This thread self-destructs on 3 November 2004

[DVD Burner]

Thanks very much Kelly.

[DVD Burner]

You know I did'nt realize this was GNN. They have the full research of Skull & Bones the swiss/dutch did last year amoungst other things.

[DVD Burner]

So like.....has anyone like thought about saying "happy Ramadan" to a Muslim?

Like.... I have a lot a Muslim friends and they are really pretty cool....and they like that sort of thing.......it could be like a way to good relations........I feel like I'm a part of south park..........

[DVD Burner]

Better than Bombs and all.

[DVD Burner]

http://www.salon.com/bc/1998/12/cov_08bc.html

Night!

[Simply Joel]

Volunteers Hunt Produce to Feed Hungry
By BOBBY ROSS JR., Associated Press Writer

GOLDEN, Texas - Volunteers fanned across Texas farm fields to pick up sweet potatoes missed by mechanical harvesters, joining a national network to feed the poor with produce that might otherwise go to waste, from California oranges to Indiana beans and Florida squash.

In this rural community about 75 miles east of Dallas, the weekend effort is called the Texas Yam Jam.

"It's rewarding, it's a good gig, just to come out here and glean for the people who might not be able to eat if we hadn't actually done this," said Jay Wilbur, 43, from Panola, near the Louisiana state line.

The work is overseen by the Big Island, Va.-based Society of St. Andrew, an ecumenical organization with strong United Methodist ties. The ministry, in its 25th year, is named after the disciple who figured in the New Testament story of how Jesus Christ fed 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes.

The society estimates that over the past quarter-century, 250,000 volunteers have gleaned 461.5 million pounds of food that would have been dumped, plowed under or left to rot — but instead became 1.4 billion servings of food donated to the hungry.

"In the Old Testament, it talks about leaving the corners of your field for the ailing and the poor. We've just kind of taken that ancient biblical practice and modernized it," said Carol Breitinger, the society's spokeswoman.

This month, for example, Boy Scouts and other volunteers collected green beans from a northern Indiana field that a cannery had rejected because of frost. In Lake Park, Fla., along the Florida-Georgia line, a church group picked up bushels of leftover cucumbers and squash.

"Our food banks are screaming for fresh produce and this is actually about the least expensive way we can get fresh produce," said Randy Groce, 54, president of the Texas advisory board for the Society of St. Andrew.

Groce brought 900 orange mesh bags — each able to fit 50 pounds of sweet potatoes. Volunteers stuffed them with tens of thousands of roots as small as a thumb and as large as a submarine sandwich.

"Mom, what does a sweet potato look like?" inquired Eliza Allen, a 5-year-old in pigtails whose older sister, Jade, 8, skipped a soccer game for the Yam Jam.

"It's like a big potato that's orange," replied her mother, Andrea Allen, 35, a member of the First United Methodist Church of Celina.

Wilbur, a video game company executive, welcomes the annual effort. "I'm either on a plane or riding a desk," he joked. "It's good to get your hands dirty."

[Simply Joel]

October 26, 2004

Thus Ate Zarathustra
By DAVID BROOKS

Deep at the end of every election campaign, after all the issues have been beaten to death, when only the blowhards are still thundering, attention turns to the outcome. Who is going to win this thing already?

It is only now that the dinner party lion emerges to stake his claim to greatness. While others quiver with pre-election anxiety, their mood rising and collapsing with the merest flicker of the polls, he alone radiates certainty. He alone can read the internals, cross-tabs and trends, can parse Gallup and Zogby and emerge with clear answers. He alone can captivate a gathering, while men hang eagerly on his words and women undress him with their eyes.

He begins his dinner party performance with a combination of impressive name-dropping and crushing banality: "I was talking to Karl the other day - Karl Rove - and he mentioned that winning the most electoral votes is the key to winning the election. And when I bumped into Tim - Tim Russert - at Colin and Alma's place, he agreed."

Having established his place among the pantheon of Those Who Know, he unfurls a series of impressive, counterintuitive but probably meaningless factoids: "You know, historically, polls conducted during the third week in September have proved to be more accurate in predicting the final result than ones conducted closer to Election Day."

By this point soup will be cooling in the bowls. His dinner companions will be waiting for him to validate their highest hopes or underline their fears. The lion must be careful not to utter a final prediction too quickly.

Instead the suspense must build gradually but relentlessly. He runs through the bogus subdemographic groups that could swing the vote: cellphone-using creationists (undersampled by current survey methods) or African-American gun-owning deacons, who have been so intriguingly cross-pressured for several months.

This is followed by a bout of ostentatious historical parallelism - the pundit will remark upon astounding similarities between this election and that of 1884. At this point another person in the group, driven vicious with envy, may retort that actually, he would have thought the better comparison was to the 1916 election. The pundit should allow a forgiving smile to play upon his lips before riposting, "Yes, I can see why you would have thought that, but the campaigns' private polling suggests otherwise."

References to the private polling are like the neutron bombs of political discourse - quiet but devastating.

Now dominating the table, the pundit should indulge in the sort of storytelling beloved by swing-state-travel braggarts. He should speak in counties, about his trips through Cuyahoga, Macomb, Muscatine and Broward. If somebody mentions she has an aunt living in Ridgeville just south of Dayton, he should fondly recall the exceptional Waffle House there.

Donning the false modesty worn by Those Who Talk to Voters, he should describe how he humbly listens to the volk, while making it clear that only someone as brilliant as himself could discern national trends from 13 conversations.

Having studied the classic bildungsroman "How to Make Love Like a Pundit" (Universitat de Gemeinschaft, 1989), he should pretend the campaigns actually know what they are doing, and aren't dominated by sleep-deprived spinmeisters with attention spans like a potato grub's.

He must give broad hints of the hidden structures that shape the electorate. He must make sure his listeners do not recall that most voters have only the foggiest notions of what they are voting on. As a Cato Institute study reminds us, 70 percent of voters do not know about the new prescription drug benefit, 60 percent know little about the Patriot Act, and during the cold war, only 38 percent of voters knew that the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO.

These facts suggest that in close elections, the results are a crapshoot, which would undermine the pundit's claim to expertise. So he should conclude his peroration with mendacious specificity, about the remarkable shift in Lithuanian voters in northwest Pennsylvania, or the way the missing Iraqi munitions story is having a devastating effect on Bush leaners near Kenosha.

Then, having filled the air with 45 minutes of bogus pontification and pretentious gibberish, he should sagely declare that this election is just too close to call and that it would be irresponsible to make a prediction.

When his companions start throwing steak knives, he should retire for the evening.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Simply Joel]

October 25, 2004

Arab and Jewish Votes
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Washington — You have to give credit to Arab-Americans, and to the overlapping category of American Muslims, for knowing what side they are on in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - and for voting for those they believe would address their concerns.

Four years ago, they voted almost two to one for George W. Bush, thinking he would act like his father. Today, according to the Zogby poll, American Muslim voters are going 10 to 1 in the opposite political direction - for John Kerry over Bush. Not only do they see Bush's Patriot Act as discriminatory, most of these Americans dislike the president's unwavering support of Israel - including his backing of Ariel Sharon's security fence and the diplomatic isolation of Yasir Arafat.

This stunning reversal of opinion within a growing voting bloc is having an impact. For example, about a half million Arab-Americans live in Michigan, according to the Arab American Institute; most have turned strongly anti-Bush. That's why pollsters are counting Michigan, with its 17 electoral votes, as "leaning toward Kerry."

What about the other voting group that has a special interest in ending the war launched against Israelis after Yasir Arafat turned down the offer brokered by President Clinton?

Jewish American voters who differ with their Arab and Muslim compatriots, one might logically conclude, would seriously consider supporting the candidate who many Israelis believe has been their best friend in the White House.

But such logic is misleading. Four years ago, candidate Bush received 20 percent of the "Jewish vote," about halfway between the low point for a Republican candidate (5 percent for Goldwater) and the high point (39 percent for Reagan). Today, it appears that Bush is getting only slightly more than the 20 percent of last time.

Despite the fact that this president has firmly backed Israel's vigorous self-defense - and time and again vetoed or denounced lopsided U.N. votes to ostracize Israel - 8 out of 10 Jewish American voters will still vote as a bloc to oust him.

Why? To hold the bloc's usual support, Kerry has me-tooed every policy decision Bush has made affecting Israel - finding old armistice lines "unrealistic," keeping Jerusalem undivided, favoring Arafat's isolation. Though at first he told an Arab-American audience that Israel's security fence was "a barrier to peace," Kerry changed his mind to comport with Bush's support of Ariel Sharon's plan.

Kerry can legitimately point to dozens of pro-Israel votes. But the essence of his foreign policy - to rely on alliances with France, Germany, Russia and the U.N. to combat terror and enforce the peace - requires accommodation with the central demand of these Arab-influenced entities to lean heavily on Israel to make the very concessions Kerry now says he's against. No Kerry heat on Israel, no grand new global alliance.

One answer to the "why?'' posed above is that most Jewish Americans quite properly base their vote on issues like social justice, civil liberty, economic fairness and not primarily on what may be good for Israel. That's been especially true when democratic Israel, like the U.S., has had a close hawk-dove split.

But now, the great majority of Israelis and Americans are behind Sharon's decision to pull 7,000 settlers out of Gaza. Because a zealous Jewish minority opposes giving up an inch of revered land, Israel is under great internal strain. Some rabbis are urging soldiers to disobey orders, tearing at the fabric of a Jewish state. Israel needs an ally, not a broker.

Kerry has lately echoed Bush's support of Sharon's daring plan of unilateral disengagement. But it is Bush who has the four-year record of standing up for Israel's right of self-defense. He has earned the trust of Israelis at a time when they most need a stalwart ally to make this plan succeed - and to help turn Palestine into a peaceful neighboring state.

Most Arab-Americans and U.S. Muslims, as is their right, disparage Sharon's plan. But in getting out of Gaza, the national interests of the U.S. and Israel are in accord.

As one who has all his life been a political minority within an ethnic minority, I hope that other longtime supporters of Israel will - at this moment of its political trial - allow themselves to give a little added weight in their voting decisions to candidates most likely to help gain a secure peace in the Middle East.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Simply Joel]

OBAMA MAY TURN OUT TO BE FIRST BLACK SENATOR WITH CLOUT


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama -- who, just a year ago, was a little-known state senator from the South Side of Chicago -- is gaining the rock-star status that envelops politicians who exude a certain charm and charisma. Like Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger, he draws cheering, clapping throngs who want to share a photo, get an autograph, touch the hem of his garment.
Having bested several opponents to win the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate from Illinois, he vaulted into the ranks of political superstars with an inspiring -- occasionally soaring -- speech at the Democratic National Convention.

Now, coasting along with a 40-plus-point lead over his GOP opponent, Alan Keyes, he is expected to easily win election. He will be the third black American since Reconstruction to enter the world's most exclusive club -- and its lone black member currently. (Since Keyes is also black, the U.S. Senate gets another black member regardless of outcome.)

(IF THIS COLUMN RUNS AFTER TUESDAY: With a 40-plus-point lead over his GOP opponent, Alan Keyes, he easily won election to the U.S. Senate, becoming only the third black American since Reconstruction to enter the world's most exclusive club -- and its lone black member currently.)

In 1967, Republican Edward Brooke of Massachusetts became the first black American elected to the modern Senate. Moderate and generally well-liked, he nevertheless was rarely regarded as a prime mover. Brooke served until 1978, when he was defeated after a messy divorce trial.

The second black senator of modern times was Carol Moseley-Braun, a lawyer elected from Illinois in 1992. She lost her bid for re-election after she was overwhelmed by a scandal involving financial shenanigans by her former fiance and campaign manager.

Smart, confident and worldly, Obama seems poised for a more distinguished Senate career. The son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas, he has an extraordinary background that lends itself to leadership on some of the major issues facing the nation, from race relations to Islamist fanaticism. His Kenyan grandfather was Muslim; after his mother remarried, he spent several years as a child in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, and he still speaks Indonesian. He spent the rest of his childhood with his mother and her parents in Hawaii; he attended undergraduate school in Los Angeles and New York.

In his lyrical and unsparing memoir, "Dreams From My Father," he describes an adolescence and early adulthood in which he struggled to become comfortable with his racial identity. "Away from my mother," he writes, "away from my (maternal) grandparents, I was engaged in a fitful interior struggle. I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America."

He seems to have figured it out quite nicely. Reporters covering his campaign have frequently seemed dazzled by his appeal to voters across lines of color and class. Because of his heritage, perhaps, he's able "to be comfortable with whites without black folks feeling like you're trying to run away from them," as he puts it.

In the Senate, he doesn't intend to be a "spokesman for the race," but, given his interests, he will undoubtedly end up advocating for issues of particular concern to black Americans, he said. "There has been no discussion of an urban agenda in this (presidential) campaign at all -- nothing about affordable housing, jobs for youth, the growing crisis of AIDS. I intend to work on those issues."

A Harvard-educated attorney, Obama has made it clear that he doesn't intend to spend his first term sitting quietly and soaking up the wisdom of veterans. He plans to serve on powerful committees and influence policy. In addition to domestic issues, he intends to be influential in formulating foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.

He's likely to get what he wants. He has traveled to assist the election prospects of other Democrats, including Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold and Colorado Senate candidate Ken Salazar. He has also given generously to Democratic candidates from his campaign war chest. That assures Obama will arrive with some stature.

Obama could be a first -- a black U.S. senator who wields real clout.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She can be reached by e-mail: [email protected].
COPYRIGHT 2004 THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION

[Simply Joel]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 1, 2004
Osama Casts His Vote
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Washington

The big news in Osama bin Laden's message to American voters was not his intercession in our election; that clumsy ploy was not as successful as his pre-election panicking of Spain's voters.

Nor was the news his delight in the "pet goat" sequence in Michael Moore's Bush-bashing film, and his admonition that "Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you," echoing the central Kerry theme. Nor was it the frustrating fact that our Global Enemy No. 1 is alive and well and still at large.

The unremarked news is that this mass murderer evidently seeks a kind of truce. Although some coverage of his pre-election message noted an unexpected "conciliatory tone," we have not fixed on the reason for this change in his attitude.

"Each state that does not harm our security will remain safe," bin Laden promised, which was "why we did not attack Sweden, for example." His unmistakable import: if the U.S. were to stop our war on Qaeda terror, which has killed or captured an estimated 75 percent of his closest collaborators, that would be what he called "the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan ..." Stop warring on terror and you will "remain safe."

Generals do not call for a truce when they're winning. Only warriors thrust on the defensive become conciliatory, hoping that negotiations will give them time to regroup and resupply. Bin Laden's vain hope seems to be that the defeat of Bush will give him time to buy or steal a horrific weapon as an "equalizer."

Bin Laden was the second outsider to try to influence our election in an "October surprise." I suspect the first was Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief U.N. arms inspector, said to be miffed at the Bush administration's refusal to support his bid for an unprecedented third term.

He has long known about the presence of "nuclear trigger" explosives (evidence of Saddam's nuclear ambitions?) in one of Iraq's thousands of ammo dumps. But, The Wall Street Journal reports that with exquisite political timing, on Oct. 1 ElBaradei sent a "reminder" to a Baathist science minister renewing the U.N. interest in these particular explosives. That produced a dutiful letter from the Iraqi bureaucrat to the U.N. nine days later that was promptly leaked to CBS News, which apparently turned to the more credible New York Times to do most of the reporting.

CBS originally admitted intending to break its surprise accusations about our troops' failure to secure the ammo on "60 Minutes" on Oct. 31, last night, only 36 hours before polls opened. Journalists call that hyping device a "keeper" - holding a story for the moment when it causes the most damage - which the victim cannot refute until after Election Day, by which time it's too late. (Now CBS claims that the network would never have done such a nefarious thing. Maybe, maybe not; that plan should be part of the investigation by CBS's panel looking into forged National Guard documents.)

The Times, to its ethical credit, refused to go along with CBS's planned last-minute ambush and instead front-paged its article one week ago. (Besides, competition was surfacing on the Internet.) That time enabled other network news organizations to cast doubt on the story. In addition, making our forces in the field look bad did not sit well, and the Pentagon was able to show that the 400 tons possibly missed by our advancing troops was one one-thousandth of the 400,000 tons found, secured or destroyed by the coalition.

What effect will these two manipulations by outsiders have on America's election decision tomorrow?

Until it was partly discredited, the product of ElBaradei's shrewd "reminder" damaged Bush by putting him on the defensive, giving Democrats a final-week boost. If Kerry wins, the Egyptian should be chief U.N. inspector for life.

But then came the Qaeda tape, followed by Bush's cool, nonpolitical response, and then by Kerry's blunder in trying to capitalize on it. Bin Laden's latest misreading of American public opinion plays to Bush's antiterrorist strength.

For now, bin Laden's unwelcome intercession is taken to be anti-Bush overkill. Coming from the fugitive terrorist, it will help ensure the president's re-election. Later, we will understand bin Laden's phony attempt at conciliation to be his first sign of weakness.


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[KellY]

Don't buy it. I think Osama wants Bush to win. Intelligence experts everywhere agree that the Iraq war has been a huge propaganda victory for al-Queda: a huge boom to recruiting due to anti-American feelings that have grown all over the globe, but especially in the Moslem countries. We took down one of Osama's enemies and weakened ourselves in the process - how could he not love that?

Osama s evil, not stupid. He surely can figure out that by attacking Bush he makes him look better in the eyes of his supporters. And either way, he can claim to have influenced the election.

[Simply Joel]

Don't buy it. I think Osama wants Bush to win. Intelligence experts everywhere agree that the Iraq war has been a huge propaganda victory for al-Queda: a huge boom to recruiting due to anti-American feelings that have grown all over the globe, but especially in the Moslem countries. We took down one of Osama's enemies and weakened ourselves in the process - how could he not love that?

Osama s evil, not stupid. He surely can figure out that by attacking Bush he makes him look better in the eyes of his supporters. And either way, he can claim to have influenced the election.

so, are you saying we should escalate the war on terrorism?

or capitulate to his "bin Laden's" demands?

you position against terrorism and its agents is not clear to me.

[KellY]

you position against terrorism and its agents is not clear to me.

To complex to go into at the moment. I was merely stating why I thouight Safire's column is full of it. I don't think Osama wants a truce, I think he's fucking with us, and that he wants Bush to win, and is smart enough to know a bit of reverse psychology could work in Bush's favor.

BTW - Bush already did "capitulate to [one of] his demnds" by removing troops from Saudi Arabia.

[DVD Burner]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generals do not call for a truce when they're winning. Only warriors thrust on the defensive become conciliatory, hoping that negotiations will give them time to regroup and resupply. Bin Laden's vain hope seems to be that the defeat of Bush will give him time to buy or steal a horrific weapon as an "equalizer."

Exactly the type of stupid quote the idiot Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin would say and follow.

I'm looking foward to Bush winning also so some real ass kicking can start happening here in the states.

[Simply Joel]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generals do not call for a truce when they're winning. Only warriors thrust on the defensive become conciliatory, hoping that negotiations will give them time to regroup and resupply. Bin Laden's vain hope seems to be that the defeat of Bush will give him time to buy or steal a horrific weapon as an "equalizer."

Exactly the type of stupid quote the idiot Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin would say and follow.

I'm looking foward to Bush winning also so some real ass kicking can start happening here in the states.

how do you make the jump from an observation on tactics to LTG Boykin's inappropriate comments on God's role in this war?

[DVD Burner]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generals do not call for a truce when they're winning. Only warriors thrust on the defensive become conciliatory, hoping that negotiations will give them time to regroup and resupply. Bin Laden's vain hope seems to be that the defeat of Bush will give him time to buy or steal a horrific weapon as an "equalizer."

Exactly the type of stupid quote the idiot Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin would say and follow.

I'm looking foward to Bush winning also so some real ass kicking can start happening here in the states.

how do you make the jump from an observation on tactics to LTG Boykin's inappropriate comments on God's role in this war?

Boykin gets his tactics from God (Stupid) Just as Generals think they are winning (also Stupid.) But why am I bothering to explain any of this to you. You wont understand anyway.

Go bomb or shoot something.

[Simply Joel]

Exactly the type of stupid quote the idiot Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin would say and follow.

I'm looking foward to Bush winning also so some real ass kicking can start happening here in the states.

how do you make the jump from an observation on tactics to LTG Boykin's inappropriate comments on God's role in this war?

Boykin gets his tactics from God (Stupid) Just as Generals think they are winning (also Stupid.) But why am I bothering to explain any of this to you. You wont understand anyway.

Go bomb or shoot something.

give me your location, and i will consider it.

[DVD Burner]

give me your location, and i will consider it.

Yeah sure:

DVD Burner
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

[Simply Joel]

If DVD did become the chief executive of our fair nation, i would consider another country to live out my remaining days...

onto to something sufficiently more worthy of discussion...

November 2, 2004
Hope and Frustration
By DAVID BROOKS

As I look back over the course of this campaign, I should confess I've gone through several periods convinced I should vote against President Bush. I know I'm not the only conservative to think this way. I look at my favorite conservative bloggers and see many coming out for John Kerry. I talk to my friends at conservative think tanks and magazines and notice that they are deeply ambivalent about the administration, even those who would never vote for a Democrat.

Like all these folks, I look at the Bush administration with a mixture of admiration, frustration and anger.

I'm frustrated that Bush didn't build the governing majority that was there for the taking. He came to power with good ideas on how to move the G.O.P. beyond the Gingrich stall. But time and again, he abandoned his reformist strategy to give spoils to the G.O.P. donor base.

To take one small example: on environmental policy, he showed interest in moving to a flexible, market-based system that would have cleaned the environment better than the current system. But too often rules were written to please key industries. Voters who could have been turned on by new, effective approaches were instead appalled at unseemly self-dealing.

I'm exasperated at the Bush communications strategy. His advisers came in with one rule: no concessions to elite opinion. They decided not to be open on how they make decisions. They would never admit mistakes. They would not fully engage with Washington or even with Republicans on Capitol Hill. In so doing, they pushed away many who could have helped them - most important, pro-war Democrats. They fed the misconception that this is an administration that does not deliberate. They further polarized the political climate, in ways that only make it more difficult to get anything done.

I'm angry at the decision not to send enough troops into Iraq. The history of the 1990's suggested that when societies are transformed, establishing law and order is the most important thing. Yet that lesson was ignored. People from the center to the right were screaming for more boots on the ground, but the administration never performed the elementary task of statecraft: matching the tools at your disposal to the goals you hope to pursue.

There are moments when I think, These are exactly the sorts of mistakes that administrations should be thrown out of office for.

Then other considerations come into play. The first is Kerry. He's been attacked for being a flip-flopper, but his core trait is that he is monumentally selfish. Since joining the Senate, he has never attached himself to an idea or movement larger than his own career advancement.

It's not for nothing that people in Massachusetts joked that his initials stand for Just For Kerry. Or that people spoke of him as the guy who refuses to wait in lines at restaurants because he thinks he's above everybody else. If the Democrats had nominated Dick Gephardt, this election wouldn't be close, but character is destiny, and Kerry's could be debilitating in the White House.

Second, for the next many years the madrassas will be churning out young men who want to kill us. In embarking on a generational challenge to transform the Middle East, Bush has a strategy to defeat their ideology. While many around him understand the challenge, Kerry has no strategy.

I fear his foreign policy would combine Carteresque pedantry with the cruel "realism" of the first Bush administration. Under the elder Bush, the realists paid lip service to democracy, but inevitably stood by whoever was in power at the moment: for Gorbachev and against the freedom-loving Lithuanians, for the Russian empire and against the independence-seeking Ukrainians.

That passive approach was tolerable in the face of a dying Soviet Union. It is not in the face of radical Islam.

Third, Kerry's Democrats seem to have no interest in reforming the entitlement programs that are asphyxiating government. Kerry merely promises to expand the status quo, thus punting on the central domestic challenge of our time.

I'm not allowed to tell you how I'm going to resolve these contradictory impulses (Times policy). But if Kerry wins, I hope he'll pick three things he wants to do - for the country, not himself - and stick with them. And if Bush is re-elected, I hope he will see his win not as vindication, but as a second chance to act effectively on the visions that inspired hope in the first place.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[DVD Burner]

Moore to Set Up Cameras in Florida, Ohio

Monday, Nov. 1, 2004 12:45 a.m. EST


Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore plans to have hundreds of cameras outside polling places in Ohio and Florida on Election Day to watch for attempts to suppress voter turnout.

"I'm putting those who intend to suppress the vote on notice: voter intimidation and suppression will not be tolerated," Moore said in a statement.

Moore announced Saturday that a total of 1,200 professional and nonprofessional cameramen, filmmakers and videographers would be at polling places in the two states, especially in minority communities, his publicist Terri Hardesty said. Moore was in Columbus Saturday night as part of the Slacker Uprising Tour rally.

The director of the anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" Moore planned to spend part of Tuesday in Ohio and part of the day in Florida, Hardesty said.

Polls in both states say the race for president is too close to call. President Bush and Sen. John Kerry and their running mates have made numerous visits to both states that both sides say are crucial to winning the election.

There have been voting problems already in Florida, where 537 votes tipped the state and the presidency to Bush in 2000 following a controversial recount.

In Ohio, there has been an ongoing legal fight this year over the right to challenge voter registrations.


© 2004 Associated Press.

[Simply Joel]

Moore to Set Up Cameras in Florida, Ohio

Monday, Nov. 1, 2004 12:45 a.m. EST


Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore plans to have hundreds of cameras outside polling places in Ohio and Florida on Election Day to watch for attempts to suppress voter turnout.

"I'm putting those who intend to suppress the vote on notice: voter intimidation and suppression will not be tolerated," Moore said in a statement.

So, do all those who get videotaped or recorded get to say "yes, i want to be filmed" and/or "no, i do not want to be filmed, turn the camera away?"

because, i do believe privacy is a voter's right.

or, in the worst case scenario... Moore will trample on some voter's rights by filming, the police will step in to stp th efiling to protect the voter's rights and then Moore will selectively edit the footage to leave the impression that the police, not Moore's cameras are interferring with voter's rights.

maybe not well said, but certainly something along those lines is possible.

Michael Moore is disingenuous, IMHO

[Simply Joel]

Photographer's arrest at polls sparks free-speech lawsuit

By Tal Abbady
and Peter Franceschina Staff Writers

Posted November 2 2004

The day following the arrest of a journalist who photographed voters waiting in line, a voters' rights group filed a lawsuit against Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, raising questions about the enforcement of a law that creates a buffer zone between voters and outside groups.

The group, the Election Protection Coalition, an affiliate of the civil rights group People for the American Way, characterized as a First Amendment violation the enforcement of a state law that prohibits media, nonpartisan groups, party representatives and anyone else deemed a "solicitor" from speaking to voters within 50 feet of a polling place.

Law enforcement officials prohibited coalition volunteers from talking to voters on public property well beyond the restriction zone, the group claims.

Officials for Election Protection said the suit was prompted by the Sunday arrest of freelance journalist James Henry of Sag Harbor, N.Y., and by reports from the group's volunteers who claim law enforcement personnel barred them from county property altogether.

LePore's spokesman, Marty Rogol, provided a memo from LePore in which she derives the authority to invoke the 50-foot law before Election Day from the state's Division of Elections.

Jenny Nash, press secretary for the Department of State, said LePore's actions were in accordance with state guidelines on early voting.

LePore's actions and interpretation of the state's law on the Election Day buffer zone, in which she groups journalists with partisan solicitors, also prompted a letter from attorneys on behalf of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

On Sunday afternoon, Henry, 54, was photographing voters in line at the Supervisor of Elections Office in West Palm Beach when Sheriff's Deputy Al Cinque approached him, asked for press credentials, and told him to stand at the media tent outside the restriction zone, Carhart said.

Henry fled from Cinque and tripped before he was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence, Carhart said. He posted $500 bail and was released at 2 a.m. Monday.

Henry admits to fleeing the officer after he showed him two press cards. He said the deputy punched him in the back once he fell.

"I was scared. It's one thing to flee and another thing to be intimidated," Henry said.

Palm Beach Circuit Judge David Crow has scheduled a 45-minute hearing on the matter for 8 a.m. today.

Copyright © 2004, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

[Simply Joel]

Election officials beefing up poll security due to terror threat
By The Associated Press

(10/22/04 - WASHINGTON) — Election officials are beefing up security and taking other precautions at many of the nation's 200,000 polling places amid continuing concern that al-Qaida terrorists are intent on disrupting the U.S. political process.

Some officials are increasing police patrols and assigning plainclothes officers to monitor voting sites on Election Day. Others are taking steps to secure ballot boxes, set up emergency communications systems and locate backup polling places in the event of an attack.

"We have to prepare for the worst situation," said Brenda Fisher, elections director for Anne Arundel County in Maryland.
FBI and Homeland Security Department officials stress that a steady stream of intelligence indicating the threat of an election-year threat is general in nature, with no specific indications that terrorists might strike polling places. But elections officials say they can't discount the possibility that al-Qaida might be attracted to long lines of voters to make a violent statement against democracy.

Many say the March 11 terror attack on Madrid's commuter trains, which killed 191 people, was a factor in the defeat of Spain's then-ruling party in elections three days later.

"Spain is certainly at the forefront of our minds," said Gary Bartlett, executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections. "An attack anywhere in the country could have a chilling effect on voting."

At the same time, officials nationwide say a heavy law enforcement presence could frighten voters away from polls the exact opposite of their utmost priority.

In New Mexico, Bernalillo County Clerk Mary Herrera said she is hiring more poll "troubleshooters" this year to "keep an extra eye out" but is not using off-duty police or sheriff's deputies.

"I didn't want the voters to feel intimidated or scared," Herrera said.

A few weeks ago, the National Governors Association, National Association of Secretaries of State and other groups circulated a letter to states, counties and cities urging officials to plan ahead for the possibility of a terror attack on Election Day.

"The states have sovereignty over elections. The federal government does not," said Meredith Imwalle, spokeswoman for the secretaries of state association.

Given the limited federal role, there are no plans to station FBI agents or other U.S. law enforcement personnel at or near any polling places, officials said. Homeland Security spokeswoman Katy Mynster said the federal government regularly shares intelligence about the potential threat with state and local officials responsible for voter safety.

"We still remain concerned about al-Qaida's desire to attack," Mynster said. "We do not have any specific information identifying a time, place or method."

The Justice Department will dispatch about 1,000 election observers and monitors to polling places around the country, but their job is mainly to watch for violations of voting rights and to ensure access to the polls. None are law enforcement officers or prosecutors.

Many election officials say they are doing little different this year, given the vague nature of the terror threat. Some say the al-Qaida threat is just the latest in a long line of potential election problems that require advance planning.

"We've had natural disasters, loss of power, a tree falls down and blocks a voting place," said Roger Shatzkin, spokesman for the New Jersey Office of Counterterrorism.

"Just because of the intense and emotional nature of elections, sometimes people are tense at polling places, and things happen," said Minneapolis elections chief Susanne Griffith. "We're prepared to deal with those situations."

Others say they are focusing on training poll workers to ensure they know what to do and who to contact in a terrorist attack. Carlos Castillo Jr., election commissioner in Douglas County, Neb., said each of his 2,000 workers has been given a hot line number to call if necessary.

"From the outside, It's not going to look any different," Castillo said. "We don't want to disrupt the process. That's the last thing we want to do."

Michael Chitwood, police chief in Portland, Maine, said he recently gave a security briefing to local election wardens noting that the ringleader of the Sept. 11, 2001 hijack attacks, Mohamed Atta, started his deadly journey that morning at Portland's airport.

"The audience was attentive. In some ways they were scared to death. But we had to make sure they knew the possibilities," Chitwood said. "It's voting in the post-9/11 world. There's a new sense of vulnerability in our country whether it's Manhattan or Portland, Maine."

(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

[samtzu]

The AP wrote:

"The audience was attentive. In some ways they were scared to death. But we had to make sure they knew the possibilities," Chitwood said. "It's voting in the post-9/11 world. There's a new sense of vulnerability in our country whether it's Manhattan or Portland, Maine."

Let's keep that fear at a fevered pitch!

[Simply Joel]

seems like a suitable time for the thread to close... admin if you please.

[samtzu]

Now, this thread was fun. Thanks, Joel. It's been interesting... but, I agree. It's time to move on to troll-boy's threads for a few days, and then back to real discussions on the other threads. I have enjoyed this one.

[Simply Joel]

Now, this thread was fun. Thanks, Joel. It's been interesting... but, I agree. It's time to move on to troll-boy's threads for a few days, and then back to real discussions on the other threads. I have enjoyed this one.

i am making a concerted effort not to participate in "troll-boy's thread."

guilt by association.

[tisha2]

that wisdom, and your willpower, earns you a drink, dear.

[Simply Joel]

Text of John Kerry's Concession Speech
By The Associated Press

"Thank you so much. Thank you, thank you. I love you. I love you, thank you. Thank you, thank you so much.

Thank you so much. You just have no idea how warming and how generous that welcome is, your love is, your affection. And I'm gratified by it.

I'm sorry that we got here a little bit late and little bit short.

I spoke to President Bush and I offered him and Laura our congratulations on their victory.

We had a good conversation, and we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need — the desperate need for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together.

Today I hope that we can begin the healing.

In America, it is vital that every vote count, and that every vote be counted. But the outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal process. I would not give up this fight if there was a chance that we would prevail.

But is now clear that even when all the provisional ballots are counted, which they will be, there won't be enough outstanding votes for us to be able to win Ohio.

And therefore we cannot win this election.

My friends, it was here that we began our campaign for the presidency and all we had was hope and vision for a better America. It was a privilege and a gift to spend two years traveling this country, coming to know so many of you.

I wish that I could just wrap you up in my arms and embrace each and every one of you individually all across this nation. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. ...

I will always be particularly grateful to the colleague that you just heard from who became my partner, my very close friend, an extraordinary leader, John Edwards.

And I thank him for everything he did.

Thank you, sir.

John and I would be the first to tell you that we owe so much to our families. They're here with us today. They were with us every single step of the way. They sustained us.

They went out on their own and they multiplied our campaign all across this country.

No one did this more with grace and with courage and candor, that I love, than my wife Teresa, and I thank her.

And our children were there every single step of the way. It was unbelievable. Vanessa, Alex, Chris, Andre and John from my family, and Elizabeth Edwards, who is so remarkable and so strong and so smart.

And Johnny and Kate, who went out there on their own, just like my daughters did. And also Emma Claire and Jack, who were up beyond their bedtime last night, like a lot of us.

I want to thank my crewmates and my friends from 35 years ago, that great band of brothers who crisscrossed this country on my behalf for 2004.

They had the courage to speak the truth back then and they spoke it again this year. And for that, I will forever be grateful.

And thanks also, as I look around here, to friends and family of a lifetime, some from college, friends made all across the years, and then all across the miles of this campaign.

You are so special. You brought the gift of your passion for our country and the possibilities of change. And that will stay with us and with this country forever.

Thanks to Democrats and Republicans and independents who stood with us, and everyone who voted, no matter who their candidate was.

And thanks to my absolutely unbelievable, dedicated staff lead by a wonderful campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, who did an extraordinary job.

There's so much written about campaigns and there's so much that Americans never get to see.

I wish they could all spend a day on a campaign and see how hard these folks work to make America better. It is its own unbelievable contribution to our democracy and it's a gift to everybody, but especially to me, and I'm grateful to each and every one of you.

And I thank your families and I thank you for the sacrifices you've made. And to all the volunteers all across this country who gave so much of themselves. You know, thanks to William Field, a 6-year-old who collected $680 a quarter and a dollar at a time, selling bracelets during the summer to help change America.

Thanks to Michael Benson from Florida, who I spied in a rope line holding a container of money and it turned out he had raided his piggy bank and wanted to contribute.

And thanks to Ilana Wexler, 11 years old, who started Kids for Kerry all across our country.

I think of the brigades of students and people, young and old, who took time to travel, time off from work, their own vacation time, to work in states far and wide. They braved the hot days of summer avisited your community halls, I've heard your stories.

I know your struggles, I know your hopes. They are part of me now.

And I will never forget you and I'll never stop fighting for you.

You may not understand completely in what ways, but it is true when I say to you that you have taught me and you have tested me and you've lifted me up and you've made me stronger.

I did my best to express my vision and my hopes for America. We worked hard and we fought hard, and I wish that things had turned out a little differently.

But in an American election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans.

That is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on Earth.

With that gift also comes obligation. We are required now to work together for the good of our country.

In the days ahead, we must find common cause. We must join in common effort, without remorse or recrimination, without anger or rancor. America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion.

I hope President Bush will advance those values in the coming years.

I pledge to do my part to try to bridge the partisan divide.

I know this is a difficult time for my supporters, but I ask them, all of you, to join me in doing that. Now, more than ever, with our soldiers in harm's way, we must stand together and succeed in Iraq (news - web sites) and win the war on terror.

I will also do everything in my power to ensure that my party, a proud Democratic Party, stands true to our best hopes and ideals.

I believe that what we started in this campaign will not end here.

Our fight goes on to put America back to work and to make our economy a great engine of job growth.

Our fight goes on to make affordable health care an accessible right for all Americans, not privilege.

Our fight goes on to protect the environment, to achieve equality, to push the frontiers of science and discovery and to restore America's reputation in the world.

I believe that all of this will happen, and sooner than we may think, because we're America, and America always moves forward.

I've been honored to represent the citizens of this commonwealth in the United States Senate now for 20 years. And I pledge to them that in the years ahead, I'm going to fight on for the people and for the principles that I've learned and lived with here in Massachusetts.

I'm proud of what we stood for in this campaign and of what we accomplished.

When we began, no one thought it was possible to even make this a close race.

But we stood for real change, change that would make a real difference in the life of our nation and the lives of our families. And we defined that choice to America.

I'll never forget the wonderful people who came to our rallies, who stood in our rope lines, who put their hopes in our hands, who invested in each and every one of us. I saw in them the truth that America is not only great, but it is good.

So with a grateful heart, I leave this campaign with a prayer that has even greater meaning to me now that I've come to know our vast country so much better thanks to all of you and what a privilege it has been to do so.

And that prayer is very simple: God bless America.

Thank you"