Why? That’s what I don’t understand. Yes, he had an affair. So have millions of others, men and women alike. Having an affair is wrong, there is no doubt about that. However, why should that end someone’s career? You may well argue that Sen. Edwards can now no longer be trusted. If that is the case, then why is John McCain still running for President? He not only had several affairs during his first marriage, there are also well-documented cases of his being verbally abusive to his current wife, his aides, and other people. I don’t care if someone is a Republican or a Democrat. Whatever “punishment” is right for one, is right for the other. There are no double standards here, folks. Either it’s “right”, or it’s “wrong”.

Does having an affair change what a Politician stand for, and how they act in their professional lives? Of course not. It no more changes that than it would you or I in our working lives. The Senator still has the same stances on foreign policy, on abortion, on the budget… nothing has changed in that respect.

Senator Edwards needs to “answer” to only his immediate family, himself, and his God. It’s not our business, nor is it our place to be judge and jury. He is human, just as you are.

However, many Americans are questioning the ages of some Chinese gymnasts. In particular, they point to a late joining alternate named Deng Linlin. While it’s true that Deng “looks” very young, we cannot truly go by that. To do so would be Profiling based on Ethnicity. Deng is much smaller than the rest of the team, and has very “girlish” features in her face. She is also missing a tooth in the front, indicative of a 12 or 13 year old girl losing her baby teeth.

In an era where much cheating has gone on by many different countries, I don’t feel it’s wrong for the Committee to push for proof of ages, via Birth Certificates or other means, as necessary. Before you even think it, I’ll say it. I Absolutely Would say the same thing were it an American’s age being questioned. I truly feel that the code of Ethics should be maintained and kept fair. The rules should apply to every country, whether it’s related to age or drug use. Otherwise, what’s the point?

What does all this mean for relations between the US and Russia? It certainly doesn’t look good. For years, we have enjoyed a peaceful situation. The two countries have cooperated on any number of Political and World issues, standing true to our word to each other in regards to military involvement. However, with Russia refusing to back down in their quest to subdue Georgia, all of that may quickly change.

What do you think? Will the US have no other choice but to step in with our military against Russia? Just the mere thought of that sends cold chills down my spine. I grew up in a time of being told that were we to ever go to war against Russia, it would mean an end to us all. Should we even be getting involved in what many are deeming to not be our business? Do we honestly have the right to dictate to Russia what they should and should not do when it comes to countries surrounding them? Or, as one of the World’s “Super Powers”, is it well within our scope of reasoning to state loudly and clearly the way things should be done?

According to FEMA’s Eric Smith: “The stockpiles that had been sitting in a Fort Worth, Texas, warehouse until February already had been offered to Gulf Coast residents in the aftermath of the storm and were returned to FEMA without being claimed. We didn’t receive them and not issue them. They were returned to us after they were not used from different areas.”

Senator Mary Landrieu said FEMA never told state officials or relief agencies involved in recovery efforts that the “living kits” meant to resettle hurricane survivors were still available. “How can people ask for something they don’t know exists?”

To me, this is an absolute outrage, and I sincerely hope that FEMA is going to make things right. Victims of tragedies such as the hurricanes were should not have to go researching for help. The help should be made available to them. FEMA should have… and hopefully will, in the future… made people aware of what they could do to help them.

It remains to be seen, of course, whether or not Sen. Stevens is guilty. We as the American public have largely already found him guilty in our own minds. Here we have a man who has been in the Senate for 40 years now. He has undeniably made more money than most of us will see over the course of our lifetimes. We look at that, and then look at his “ski home”… and automatically assume he is guilty. We get enraged over the fact that he has so much, yet felt he had to take more. It’s happened so many hundreds of thousands of times over the years… so that makes him guilty as well, right?

Wrong. How can we assume that he’s guilty? Yes, it’s a fact that his ski home was renovated. Yes, it’s a fact that something… somewhere… was misappropriated. But does that mean he knowingly falsified documents, or that he knew the misappropriation was going on?

We as a whole are too quick to jump to conclusions, too quick to judge. Just because there have been many bad apples in the barrel over the years, does not mean they all are. Chew on that for awhile, and let’s hear what you have to say.

When you look at the expenditures of the United States, your mind will boggle even more. If we are to believe President Bush’s budget projections, this new budget will:

• Balance the budget by 2012
• Combat terrorism and protect the homeland to keep America safe
• Promote economic growth and prevent tax increases to keep America prosperous
• Address the challenges facing American families—quality education for their children,
  affordable health care, rising energy costs, and falling home values
• Spend taxpayer dollars wisely, focusing resources on programs that are getting results,
  cutting wasteful spending, and holding the growth in non-security discretionary spending to
  less than one percent
• Slow the unsustainable growth of entitlement spending with sensible reforms

Wow. Those are some mighty lofty goals, Mr. President. Call my cynical, but I just don’t see any of those things happening by 2012. Oh sure, they’re wonderful goals. I absolutely agree that each and every one of those things are seriously important.

What I know will happen is that Government leaders will continue to receive huge raises each year, adding to their already insanely high salaries. Money will be appropriated to places that the general American population doesn’t feel it should go. More will be spent on the war than will be spent on Education and Health care combined.

When is the last time you remember a balanced budget, or a surplus of money in the Government? I don’t know about you, but it hasn’t been in any of my 37 years on this Earth.

“Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years.

An investigation by The Washington Post found that billions of dollars in crop payments were paid out over the past six years, with a good deal of the money going to people who don’t farm.”

Read the rest of the article here

Since I only have my opinion, I’m opening this up to anyone who wants to post their reasons for supporting a particular candidate. If you have an article you would like to see featured here (or if you want to write one) please e-mail me ( lordkat at gmail.com), and we’ll talk about getting your content up here. Remember, we’re looking for reasons to support a candidate, not articles bashing other candidates.

Today’s “Why I Support” comes from Lawrence over at Daily Paul:

“I wake up today as a 50-year-old husband and father of three, and I wonder where that America has gone. I see a President who called the U.S. Constitution “just a goddamned piece of paper.” He replaced a President who blatantly lied to the American public. Admittedly the lie was about something that was none of the Public’s business. However, when a country is led by a liar, it lowers that country’s level of discourse and makes lying seem acceptable. It is not. Are these the best leaders this Country can produce? I see that the prior President’s wife running for President with the attitude that because her husband was elected, she too deserves to be President. Says who? Do Americans really believe she will act in our best interest given all the money she has received from the military industrial complex? I see the U.S. involved in an aggressive undeclared war against a country that did not represent a threat to us in any way. Deliberate lies were told to get this war started. To date the outcome of this war is that between 100,000 and 1.0 million innocent people have died. These figures are between 30 and 300 times the number of people killed in 911. Do two wrongs make a right? Furthermore, the majority of the 911 hijackers were Saudis. Not Iraqis. We are allies with Saudi Arabia and yet Saudi Arabia is far from being a democracy. Yet we went to war to create a democracy in Iraq and set an example for the Middle East. The hypocrisy is staggering. The mistakes that were made are criminal. Why anyone believes one thing that is said by the people who lied us into this war is a mystery to me. We would be greeted as liberators. No. Oil revenues will pay the cost. No. A secular democracy will emerge and be an inspiration for other countries. No. The list of misjudgments goes on an on. If they were a baseball team one would be forced to wonder can anyone here play this game?”

Read the rest of the article here

Some people disagreed with my comments. In the interest of fairness, I felt I should devote an article to these comments, here’s what they said:

Scott says:

As a person who grew up in and around Embassies around the world it has always amazed me how Americans can believe that they know why something has happened by reading/watching the news. There is a reason the President’s morning news brief is CLASSIFIED and that only a handful of people get to read it. There are Three reasons governments get press 1) They took an overt action. 2) its a P.R. stunt. 3) some one screwed up.

One picks a President who has the fortitude to ignore an ignorant public and do what he believes is in the best interest of the country, with the info he has at the time.

Geoff Says:

It’s really sad when a person becomes so entrenched in his preconceived viewpoint that he is no longer able to see the truth… no longer able to see reality for what it is, but twists facts to fit everything into that warped view.

And I’m not talking about the president. So the program stopped in 2003. Whose administration was in charge back then? Wasn’t it Bush? What events around that time probably figured into the decision to stop the program? Maybe their next-door neighbors being invaded for similar reasons? And as far as I can remember, we didn’t attack Iran back then, so there must have been some non-military efforts on our part.

Is it a bad thing to keep a military option in the picture? That doesn’t mean that the administration WANTS it… it is a LAST resort. But without that potential, all other efforts (including diplomacy and sactions) lose a lot of teeth.

Don’t forget that the only difference between nuclear material for a power plant or a weapon is the number of passes through the enrichment process. If you have an operable nuclear reactor, time and desire are the only things standing between you and a nuclear weapon.

And I’m sorry, but blaming Iran’s animosity toward the US on the Bush administration is nonsense. Iran has hated the US for DECADES.

Mark says:

You know, I used to love Lockergnome, but this mailing went over the edge. You are actually defending a person (Ahmadinejad) who publically stated that his goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth? Regardless of whether or not Iran currently has ambitions to build a nuclear bomb (which I believe they do), the world has the duty to prevent this madman from ever getting close to obtaining one.

Believing this anti-Bush crap blinds you to one simple fact. Radical Islamic Extremists WANT YOU DEAD. Don’t think that they are all in Afghanastan like the Libs want you to believe. They are in EVERY COUNTRY in the world. You people just won’t get it unless a nuke goes off in a US city. Of course, you’ll blame that on the Bush Administration too….

So, what do you have to say?

“The Administration bill basically writes August’s mistake in stone,” she said. “It does nothing to protect Americans’ communications and violates the Fourth Amendment requirement that courts supervise any spying on American soil.”

“The current Administration bill is even worse than the ‘Protect America Act,’ though, in that it gives complete immunity to the telecoms which spied on us after 9/11. The Attorney General will be able to single-handedly kill any pending case – and then gag the judge from ever publicly discussing whether the company participated in the illegal program.”

You can read the rest of the press release here

“To me, the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community — to continue to rally the community — to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program,” Mr. Bush said. “What’s to say they couldn’t start another covert nuclear weapons program?”

Mr. Bush, the material fallacy in your statement is astonishing. How you even manage to wipe your ass in the morning amazes me.

First, Mr. Bush, your conclusion that Iran’s attempt to create a nuclear reactor will lead to a nuclear weapons program is severely flawed. Just because a country is intent on producing nuclear-grade material for a reactor does not automatically mean that it is going to further develop its supply of plutonium in order to create a nuclear weapon. “What’s to say they couldn’t start another covert nuclear weapons program?” Mr. Bush, how about the estimation that Iran stopped its program in 2003 under international pressure?

But logic isn’t your strong point, is it, Mr. Bush? After all, you’re a leader — a decider — and you’ve already made your decision, and you’re determined to get your way, even if it means you’re the one who has to provoke another war. If you had any brain power left in that big-oil redneck brain of yours, Mr. Bush, you would’ve seen the fallacy of your logic — you would see that you, sir, are creating the undue tensions between Iran and the United States.

If you were any kind of diplomat, you would open some kind of dialog with Iran. Hell, even a little memo asking “can we talk after class” would be more diplomatic than your constant rhetoric and threats of a possible “first strike” against a country that has not attacked us.

That would be par for the course with you, though, Mr. Bush. After all, you lied to us — the American people — and the world about the reasons for invading Iraq. We were led, like sheep, into believing Iraq had some connections with Al Qaeda, then into believing that Iraq had in its possession weapons of mass destruction. And, after being proven wrong on both accounts you stood at a fund raising dinner, behind a podium, and joked about not being able to find anything linking Iraq to Al Qaeda or WMDs. You laughed off your own incompetence and continued to blindly push forward.

And now you’ve begun your warmongering rhetoric again. Only this time, sir, you were refuted before you could unleash a catastrophic first strike. You were refuted before you could potentially displace or kill millions of innocent civilians, again. You were denied by the very same intelligence community you blamed for giving you bad information. You were denied by the same intelligence community that — outside of the CIA — called you, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Dick Cheney insane.

Yet despite all of this, a preemptive first strike — even a nuclear first strike — is still on the “diplomatic” table. Despite all of the evidence contrary to your administration’s assertions, you continue to wage a war of words — that you threaten will turn into a hot war — unless your demands are met.

You question Ahmadinejad for not complying with U.N. resolutions; yet complying with those resolutions would mean that Iran — which you now surround on both of her borders — would be unable to protect herself from an American-led invasion.

Iran, thanks to your political posturing, has no incentive to disarm. And it, in fact, has a greater sense of urgency to acquire a nuclear weapon, just to get you to back off of your political bullying. But you can’t see that, can you, Mr. Bush?

You sit there and wonder why the Muslim world loathes America. Despite all of the horrors and atrocities you have committed in the names of liberty, peace, freedom, and security, you still have the gall to suggest that the Muslim world — and, indeed, the world as a whole — should respect us because we’re attempting to spread democracy through violent means? My question to you, Mr. Bush, is why shouldn’t the world think of us as nothing but well-armed thugs?

The only “warning signal” that the NIE’s report sent to us, Mr. Bush, is that you, sir, are nothing more than a “good ol’ boy” redneck thug.

This is, in large part, thanks to the popular ThisNovember5th website - a grass-roots campaign which brought in $4.3 million in a single day. The donations weren’t from a small number of people, either: an estimated 20,000 people donated on November 5th, with an average of less than $100 per donation.

Just $2 Million shy of their $12 million goal, the Ron Paul campaign is optimistic that they can shatter their goal on December 16th, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, because another grass-roots campaign has apparently taken hold, called Tea Party 07. This campaign hopes to double the $4.3 million raised on November 5th, and if they could do that, the Ron Paul campaign could bring in almost $20 million for the fiscal quarter.

Located on PostGlobal, washingtonpost.com and Newsweek.com’s panel blog on international issues, the Global Power Barometer (GPB) is a striking visual monitor updated each weekday by the research firm Denver Research Group, Inc. using a weighted sample of thousands of influential sources from the media, academia, governments, and NGOs from around the world. The GPB offers a non-partisan indication of the most powerful nations and ideologies on a given day without judging those group’s policies or values.

“We need new tools to help us make sense of the world around us. With our partners at Denver Research Group, we have created an intelligent information aggregator that analyzes global trends,” said David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist who, with Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek, is co-moderator of PostGlobal. “The Global Power Barometer offers a clear daily snapshot of what the world is saying and thinking. We can ask questions like who is becoming the dominant power in the Middle East, and the GPB will help us determine the answer.”

“With the whole world connected via the Internet, power is no longer reserved for those with the largest military or economy. Rather, groups have learned to maximize their power by creating alliances and utilizing the Web,” explains Caroline Little, CEO of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive. “We developed this tool with the hope that when combined with the opinions and analyses of the PostGlobal international team, the GPB will stimulate informed discussion and debate.”

Transparency in Reporting: Clicking on “Decoding Today’s Chart” takes the reader to a bulleted explanation of the observations and drivers for the current chart, as well as archived paragraphs from earlier days and weeks. Clicking on an individual country or group on the chart displays a representative sample of sources used in determining the power shift for that day.

Looking at What’s Next: As it tracks and analyzes thought and actions across the world, the Global Power Barometer (GPB) frequently catches sight of issues that will impact global politics. These are the issues that likely will move the icons in coming weeks. The “What’s Next” button allows the reader to access “Emerging Issues,” which is a simple listing of issues, players, events, political intrigues or other items that the PostGlobal team believes may become important in coming days or weeks.

Tracking Movements: The reader can click on the time bar at the top of the chart to watch movement of the icons over the current week. Clicking on any of the dates stops the chart at that specific date. The movement in previous weeks can also be viewed by clicking “Other Weeks.”

[tags]Global Power Barometer, GPB, Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, Caroline Little[/tags]

There is an episode of The Outer Limits called Final Exam that deals with the advance of knowledge, technology, and the possible future we face as a species. Is there a point where it will be possible for just one person to cause the destruction of mankind? Will terrorists, no matter their cause, utilize the knowledge and power available to them to cause such destruction? It is my hope we don’t find out, but these are questions we and our leaders should be asking if we are to survive. I’ll offer up the beginning and ending quotes from “Final Exam” as points to ponder.

“They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. But what of the man who possesses too much knowledge?”

“If knowledge is power and power corrupts… how will humankind ever survive?”

[tags]privacy,rfid,technology,violence,outer limits,final exam[/tags]

[tags]gps,army,air force,air drop,humanitiarian airlift[/tags]

But now the RIAA is in a panic again and sending out cease and desist letters. Does the RIAA have a clue as to what is going on? People sharing videos is free publicity! Getting your product out to the people is the goal of advertising - and what better way to do it?

But that means the recording industry isn’t in control anymore and I believe that is what scares it. The RIAA is a dinosaur and the Internet is the comet that will eventually wipe it out.

[tags]youtube,video,music,riaa,file sharing,youtube.com,cease and desist,free publicity,clueless entertainment industry[/tags]

We have cliches for this, of course. “Generates more heat than light.” “Beating a dead horse.” You probably know more, but you get the picture.

Now in the long post-mortem of the EFF and MoveOn.org’s attempt to interject themselves into America Online’s freedom to contract with third parties that’s better known as “DearAOL.com” it is now my turn to try to interject some light into the heat. It’s now been a month and three days since AOL flipped the switch on for Goodmail clients to send mail that bypasses their filters.

Since I work for an email service provider (Informz) that caters mainly to non-profit organizations, I think I have a pretty good handle on where things stand at T + 34 days. So… where do things stand?

That’s right. Exactly where they stood 35 days ago. Our delivery rates to AOL have not noticeably changed. When one of our clients does something stupid, they end up on a 24 hour block, just like they did before. When they do the right thing, they get delivered. To the recipient’s inbox, no less.

I’m the point of contact with AOL’s people. I haven’t gotten any demands that we pay Goodmail to use their imprinter. I haven’t even gotten any hints that we should. Further, I’ve publicly stated that we don’t really see Goodmail’s solution as a good fit for our clients - with Charles Stiles in the same room, doubtlessly listening as I spoke the words into a microphone in a California State Senate committee hearing room. Again, no penalty for my impudence.

So, what is all of this about? A search for relevance.

The EFF made its name with the Blue Ribbon campaign. Since then, you haven’t heard a lot out of it. “Dear AOL” was a good way for it to get its name in the papers and on blogs like this one. The problem is that it is just on the wrong side of this issue. The people there like to say that they’re in favor of innovation, but apparently, that’s only true until it makes more sense to pander to some “populist” paranoia about what someone’s contract might possibly mean for them - if everyone else in the world adopts it. And besides, it’s a sure way to get their names out there again appearing to stick up for the “little guy.”
 MoveOn.org… what can I say about MoveOn.org? I’m an evil, conservative Republican. I’m predisposed to disbelieving anything that MoveOn.org says. But, it is also a group in search of relevance. It’s not very effective anymore. Yeah, it can raise money and it has a large following amongst the Angry Left, but it’s ineffective. Look at how well its candidates have done in recent elections. None of them have won. It’s had some come close, but getting MoveOn.org on your side is akin to asking Bob Shrum to be your political strategist. I mean, John Kerry came close, but today he’s still the junior Senator from Massachusetts. Doing something a little more popular might help it out some as it tries to ascertain why its candidates don’t win.

And this search for relevance is why it started the shrill talking about the death of email and the advent of email taxes. The lack of relevance found is why we’re a month into things and you’re not hearing about it anymore.

Have comments? Want to see what others have to say about this story? Join the discussion here!

[tags]eff,moveon.org,goodmail,blue ribbon campaign,dearaol,informz[/tags]

A California appeals court ruled Friday that online reporters are protected by the same confidentiality laws that protect traditional journalists, striking a blow to efforts by Apple Computer to identify people who leaked confidential company data.

The three-judge panel in San Jose overturned a trial court’s ruling last year that to protect its trade secrets, Apple was entitled to know the source of leaked data published online. The appeals court also ruled that a subpoena issued by Apple to obtain electronic communications and materials from an Internet service provider was unenforceable.

In its ruling, the appeals court said online and offline journalists are equally protected under the First Amendment. “We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish ‘legitimate’ from ‘illegitimate’ news,” the opinion states. “Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment.”

The ruling states that Web sites are covered by California’s shield law protecting the confidentiality of journalists’ sources.

Apple had argued that Web sites publishing reports about Apple were not engaged in legitimate news gathering but rather were misappropriating trade secrets and violating copyrights. But in its ruling on Friday, the panel disagreed.

“Beyond casting aspersions on the legitimacy of petitioners’ enterprise, Apple offers no cogent reason to conclude that they fall outside the shield law’s protection,” the ruling states…

[tags]google,lawsuit,brazil,news,belgium,serverscheck bvba[/tags]

Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet’s First Amendment - a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you - based on what site pays them the most. Your local library shouldn’t have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to have its Web site open quickly on your computer.

Net Neutrality allows everyone to compete on a level playing field and is the reason that the Internet is a force for economic innovation, civic participation and free speech. If the public doesn’t speak up now, Congress will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign by telephone and cable companies that want to decide what you do, where you go, and what you watch online.

This isn’t just speculation - we’ve already seen what happens elsewhere when the Internet’s gatekeepers get too much control. Last year, Telus - Canada’s version of AT&T - blocked their Internet customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to workers with whom the company was having a labor dispute. And Madison River, a North Carolina ISP, blocked its customers from using any competing Internet phone service.

[tags]internet,net neutrality,network neutrality,savetheinternet.com,ed markey[/tags]