing Political Prisoners

My wife and I had just gotten the kids off to school this morning and were watching a bit of the news. On comes a commercial from Burlington Coat Factory, which features their line of kids clothes. The commercial quick cuts between several shots of happy, dancing kids wearing Burlington's great new kids fashions.

No big deal, until the cut to a teenager posing by sitting on the bars of a jail cell, in camo pants, wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt.

Are you kidding me? Pictures of this murderer are supposed to be the "in thing" for my kids to run around in. What's next, the Ted Bundy-B'Gosh line for kids?

Che Guevara was a Argentinean who served as Castro's chief political executioner after the Cuban Revolution in 1959. Try this article for a description of the Cuban political prisoner bloodbath lead by Guevara:

The first three months of the Cuban Revolution saw 568 firing squad executions. Even the New York Times admits it. The preceding "trials" shocked and nauseated all who witnessed them. They were shameless farces, sickening charades.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Burlington Coat Factory is evil. They do good things, such as helping to raise $100,000 for the USO and other solid fundraising for charities. Perhaps they have a buyer that is either ignorant, or who thinks, as some on the left do, that the Castro regime is the best thing since sliced bread.

I do, however, plan to call Burlington and object to their pushing t-shirts of political serial killers for kids and I invite you to do the same. Here is the contact information for the company:

Burlington Coat Factory
1830 Route 130
Burlington, NJ 08016
609-387-7800

Peace Protestors?

It looks like some of the "peace protestors" don't appreciate competition in the marketplace of ideas, are threatening Protest Warrior, according to this interview with PW founder Kfir Alfia:

This week, the anarchists found out where we’re going to have our headquarters in the city--I always expected at least one person from their side infiltrating our organization. But now they are planning on doing something to us and threatening certain things on their Web sites ...

Ah, you have to love the peace and understanding of the left!

What Do You Know?

A couple of weeks ago, I criticized the Editorial Page Editor of the Atlanta Journal Constitution on her ignorance of how the awarding of Electoral College votes works in a State. The United States Constitution (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2) allows that State Legislatures determine how its States Electoral College votes are to be awarded for a Presidential Election. I advocated (and still do) that the State of Georgia switch from it's current "Winner-Takes-All" system of awarding Electoral votes to a proportional system. (Tucker, the Editor, wants a "blue-ribbon panel" to look at amending the Constitution. A difficult and unlikely proposition at best.

In today's AJC, we find out that others are advocating the same type of change in Colorado:

A plan to scrap the winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes in Colorado is heading to the ballot in November. If passed, Amendment 36 would make Colorado the first state to allocate electoral votes proportionately according to the popular vote, rather than giving a winner all the state's electoral votes. If the proposal had been in place in Colorado four years ago, Democrat Al Gore would have won the White House.

Only two states do not currently have winner-take-all systems of casting Electoral College votes. Nebraska and Maine give two votes to the winner of each state, and remaining votes are cast to show who won each congressional district.

Republican Gov. Bill Owens and Republican State Party Chairman Ted Halaby have criticized the proposal, warning that candidates will ignore Colorado and its nine electoral votes if the measure passes. Julie Brown, campaign director for the Make Your Vote Count effort that supports the measure, dismissed their concerns. "It begs the question on which is more important --- a two-hour presidential stop at a tarmac at Denver International Airport or true representation by the voters."

I suppose the Blind Pig has found an acorn.