|
 |
Friday, August 08, 2003 |
From the What-the-Hell-were-they-thinking? files comes this atrocity of marketing:
11:08:51 PM 
|
|
The MoveOn Mob [The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page]
Oh dear, now the Angry Left is angry at us. The Wall Street Journal has been hit by a mass e-mail campaign, spurred by our Tuesday item in which we characterized MoveOn.org as a "far-left, pro-Saddam group." The summer intern who's filling in for the Journal's vacationing letters editor reports that the messages started rolling in shortly after 6 p.m. EDT yesterday. In the first 15 minutes, 200 to 250 messages arrived; by 7 p.m. the count was over 600. As of early this afternoon, it was approaching 3,500. At least 1,200 messages have also gone to a Wall Street Journal Online customer-service mailbox.
7:10:52 PM
|
|
Bill of No Rights (Libertarian writer and former U.S. Senate candidate Lewis Napper)
I know a lot of you have seen this in your email before but for those who might have missed it........
"We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some commonsense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal, bedwetters.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.
ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness-which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights."
6:44:49 PM
|
|
'Gay?' Leave God out of it (WND)
Where I work the subject of homosexuality is a very frequent topic of discussion. If you knew where I worked you would understand why. Many years ago someone pointed out a passage in the Bible to me. I have never forgotten and it always comes to mind whenever I hear the Christian religion and homosexuality discussed. Of course lately there has been a lot of that discussion. I always wonder how they get around this one scripture?
Go to this URL and under Passage Lookup type in Leviticus 20:13. Be sure to check all the boxes for all the versions and read them all.
I'm sure there is a loophole somewhere in the Bible that lets them off the hook since there is a loophole for everything in the Good Book.
4:35:18 PM
|
|
Bustamante sets his strategy (fresnoBee.com)
Some in Valley say the lieutenant governor has a shot at beating Schwarzenegger.
Forced to co-star with a wealthy movie actor in the topsy-turvy California recall election, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante evoked their common immigrant roots even as he laid down a challenge to Arnold Schwarzenegger's aura of reform-minded outsider.
"The history of California is replete with people who have tried to campaign in that way," Bustamante said Thursday. "We have many multimillionaires who have not been successful in running."
3:33:17 PM
|
|
WONDER LAND
A Citizen Uprising
California voters aren't crazy, free-spending pols are.
Californians aren't crazy; they're embarrassed. How humiliating for a state of such talent and innovation to be governed by legislators whose every working hour is unimpeded by a single, fresh thought on the purposes of political life.
Still, it is said that the recall mechanism poses dangers to electoral principles. Let's praise brave California for choosing to discover what those dangers, if any, actually are.
[Wall Street Journal]
1:12:22 PM
|
|
Mellow Out, Mr. M. You'd think that being the founder of one of the world's most popular religions and having a direct line to Allah would, well, take some of the pressure off. But ... [little green footballs]
10:05:17 AM
|
|
MEATHEAD. Bitter Joe Conason asks "Why are Republicans happy about Arnold -- but cry treason when lefty celebs get political?" 'Cause they're lefties, dumbass. (Cross-posted from Blogolution)... [Zogby Blog]
9:57:31 AM
|
|
BOOTY BLITZKRIEG. Here's the first wave of tabloid dirt the suddenly moralistic Party of Clinton is launching at uber-stud Arnold Schwarzenegger. I suppose the teenage mistress is the killer story Dick Morris was talking about. They'll have to do better than that... [Zogby Blog]
9:55:26 AM
|
|
Chemicals Between Us. The latest in the line of potential smoking guns has reared its head.
A top Bush administration weapons investigator told Congress in closed testimony last week that he has uncovered solid information from interviews, documents, and physical evidence that Iraqi military forces were ordered to attack US troops with chemical weapons, but... [Right-Thinking from the Left Coast]
9:50:15 AM
|
|
Found on HOYSTORY.COM
Well that's one heck of a mistake: From today's New York Times corrections desk:
An article on Sunday about attacks on the American military in Iraq over the previous two days, attributed to military officials, included an erroneous account that quoted Pfc. Jose Belen of the First Armored Division. Private Belen, who is not a spokesman for the division, said that a homemade bomb exploded under a convoy on Saturday morning on the outskirts of Baghdad and killed two American soldiers and their interpreter. The American military's central command, which releases information on all American casualties in Iraq, said before the article was published that it could not confirm Private Belen's account. Later it said that no such attack had taken place and that no American soldiers were killed on Saturday.
Repeated efforts by The Times to reach Private Belen this week have been unsuccessful. The Times should not have attributed the account to "military officials," and should have reported that the command had not verified the attack.
What will be the fallout from this mistake? Surely the Times knew that a private wasn't a spokesman. Privates are never spokesmen -- unless everyone else is dead (chain of command you know). When I covered Vandenberg AFB, the spokesman was usually at least a 2nd Lieutenant, sometimes a Major or a Lt. Colonel. In rare occasions it was the Air Force equivalent of a Sergeant.
Does the Times have another Jayson Blair in its house?
9:46:03 AM
|
|
Consumer Database Company Hacked [Slashdot]
"The NYT(FRR) and others are reporting that a hacker has broken into a Acxiom server. Acxiom evidently is "one of the world's largest consumer database companies" and serves most top credit card companies and retail banks. There are a few items that stand out in this case. First, Acxiom had no idea that the breach occurred until the company was contacted by the police. Second, the theft was an inside job. The suspect, now in police custody, was an employee with legitimate access to the information. It amazes me that a such a company would have such lax security as to allow an insider to browse supposedly private data at will. Third, the company is taking no responsibility for the break in other than reporting it to the clients, who then may or may not inform their customers." Acxiom is a Certified Participant in the BBBOnline Privacy Program.
Lets see now.....there must be a way we can blame this on Microsoft!(LP)
9:31:19 AM
|
|
And from the doesn’t quite get it yet file…[From:EDCONE.COM]
“Bloggers won’t match Limbaugh.”
This column in The Hill by Dr. David Hill shows only the vaguest understanding of how weblogs work.
The premise is flawed, because it compares a broadcast model to the networked weblog model. It would be more accurate to compare the collective influence of talk radio with the collective influence of weblogs.
Hill gives four reasons blogs won't equal Limbaugh's influence. Points one, two, and four are gross generalizations about a nascent medium. What’s more, they describe limitations not of the medium itself, but of the way it’s (allegedly) been used so far. So to hold them up as reasons weblogs won’t ever catch up to radio is just silly.
Point three is true – Rush Limbaugh is a very talented fellow, and a single superstar blogger may never match his success. But as we’ve already discussed, that’s not the point of weblogs anyway.
Hill also touts Limbaugh’s show prep, as if a weblogger, especially one with a major media organization behind him, couldn’t match it. More important – Limbaugh’s show prep no doubt includes weblogs, and weblogs will contribute more and more to the media food chain as they evolve.
9:23:38 AM
|
|
Sad Day for Pilots Everywhere!
I hope the people of Chicago hold the Mayor personally responsible for the millions in lost revenue and hundreds of lost jobs.
DEMOLITION CREWS FINISH OFF MEIGS (AOPA)
Tuesday marked the final chapter for Chicago's Meigs Field. The Chicago Tribune reported that demolition crews rolled into the facility at about 6:30 a.m. to begin the final destruction of that city's lakefront airport. "The day we had all feared has arrived," lamented AOPA President Phil Boyer. "Until now, many had held onto the slimmest of hopes that the airport could still be saved. Now there's no denying that [Chicago Mayor Richard M.] Daley has gotten his way. Meigs is no more. But no one can deny that AOPA and other Meigs supporters fought a valiant fight to save it." AOPA still has complaints pending with the FAA and the Illinois Department of Transportation over the way in which Daley closed the runway, in the middle of the night with no notice to any federal authority. But the FAA complaint is languishing in the agency's legal department. On Capitol Hill, however; the AOPA-backed "Meigs Legacy" portion of the FAA reauthorization bill would slap stiff fines of $10,000 per day on any airport sponsor who closes an airport with less than the required notice. AOPA fought for many years to keep Meigs open. See AOPA Online for a chronology of events.
5:50:29 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2003 John Gist.
|
|
|
