Tuesday, October 31, 2006

The Best Political Ad Ever?

Anyone who sees this ad and still votes for Patricia Madrid needs to have their head examined.

I almost felt bad for Ms. Madrid the first 5 times I watched it as it appears she is in need of medical attention.
Mike McGavick's Chance of Winning

While I think it is an uphill battle for McGavick to win, I was encourage while out trick or treating with the kid that a neighbor who is a typical liberal Seattle lawyer, although a good guy, told me he was thinking of voting for McGavick. As he put it, I do not want to vote for the "ice cube".

If Cantwell does win, the disappointing thing to me will be how she was able to hide from the voters during the campaign. If she was out campaigning, I did not see it, if she was running ads, they were not on the golf channel, if she was telling the voters about her accomplishments, I am not aware of them. I am fairly certain that she is not touting her recent Senate Power ranking of #99.

Monday, October 30, 2006

Congressman Jim McDermott, Working Hard for Washington's 7th Congressional District

Here is House Resolution 26 of the 109th Congress. Sponsored by my Congressional Representative, Jim McDermott of Seattle.

Congratulating the Downers Grove North High School Trojan football team and the students and fans of Downers Grove North High School on their outstanding sportsmanship and on winning the 2004 Illinois Class 8A Football State Championship.

Whereas on November 27, 2004, in front of a crowd of more than 11,000 at the University of Illinois' Memorial Stadium in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, the Downers Grove North Trojans defeated the Maine South Hawks 33-13 to win the 2004 Illinois Class 8A Football State Championship;

Whereas the State championship was the first for Downers Grove North's football team, and was the first State championship for any male sports team in the school's history; and

Whereas the Trojans used a good defense and a running-based, ball-control offense to defeat their opponents throughout the playoffs, and held Maine South 30 points below its season average in the championship game: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates the Downers Grove North Trojan football team and the students and fans of Downers Grove North High School on their outstanding sportsmanship and on winning the 2004 Illinois Class 8A Football State Championship.
In addition to celebrating Illinois high school football, Representative McDermott is also busy praising the Seattle Storm, Ichiro Suzuki, Apollo Ono, helping the victims of hurricane Katrina, which last time I checked, did no damage to his district, making sure the 7th is safe from depleted uranium and of course, his all time favorite subject, helping... wait for it... AFRICA... which last time I checked is not in the 7th Congressional district.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Very Funny Political Ad

Thanks to Bryan Suits of KVI 570

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

The Myth Of The "Gun Show Loophole"

The Seattle P.I. had an article about Washington Ceasefire planting bulbs at Greenlake to commemorate the 600 victims of gun violence in Washington State this year. It seems odd to me that a group can just go plant bulbs at a city park and I have a question into the Seattle Parks department asking about that but that is a post for another day. What Washington Cease Fire does not say and what the "reporter", Neil Modie, does not seem interested in knowing is the fact that about 400 of those 600 deaths were suicides.

Now Seattle police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, whose department issued handgun was stolen out of his car earlier this year was in attendance.
In 2005, two violent gun crimes were reported for every 1,000 people nationwide, compared with 1.4 in 2004, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Kerlikowske said it was the "No. 1 issue" at a national meeting of local law enforcement leaders he attended in Washington, D.C., last month.

The reasons? Kerlikowske said criminologists say that for one thing, "we are awash in firearms." Unlike a number of other states, efforts to close Washington's gun-show loophole have been blocked in the Legislature.

To understand the "gun show loophole", you first must know what it is. The gun show loophole specifically means when a non gun dealer, a private citizen, sells a gun to another private citizen at a gun show, just as they would if they had taken out a classified ad in a newspaper, a background check is not required. From Washington Ceasefire's own press release:
But at such shows, unlicensed, private sellers don't have to do the checks.
Unlike all licensed gun dealers who are required to perform the background check no matter if the sale is at a retail store or at a gun show. From Washington Ceasefire's own press release:
At Wade's Eastside Guns, anytime they sell a firearm, they have to do a background check. It's what every federally licensed gun dealer is required to do. And those rules follow the dealers even when they peddle their pistols at gun shows, like one held recently in Puyallup.

We operate exactly as if we are in the store, we have to do the background checks, he said.
But according to Chief Kerlikowske, guns from gun shows are involved in crimes:
We've traced guns back that had been involved in crimes that were obtained at gun shows, said Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske.
Notice how it is not mentioned the guns traced back were sold without a background check. Maybe the Seattle Police Department bought the gun stolen out of the Chief's car at a gun show and that gun was later used in a crime. Wouldn't that scenario fit the Chief's description?

Let's now look at the numbers to see how bad this "gun show loophole" is because Seattle P.I. "reporter" Neil Modie does not seem to be interested in doing so. According to "All you need to know about the Gun Show Loophole in 2 1/2 minutes", criminals get their guns:
39.6% of the time from family or friends
39.2% of the time from the street or other illegal methods (such as stealing from the Chief of Police's car)
8.3% from retail shops
1.0% from pawn shops
0.7% from gun shows.

But you do not need to take the word of some right wing pro gun website, Washington Ceasefire says the same thing in its Police lobby to close gun show loophole press release
Alan Gottlieb, head of a large gun lobby based in Bellevue, says requiring background checks at gun shows will only hurt law-abiding owners.

With less than 1 percent of the firearms bought by criminals at gun shows, it's really kind of stupid, it's a waste of resources, Gottlieb said.
Of course the bold headline they use is
Police say a loophole in Washington law allows people to buy guns and gun shows without having to go through a background check.
Seems misleading to me, in addition to being grammatically incorrect.

So the "gun show loophole" should probably be called the "friends and family loophole" or maybe the "classified ad loophole" or how about the "private citizen selling private property without the governments permission loophole"

If Washington Ceasefire was really about preventing gun violence, wouldn't they be putting on gun safety classes and working to make sure all Washington State school children knew proper gun safety. Wouldn't they be in favor of supplying trigger locks and lock boxes to those who asked? Wouldn't that reduce gun violence more than planting bulbs at Greenlake?

But here are my questions to Washington Ceasefire and all groups that want to outlaw guns. How do gun laws stop criminals, who by definition are those that do not follow laws, from committing gun crimes? Laws do not stop crimes, law just state what the punishment is for those convicted of a crime. How are gun laws going to get guns out of the hands of criminals? Does anyone, including Washington Ceasefire think a criminal is going to think twice about committing a bank robbery or a murder because they would be violating a gun law in the process?
Innis Arden Takes Down the Whites Only Sign

Back in April I wrote about Innis Arden, a neighborhood just north of where I live that has restrictive covenants which state that no person other than one of the white or Caucasian race may be permitted to occupy any property...

Well it seems that the rich, white, liberal Democrats of Innis Arden have finally got around to gathering enough signatures to take down the Whites Only sign.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Commentator "Carl" says that Innis Arden is the most Republican part of Shoreline. That maybe true but it does not make Innis Arden Republican. You just need to look at the 98177 zip code donations to get a feel for how Republican the area is. Not very. That big clump of blue Democratic donations... that is Innis Arden.

Saying Innis Arden is the most Reppublican part of Shoreline is like saying Patty Murray is the most powerfull Senator from Washington State. It is not that Patty Murray is powerfull, she ranks 49th, it is just the other Senator, Maria Cantwell ranks 99th, next to last.

Monday, October 23, 2006

600,000 Iraqis Dead?

Although the 600,000 Iraqis have died number has been discredited over and over, some still believe it, see the comments here. If that number is correct, then why on the news last night did I hear that violence in Iraq is at an all time high with as many as 100 Iraqis dead each day this month? Because if you do the math, 100 per day for the duration of the war, the number would be about 130,000. Now even 1 death is tragic but for someone to claim 600,000 dead is flat out absurd.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Why Does Nancy Pelosi Wants the US Military To Come Home?

Watched the 60 Minutes piece on Nancy Pelosi earlier tonight and one thing that stuck me as a potential Republican talking point was when she said, and I am paraphrasing until I can find a transcript, the Islamic terrorists are in Iraq because our military is there and that is why we need to bring them home.

So where does she think we will be fighting them if we cut and run from Iraq?

Transcript found!

"Do you not think that the war in Iraq now, today, is the war on terror?" Stahl asks.

"No. The war on terror is the war in Afghanistan," Pelosi says.

"But you don't think that the terrorists have moved into Iraq now?" Stahl continues.

"They have," Pelosi agrees. "The jihadists in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."
The P.I. Endoreses Darcy Burner Because She Really, Really Agrees With What They Think

From today's editorial page endoresemtent:
Burner, a former Microsoft manager, is as informed in her views as she is forceful in delivering them. Frankly, at a P-I Editorial Board session, it was difficult to tell who was the incumbent because her answers carried weight.

From how to balance the federal budget (and how urgent it is to do so) to how crucial it is to reduce human contributions to global climate change to Congress' role in Iraq war policy, Burner has the better grasp of the issues and the greater passion to deal with them.
Notice there are no qualifications for Ms. Burner listed because, well she has none.

So if really agreeing with the P.I. is all that is needed. I guess these people here and here and here and here would also be endoresed over Congressman Reichart.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Sorry Jonah but You Are Wrong

Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online, who maybe my favorite columnist ever, has a new column out stating the war in Iraq was a mistake.
Truth is truth. And the Iraq war was a mistake by the most obvious criteria: If we had known then what we know now, we would never have gone to war with Iraq in 2003. I do think that Congress (including Democrats Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller and John Murtha) was right to vote for the war given what was known — or what was believed to have been known — in 2003. And the claims from Democrats who voted for the war that they were lied to strikes me as nothing more than cowardly buck-passing.
Did not think I would ever say this but Jonah Goldberg is wrong.

Saying the war was a mistake strikes me as saying President Bush lied about WMD. President Bush did not lie because he did not know there were not WMD. Now I have heard a number of times about UN inspectors and allied troops finding what should be classified as WMD but the existence of WMDs or lack of is an argument for another day. If we went to war for the right reasons, which I believe we did, through the proper channels, UN resolutions, how can that be a mistake? Now if the UN resolution had said Iran instead of Iraq and we took a wrong turn at Kuwait, that is a mistake. Feel free to point out mistakes in intelligence or planning or how we are fighting a war with 2 arms tied behind our back but going into Iraq and taking out a brutal dictator in order to install a democracy was not a mistake.

Now as Jonah says, if we had known at the time what we know now we would have not voted to go to war and I agree with him. That does not make it a mistake that we went, that just shows that we as a country do not have the will to do the right thing in the face of unspeakable evil. A mistake is knowing full well what is happening to the North Korean people and letting millions suffer. That is something that 2 or 10 or 50 years from now, whenever the world finally gets serious about human rights, we will look back at the incredible suffering of the North Korean people and all agree that waiting so long to do something was a mistake.

Jonah goes on to say that even though he feels the war was a mistake, we should not simply up and leave.
I think we should ask the Iraqis to vote on whether U.S. troops should stay.

Polling suggests that they want us to go. But polling absent consequences is a form of protest. With accountability, minds may change and appreciation for the U.S. presence might grow.

If Iraqis voted "stay," we'd have a mandate to do what's necessary to win, and our ideals would be reaffirmed. If they voted "go," our values would also be reaffirmed, and we could leave with honor. And pretty much everyone would have to accept democracy as the only legitimate expression of national will.

Finishing the job is better than leaving a mess. And if we can finish the job, the war won't be remembered as a mistake.
While I think that is a great thing to do, my hope is we finally get serious with Islamic extremists, take the gloves off and let the American military do what it is trained to do, kill bad people and destroy the bad peoples things. No more not returning fire when insurgents are shooting at us from a Mosque for fear of the bad PR if a stay bullet hits the Mosque. Overwhelm them with firepower and keep at it until they ask really politely for us to stop after they agree to put an end to the insurgency.

This strategy puts an end to the Iraq “mistake” and puts Iran and North Korean on notice that they may want to adjust their attitude about those pesky U.N. resolutions they are currently ignoring.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Rosie O'Donnell Does Not Want America To Win In Iraq

When asked if she wants America to win in Iraq, Rosie O'Donnell could not answer the question. She changed the question to can we win but would not answer does she want America to win.

Think about that.

Winning in Iraq means the following, stabilizing the country, making it a democracy and having Iraq as a partner of the USA in the war on terror. Rosie O'Donnell is not capable of saying she wants that.

Time to analyze a little deeper.

Is stabilizing Iraq a good thing? I would hope we could all agree that is the case. Is Iraq becoming a democracy in the middle east a good thing? Once again seems like an easy question. Having a Muslim nation in the middle east as a partner in the war on terror. Hard to argue against that.

So what is Rosie's issue. Well in my opinion, there could only be one reason. She does not want the President of the United States, George W. Bush to succeed. It is a simple as that. Could anyone argue that if this was Hillary Clinton as Commander in Chief that Rosie would not be 100% behind the U.S. of A. in its efforts to give Muslims and specifically Muslim women full rights?

The question comes up at 5:50 in the video:

Monday, October 16, 2006

What The Moonbat Left Does Not Understand

I read this story about a nurse who was suing because she got a ticket for having an obscene anti Bush sticker on her vehicle:
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- A woman who was ticketed for having an obscene anti-Bush bumper sticker filed a lawsuit in federal court Monday against a county in the state of Georgia and its officials.

Denise Grier, 47, of Athens, Georgia, got a $100 ticket in March after a DeKalb County police officer spotted the bumper sticker, which read "I'm Tired Of All The BUSH**."

A DeKalb judge threw out the ticket in April because the state's lewd decal law that formed the basis for the ticket was ruled unconstitutional in 1990.

Grier is seeking damages from the county for "emotional distress," according to the lawsuit.
Interesting enough story but it reminded me of the time I was at the West Seattle street fair in the summer of 2004 and the 34th district Democrats had similar stickers in their booth. I asked one of the people who was at the booth if he thought those kinds of stickers were appropriate for a family event such as the street fair. The reaction was full blown Bush derangement syndrome. I told him the reason the Dems were going to lose in 2004 was because they do not see displaying stickers with profanity at a street fair with lots of children as being inappropriate. As I told him, there are a lot of people here who do not agree with President Bush but see this kind of display as something they do not want to be associated with.

I called the 34th district Democrats and left a message asking for someone to call back and also sent an email and never got a response.
Darcy Burner Pads Her Resume

In addition to the fact that I appear more qualified to be in Congress than Darcy Burner, another thing that bothers me about the Burner campaign is what seems to be fairly obvious padding of her resume. Specifically her claim that she is a “successful businesswoman”. The specific quotes from her bio are:
A successful businesswoman, community leader and mother, Darcy will fight for our priorities.
Darcy went to work for Microsoft in 2000 and became the lead manager for an initiative to change the way software was built. It was very successful and enhanced Darcy’s reputation as a successful businesswoman.

Now maybe I am splitting hairs but as someone who actually owns a business and is responsible for paying the employees and the taxes, I have an issue when someone who is an employee, a “lead manager” or “product manager” or whatever calls themselves a businessperson.

So I did what I always do when I have a question of a politician…. I called her office. I simply asked if Ms. Burner’s claim that she was a successful business person referred to her work at Microsoft since I did not see anything else in her bio that mentioned she ran a company or owned a business. The reply was she was an executive at Microsoft. I replied she was an employee but did not run the business and asked again if she had ever run a company or owned a business. After checking with additional staff I was told she worked for a number of high tech companies including being an executive at Microsoft but had never owned a company. Now I was not going to argue if in fact she was an executive or not at Microsoft. The Burner campaign seems to have ceded that point when they removed those claims from the web site although it appears they have not informed the staff. I know a number of fairly high ranking Microsoft employees who I am fairly sure are well above whatever level Ms. Burner was at and I strongly doubt any of them would refer to themselves as Microsoft executives.

Now there seems to be some confusion about what Ms. Burner’s responsibilities were at Microsoft. Her web site says she was a "lead manager", her campaign staff says she was an "executive". From Wikipedia:
She worked for a dozen years in high technology including five years at Microsoft as a Lead Product Manager, working on the .NET Framework. Burner left Microsoft in 2004 to enter politics.
But later it says:
It's not factual to say as in the introduction that "She worked for a dozen years in high technology including five years at Microsoft as a Lead Product Manager, working on the .NET Framework. Burner left Microsoft in 2004 to enter politics." Darcy worked less than 4 years at Microsoft as a marketing program manager, not as lead nor as a product manager. See Darcy's MSDN blog. She did not enter politics until 2006, after dropping out of law school, which she pursued after leaving Microsoft, at other times Darcy claims she left to raise her newborn son.
All I know is that if I were hiring and got a resume that stated the person was a “successful businessperson” and the real world activity to justify that claim was being a manager at a large company, I would have to call B.S.

Now I help coach my 7 year old son’s soccer team and we have had a very successful year so far. For the most part my responsibilities entail reminding the kids what goal we should be kicking the ball towards as I know almost nothing about soccer. This experience should not allow me to put down “successful athletic coach” on a resume. I get the feeling that Ms. Burner would.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

My Problem With Darcy Burner

The Seattle Times Editorial board seems to have a whole list of issues with Democratic candidate Darcy Burner:
"it is hard to discern where Burner differs from the Democratic Party line"... "Burner's public-service record pales in comparison to Reichert's"... "As her only public-spirited pursuits"... "Burner offers youth coaching and a stint on her community club board"... "more troubling is her spotty voting record"... "Burner has run a mean-spirited campaign"... "She continues to push the deceptive party line"... "But Burner has not made the case she will be a better member of Congress"
My problem with Ms. Burner is that based on her own bio, worked hard in school, paid her way through college, majored in computer science and economics, went to work for Microsoft, got married, had a kid, I am more qualified to be in congress than she is. I worked hard in school, paid my way through college, have degrees in computer science and math, turned down a job offer from Microsoft, got married, have a kid, am part owner of a business that employs people. There is no way I would vote for myself over Dave Reichart so why would I even consider voting for Darcy Burner?

This is the best candidate the Democrats could come up with? Unfortunately for me, being in the 7th congressional district instead of the 8th, I will not have the opportunity to vote against her.

Friday, October 13, 2006

Democracy, Seattle Style

For the 2006 general election, here are my state legislative choice, singular:
State Senate
State Rep., Position #1
State Rep., Position #2

So many choice, singular, such diversity of candidate, singular. What am I going to do?
Occasional Golf Content...

The two #1 players in the world:
Annika Sorenstam Swing Sequence

Tiger Woods Swing Vision
Does Darcy Burner Think She Is A Bad Mom?

Durning the recent Burner - Reichart debate, Darcy Burner says that the best thing she could do for her 3 year old child is to take a job 3000 miles away during the childs formative years. Click here to listen to Darcy Explain herself".

Thanks to Dan Sytman of KTTH for the audio.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Seattle Resident Dan Savage Shows Tolerance For All, Except Those That Do Not Help His Agenda, They Should Be Killed.

From Hot Air, Dan Savage wants Green Party candidate dragged behind a pickup truck.

Dan Savage feels he knows what is better for the citizens of Pennsylvania than, oh say, people who live in the state of Pennsylvania. So Dan has decided that he needs to help defeat Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Things start to heat up when Mr. Savage is asked about the Green Part candidate Carl Romanelli, or as Dan calls him, "The Idiot Green" who should be "run over with a truck" and anyone who votes for him should be "beaten with sticks".

WARNING: THE VIDEO IS NOT SAFE FOR WORK, as the kids say these days.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Do the KosKids owe Bryan Suits Millions?

If this lady deserves 11.3 million:

A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."
What does Bryan Suits,
"planted shill", "a war-loving creep", "gung-ho nut job", "a real dipshit", "manufactured, planted fake wounded 'hero'", "a hoax", "the Mole" "He's either a shitty officer, or he's lying", "badly incompetent", "just not that bright", "sounds like any number of guys that get kicked out of the VFW", "shades the truth on his own", "talking out of his ass", "he's running around making shit up and can't keep track of all of his bullshit."
deserve from the KosKids?
Do Not Question Their... Sanity

From the Seattle PI by way of Orbusmax, the crowd during last nights debate between 8th District Congressman Dave Reichert and Dem. challenger Darcy Burner reacts:

The audience jeered when Reichert said he "worked 19 years to catch a serial killer," a reference to his work apprehending Green River Killer Gary Ridgway, but he held his ground.

"It's not comic to the victims and their families," he said.
GOP Poll

I stole this from Ace 'o Spades, who stole it from Hot Air who...
and I can not get it to work so just go here...

Monday, October 09, 2006

North Korea Goes Nuclear

Seems that carrot approach did not work real well. Time to get a stick, a really big stick

Seems to me like this is an appropriate video:

Friday, October 06, 2006

Cuban Paradise

If Cuba is such a paradise, as this guy clearly thinks, why has he not gone down to Florida and built a raft and "escaped" the horror that is the United States for heaven on earth?

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Ron Dotzauer, Lobbyist, Slimeball, Criminal or All of the Above?

Ron Dotzauer, registered lobbyist and political consultant to Senator Maria Cantwell, D-WA, is not having a good week, OK, would not be having a good week if the MSM was doing its job or would simply follow up on what Stefan Sharkansky @ Sound Politics has dug up.

To recap, Stefan found out that Ron, who borrowed and still appears to owe between $15,000 and $50,000 from his former girlfriend / employee / political protege, Senator Maria Cantwell, D- WA, had an affair, THE WEEK BEFORE HIS WEDDING DAY, to a former "lady friend" named "Maria". Stefan then goes on to state that it has been confirmed "Maria" is Senator Maria Cantwell, D-WA. Stefan goes on to report that:
Ron Dotzauer's brief marriage to Angela appeared to be tempestuous. The record shows at least two separations and mutual accusations of excessive drinking and minor physical abuse (their marriage counselor indicated in testimony that neither the drinking nor the abuse was as significant as the accusations suggested). Dotzauer first filed for divorce after 13 months of marriage when their daughter was 1 month old. They reconciled and he filed again a few years later. The wrangling over parenting and financial support went on for 10 years, during which period Dotzauer was cited for contempt (by my count) on 4 occasions, and jailed once, for failure to pay his obligations to his ex-wife and their daughter.

Sound Politics is now reporting that the reason Ron had problems paying his child support is all of his "income", well it seems was really not his income but what sure looks like to us non lawyer types as an attempt to get around campaign finance laws. As the scanned image from the divorce brief states:

NWS pays to Mr. Dotzauer an additional sum each month for the purpose of making such [federal political] contributions. While this is income to Mr. Dotzauer, in reality this is a necessary business expense.

So the questions now are what was the law at the time and what is the statue of limitations?

Unbelievable job Stefan! Where oh where is the Seattle Times or P.I?

Seattle Time's "political blogger" David Postman gets around to looking into the story.

Monday, October 02, 2006

Another "Gun Free Zone" School Suffers a Mass Murder

Is anyone, except for liberal lawmakers, surprised over the recent rash of multiple shootings at "gun free zones"? Can someone who believes in the foolishness of this concept please explain how passing a law making it illegal to carry a gun on school property is going to deter some psychopath who is intent on killing innocent school children? A gun free zone is as effective as passing a law saying the speed limit around banks is 10 mph in the hope that bank robbers would not dare break a speeding law while making a getaway.

The only thing gun free zones accomplish is the disarming of the law abiding citizens and make gun free areas "target rich environments" and "defenseless shooting galleries" for nut jobs intent on doing as much damage as possible before the police can arrive. I always wonder what those responsible for passing gun free zones think when they see another school shooting. Maybe the shooter did not see the gun free zone signs? How come nobody arrested the shooter when he walked on the grounds with a gun? I hope it is not my kids school? I have a question, how many more school shootings must we endure, how many more kids and school employees must die before we realize the insanity behind these laws?

There is a study that talks about "Multiple Victim Public Shootings" and shows that areas with concealed carry permits have far LOWER incidents where a shooter kills or injures multiple people. The study briefly mentions gun free zones and states:
...clearly shows that the states with the fewest gun free zones have the greatest reductions, killings, injuries and attacks.

We need to all stand up and let the politicians know we are tired of burying the dead from this failed social experiments. Please let them know that gun free zones are killing our kids, enough is enough.