Friday, April 27, 2007
When asked why he voted for the timetable to get out of Iraq, after being opposed to such a timetable during his campaign, Jim Webb let loose with this whopper of a statement...
"There will be very little motivation for al-Qaeda to continue in Iraq once we have left."
So the man sits on a certain position, because he knows it will play to the moderates in his home state. He then blatantly turns around and votes against the position he was sitting upon for all those months during the summer and fall of 2006. He then justifies his flip-flop with one of the most ludicrious statements of the year, if not the decade. This is lunacy of Harry Reid proportions.
C'mon Jim, you may have been "born fightin'", but you're "livin' in lockstep" with your party.
Is this the kind of bumbling lunacy that our society has come to?
Of course, what do you expect from an organization that hands out comics to 8 year olds that depict a housewife bloodily disembowling a bunny so "she can get fur for her coat"?
Although the forum is closed, you can access the questions and answers here.
I didn't ask any questions, but I did read the answers Roles gave. She was brave enough to face the public's questions...but didn't seem to offer anything concrete, nor did she elaborate on her differences with the incumbent, Sen. Obenshain. She did dodge a few legitimate questions completely, such as whether she voted for or against the gay marriage amendment.
Kudos to Roles for stepping up and taking advantage of the opportunity presented to her. However, as of right now, Obenshain still has my vote.
If you're in the 26th District, go to the link above and decide for yourself! Goodnight, everybody.
Apparently, according to Whackette, the forum is an open forum, and not a live one as I thought it was. So go ask more questions if you'd like, although many good questions were asked.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Most of the candidates turned questions into some rant about Iraq (as if we didn't know they were against it, anyway). Why not answer the questions and define your points on other issues.
Barack Obama did come across very composed, and didn't seem to have any problem playing with the "big boys" who've been around for a while. Obama made the same mistakes about getting side-tracked with Bush-bashing, but as much as some of the others.
When asked who his "moral leader" is, did anyone else notice John Edwards had a serious "deer-in-headlights" look about him. Almost like he was thinking "morals...what are those, again?"
Chris Dodd and Joe Biden came across as parrots and wet blankets. Bill Richardson does have "dark horse" written all over him.
Mike Gravel = Professional Bomb-thrower. Unfortunately, he blows himself up in the process...he's out (despite the fact that I find him interesting to listen to, and I completely disagree with him almost everything). Also out are Dodd and Biden, with Richardson and Edwards "on the fence".
All-in-all, I'd like to see what the Republicans have to offer next week...but could someone get Fred Thompson to join the debate, since he's a "serious possibility" as a candidate. That would make the whole debate that much more interesting. Hopefully, the GOP candidates can come across less "one-track-minded" than the Donkeys did tonight.
The Democrats have stated for a long time that "Bush isn't listening to the 'experts' on the war". However, they turn right around and fail to listen to the biggest expert on the current state of the war.
Of course, when Harry Reid says something like this...
"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war, Sen. Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."
...you know exactly where the Donkey agenda lies.
George W. Bush's average approval rating in the most recent polls is 36.4%.
However, the Democrat-controlled Congress has an average approval rating of 36.8%.
A whopping .4% better.
Bush's disapproval rating is currently averaging 59.2%, the Donkey Congress is averaging 53.8%.
The point I'm trying to make is that Bush's poll numbers aren't necessarily just a reflection of America's level of satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with his policies. When you look at his poll numbers in comparison to the Democratic Congress (and their comparably miserable numbers), I believe that it is more of a reflection of the disgust the American public has with our politicians in general.
The Republicans failed to capitalize on their majority in 2/3rds of the Federal Government (I'm working on an in-depth look at that), and the public decided in November of '06 to bring in the Democrats...and it appears that the Democratic sweep of both the House and Senate is not a reflection of a pro-liberal movement. It seems like it was more-or-less a statement of "we don't really have any other choice." The public didn't like the Republicans that were in office, and the only alternative was to elect Democrats.
The choice by the public was somewhat understandable, even to a conservative such as myself. The Republican Party, in my opinion, needed the shakedown that comes with a loss of power. As I said, I'm going to take a look at that in more detail in the coming weeks.
However, I just find it funny when anti-Bush liberals parrot his low approval ratings as some sort of victory for their cause...when the Donkey-run Congress can't do any better in the polls. This does not bode well for the Dems as we start trucking towards the 2008 election season.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Corporal Tyler Rock (a great name for a soldier) rips into Head Senate Donkey Harry Reid, this is the part I want to highlight, as it lets me know that despite what the politicians say, our soldiers believe this war should continue. Warning, this is an unedited version...
“yeah and i got a qoute for that douche harry reid. these families need us here. obviously he has never been in iraq. or atleast the area worth seeing. the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces. we need to stay here and help rebuild. if iraq didnt want us here then why do we have IP’s voluntering everyday to rebuild their cities. and working directly with us too. same with the IA’s. it sucks that iraqi’s have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete shit more than the people in america who drink starbucks everyday. we could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. and then we could wait for 3,000 more american civilians to die before we say “hey thats not nice” again. and the sad thing is after we WIN this war. people like him will say he was there for us the whole time.”
A lot of right-on statements in that rant. Cpl. Rock wants to win this war, and believes that it can be done. In fact, the only people who don't believe this war can be won are the politicians and the mass media.
Will someone tell Senator Reid that he has to do some explaining of his words to soldiers like Cpl. Rock? I would love to see a face-to-face meeting between those 2.
For further military fun, click here for a Cavalry Sergeant's message to the media.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Maybe, though, this problem with this incident has much less to do with guns, bullying, and campus security than some may think.
Personally, I believe that the key problem deals with the mental stability of college students today. I've spent plenty of time around college students in our current generation...I was one. Also, I have had plenty of friends who have gone, or are still in, college. The pressures of college are immense. Tens of thousands of dollars are being invested in you, so that you can excel at institutes of higher learning. You are supposed to meet the expectations of people who are considered experts and authorities on their respective subjects. You must write essays that your professors will approve of, and read tens of thousands of pages of bland text while researching the topics. Many people do manage to survive (or thrive, if lucky) in this environment.
Some, however, end up suffering through less-successful endeavors in higher academia.
Given the fact that many kids grow up in broken and/or abusive homes, endure traumatic ostracization in primary and secondary schools, or suffer from other kinds of mental/psychological afflictions...why are we surprised when someone completely cracks under the pressure of the post-secondary educational system in America?
The person responsible for the Virginia Tech massacre, Cho Seung-Hui, had long-standing psychological issues. Apparently, it was obvious to teachers, students, and experts who evaluated Cho and believed him to be a threat to himself and/or others. How come there wasn't a non-derogatory suspension (for lack of a better term) from the school so Cho could receive proper treatment and care?
I, along with more than a few people I know, believe that the psychological condition of college students should be something that is evaluated before being allowed to enter a school of higher education.
We interview, test, and evaluate potential college students based upon SAT/ACT scores, application essays, and sometimes in face-to-face interviews (depending on the school). Why not have students go through a psychiatric evaluation, as well? It would at least cut down on the suicide rate in our universities, as well as the dropout rate due to school-related stress and anxiety.
It wouldn't have to be a long evaluation, just long enough to get a sense of the person applying for enrollment. Also, if a student needs to be evaluated and/or counseled during their time at the university for mental instability of any kind, there should be steps put in place to allow students to "take a break" from school and get the assistance they need, and once they are deemed ready to come back to school, they should be allowed back in without any problems...but should be made to attend periodic counseling or evaluations, just to make sure they are still doing well.
This would cost money, both with the inclusion of psychiatric evaluators on university payrolls, and the exclusion of those students who fail the evaluation (and their tuition dollars). However, I'm sure that state and federal government wouldn't mind avoiding more incidents like the one at Virginia Tech, nor would they mind decreasing the college suicide rate.
Here's some facts about suicide amongst high school and college students:
- Nearly 1,100 suicides are projected to occur this year on college campuses.
- In the past 50 years, the suicide rate for 15-24 year olds has increased 200%.
- Suicide is the second-leading cause of death of college students, only behind traffic accidents.
- Since 1950, the suicide rate for college-aged women has doubled, for college-aged men the rate has tripled.
Now, the suicide rate in colleges compared to the "real world" is lower, but we shouldn't send kids into a high-pressure environment like college without making sure that they are mentally and emotionally capable of handling it. To further exacerbate a person's psychological instability with the pressure of college does not necessarily bode well for their chances in the real world, provided they make it through college.
My friend Hunter Golden recently ranted about the relative psychological instability of college students through his own experiences working at Springfield College in Springfield, Massachussetts. While his rant is admittedly rambling and sometimes disjointed, the stories and points made within are interesting and worth a read. Some of the stories about these disturbed students, and the lack of reaction to their issues, is a bit shocking.
While my attempts to find a solution to this ever-present problem of mental and emotional instability amongst college students are a bit far-fetched to be implemented immediately, I would hope that small steps could be taken to start such a process. Maybe then, we can get people like Cho Sueng-Hui the proper help and care he needed before he decided to carry out his own personal, crazed idea of vengeance.
The thing is, will the colleges and universities of America be willing to part with the tuition funds from those turned away?