TexProdigy

Al QaQaa

I watched a bit of the tap dancing that Pentagon spokesman Di Rita did. He was not good at all. Then he carted out an Army major to try to shore up his sagging performance. The major was talking about conventional munitions. The reporters were asking about the HDX and RDX. Di Rita kept going back to the major as if to say, "See, the major said they destroyed munitions. You should be happy." The major had to have been flown in for this press conference. He was honest, but did not know about the HDX or RDX.

My father worked with munitions the entire time he was in the Air Force. I picked up a few things. I know the difference between conventional munitions and high explosives like HDX and RDX. To put it in really simple terms, conventional munitions are bad, but HDX and RDX are much worse.

One thing I did pick up on was the major said he was at al QaQaa on the 13th of April, 2003. The Minneapolis/St. Paul TV station was at al QaQaa on the 18th of April, 2003. They have video and pictures of the IAEA seal on doors and containers. How did the IAEA seal magically get on the containers five days after the major and his team were at al QaQaa? Did the IAEA seal gnomes come in the middle of the night and put a seal on the doors and containers?

The facts that I have read so far are that the IAEA had the HDX and RDX sealed so that it could not be used. It was still sealed one month prior to the US invasion. From the pictures and video, it was still sealed when the Minneapolis/St. Paul TV station took the video and pictures. Some time after that, the HDX and RDX went missing. The objective of the soldiers at that time was not to guard the ammo dump. Their objective was to go into Baghdad. The military was not given enough forces to prevent looting. Art was looted, office equipment was looted, and it looks as if 380 tons of HDX and RDX was looted. For Rudi Giuliani to blame the soldiers instead of the the Commander on Chief for not putting enough troops in Iraq in the first place really pisses me off - especially since I served in the military. Where does the buck stop in the Bush administration? Obviously not with Bush - he's passed the buck and never admitted to doing anything wrong.

Flu

So the Bush Administration has been caught with its pants down once again. This time it's with the flu. They did not plan (sound familiar) and do not have enough vaccine to immunise all those who want or need to get immunised.

Now France is supplying over two million additional doses of vaccine. I thought France was part of the "Axis of Weasel..." I guess when the French can help us out they are okay, otherwise, they are cheese-eating surrender monkeys. If I were the French, I would plaster a French flag on very vial of flu vaccine. I would buy some advertising and say, "Thanks to France, the US will not be hit as hard by the flu."

If the Bush Administration cannot plan for the flu, can they plan if something truly disastrous happens? What happens if someone spread a biological agent like small pox or anthrax? What about a nuclear attack? What about a chemical attack? I highly doubt that we would be prepared. Bush can say we are, but his actions do not reflect that. This administration has been a miserable failure.

Wow!

On 19 October 18,081 people voted in San Antonio. Today, 17,526 people voted. So far 50,982 people have voted in San Antonio in three days. Wow!

My Vote

Yesterday, I stood in a really long line at the Crossroads Mall in San Antonio from 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM to vote on the first day of early voting. Normally people stand in long lines like this to get tickets to blockbuster movies or concerts. The line consisted mostly of older men and women. I think I was one of the younger people voting. I also noticed, because this is San Antonio, a large number of Hispanic voters turned out. That is really good! If what I read is true - that Hispanic voters tend to vote Democratic, then that would be quite a few Democratic voters.

In all, 15375 people voted yesterday. I was one of 1004 people voting at Crossroads Mall.

San Antonio Express-News

Following are the Express-News Editorial Board's recommendation for the Nov. 2 election:

President - George W. Bush-R
Who I voted for: John F. Kerry-D

Congress
District 20 - Charles Gonzales-D
Who I voted for: Charles Gonzales-D

Railroad Commissioner - Victor Carrillo-R
Who I voted for: Bob Scarborough-D

Texas Supreme Court - Scott Brister-R
Who I voted for: David Van Os-D

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Place 2 - Larry Meyers-R
Who I voted for: Quanah Parker-L
Place 5 -Cheryl Johnson-R
Who I voted for: Tom Oxford-L
Place 6 -Michael Keasler-R
Who I voted for: J.R. Molina-D

Texas Senate
District 26 - Leticia Van De Putte-D
Who I voted for: Leticia Van De Putte-D

Texas House
District 116 - Trey Martinez Fischer-D
Who I voted for: Trey Martinez Fischer-D

District Judge
131st District Court - John D. Gabriel-D
288th District Court -Larry Noll-D
408th District Court - Rebecca Simmons-R

Sheriff - Ralph Lopez-D
Who I voted for: Ralph Lopez-D

Tax Assessor-Collect - Sylvia Romo-D
Who I voted for: Sylvia Romo-D

Advanced Transportation District - For
How I voted: For

If someone ran unopposed, I voted for them.

Lose Your Job? How About Community College

I think community colleges are good tools for people who find the costs of getting into private universities and even public universities prohibitively expensive. However, if someone already has a degree or post graduate from a prestigious university, going to community college might not do much to pad their resume.

An article in Yahoo News! illustrates my point.

Job cuts in technology jumped 60 percent between July and September to 54,701, compared with 34,213 layoffs in the second quarter. Computer companies alone saw job cuts jump 127 percent, to 30,624.

If a tech worker has a Computer Science degree or equivalent, will going to community college increase his or her chances of getting another job, especially one that has been outsourced? It may sharpen some skills, but in a scarce market, everyone is competing for a limited number of jobs. Going to community college, like Bush recommended in the debates, probably will not give you the leg up on someone who has more years of experience.

Say those tech workers cannot get another tech job. Are they going to go to community college and get a new degree in some other field? They will then have to compete in a field that they may not be totally familiar with. For some it may work out, for others, it will not.

In short, the answer is not just "go to community college." Education is good. However, education will not protect American workers if the jobs they once had are exported overseas. Switching jobs from a high paying tech job to another service sector job is not the answer, either. Switching jobs from high paying jobs to low paying jobs is definitely not the answer. I do not think Bush has the answer.

Debates Two and Three

Oi! I've been busy... Studying for a test, writing a paper, and working... Anyway, here's the post:

Here is what Bush said:

"That's why I proposed a hydrogen automobile -- hydrogen-generated automobile."

First, is this like when the media reported that Gore said he invented the Internet? So I guess we can say Bush proposed the hydrogen automobile? Companies like GM, Ford, Honda, Toyota, and others would have something to say about that. Not only is Bush and MBA-President, he is an inventor too! What is a hydrogen automobile or for that matter, a hydrogen-generated automobile? Is a hydrogen automobile a care made out of the colourless, lighter than air gas, hydrogen? Is a hydrogen-generated automobile on that is generated by hydrogen?

I know what Bush was trying to say. He meant to say he proposed an increase in funding for research and development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. It just did not come out that way. Because Bush mangled his own words, the press did not have to mangle his words like they did when Gore said he took the initiative during his service in Congress to create the Internet. Gore never said he invented the Internet. Bush, in his own,s special way, has a way of mangling thoughts and sentences so they do not come out the way he intended.

Another thing Bush said in the third Presidential debate was in response to this from Kerry:

Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.

Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?"

He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."

Bush responded:

"Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations."

That, however, was an out and out lie:

From a March 13, 2003, press conference:

Q: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? [...]

BUSH: ... I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you [...]

Q: Do you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead of alive?

BUSH: As I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is.

I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him.

I can see the advert now...
Bush last night: "Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations."

cut to
Bush March 13, 2003: "I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you ... I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him."

Kerry: "We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror."

John Kerry: Concerned about the war on terror.

Last Night's Debate

I did not watch last night's debate between John Kerry and George Bush. I could not. I was in my car driving up to my grandparent's house. I did, however listen to it through my Sirius satellite radio (which is one of the best things for long drives).

My impressions of the second debate are that Bush seemed angry. I could not see what he looked like, but he sounded preterbed that Kerry would even question him. Bush did even answer the question about what three mistakes he has made in his presidency. He totally skirted around the question. That, to me, means that he cannot admit his mistakes, correct them, and move on. He seemed too stubborn.

Kerry seemed much more calm. I liked how he went back and corrected falacies the President said about Kerry during his responses. Kerry did not leave accusations unanswered.

I would have to give the debate, again, to Kerry, but just slightly. I called and talked to my parents and they both agreed. My mom did bring up something that I thought will be one of the defining moments of the second debate. Bush interrupting the moderator, Charlie Gibson. My mom said, "Bush was very rude. You shouldn't interrupt someone and cut them off several times when they are trying to ask you to answer." My mom is right, it is rude to interrupt people when they are speaking. If my mom found him rude, I am sure many other American men and women did too.

This debate was Bush's chance to show the American public that the townhall format was his. One report on Yahoo! News said that Bush would have an easy time at this townhall because he has given so many townhall-style talks. That may be the case, but the people asking the questions of the President did not ask hardball questions, they did not ask softball questions, they asked Koosh ball questions. The questions asked were so soft that it would be impossible to flub them. In this town hall debate, Bush was asked some tough questions and I do not think he satisfied the American people and their worries about Iraq, the economy, the environment, education, healthcare, etc.

Virgin Ben

I have only one thing to thank "virgin" Ben Shapiro for. He spurred me to start this blog. How did he do that? He wrote an asinine post about gay marriage. He cannot seem to let the subject go. He writes about it every so often as in the his post yesterday. I'm wondering if "Virgin Ben" is writing these things because he secretly want to come out, but does not have the courage to just do it.

Let me get to "Virgin Ben's" latest column, To President Bush: Get tough; talk gay marriage:

Even "Virgin Ben" admits Bush sucked ass in the first debate. "Virgin Ben" then continues:

The attack on marriage undermines the basis for the entire structure of Judeo-Christian values.

Um, Ben, no. Marriage has already been undermined. It was undermined by divorce, instant, Elvis weddings in Las Vegas, and several other reasons. I think Judeo-Christian values have a basis that transcends your definition of marriage.

Ben goes on:

When gay activists claim that they simply want the same rights accorded to straight couples, they truly ask for basic redefinition of marriage itself -- and for acceptance of homosexuality by the straight community.

Wow, acceptance and equality! I think every one in this country wants that. It does not matter whether you are Black, Asian, Hispanic, White, male, female, gay, or straight - everyone wants equality and acceptance

Then Ben shows how the thought train left the station with his next thought:

Gays and lesbians have the same rights as any heterosexual: They can marry someone of the opposite sex.

Ben, let me define gay marriage for you, because I do not think you understand the concept (And you are going to Harvard!? Must have been one of the Special Needs people they accepted). Gay marriage is when a gay man marries his male partner and a lesbian marries hers.

Now that we have that out of the way, let us continue.

The gay lobby contests that marriage has already been weakened by a high divorce rate. True. But destroying the concept of marriage as it has always stood does nothing to rectify that problem.

Ben, how would a man marrying his male partner or a woman marrying her female partner make the problem worse? Would it decrease the number of eligible bachelors and bachelorettes? Hardly! I would venture to say that a gay man or a lesbian would tend not to be in the pool of husbands or wives for a heterosexual marriage.

You then say:

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is about as effective in fixing marriage as renaming South Central Los Angeles was in reducing crime rates.

Ben, you have the analogy all wrong. Allowing gay men and lesbians the right to marry is sort of like a large city annexing the surrounding communities. The smaller communities would then get to share in the cities established electrical and water lines, police, and fire. It would benefit both communities.

Then in your last paragraph you say:

With the judicial branch acting to usurp legislative power on this issue, a federal amendment is no longer optional but is a necessity in order to protect marriage.

I know you are going to Harvard Law. I know one of the first cases you had to have discussed was Marbury v Madison. I know you know that Marbury v Madison established the right for the courts to have judicial review. So, since Marbury v Madison said courts can rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. If, in the process of taking a case to court and going (potentially) all the way to the Supreme Court, a litigant wins, then the judicial branch will have fulfilled its duty. You are trying to say that the court system is packed with "activist judges." You of all people should know better. If it were not for "activist judges," women would not have the right to vote. If it were not for activist judges, African-Americans would not have the rights they enjoy today. The courts help to protect the rights that sometimes get overrun by zealous Congressmen, Senators, and even Presidents. Even you should know this.

Register

In many states, the deadline to register passed. If you can still register to vote on November 2nd, register!

If you have registered, vote on November 2nd!

If you haven't registered for this election, register anyway for the next election. If you do not register or you do not vote, you have no right to bitch about who gets into office.

Global Test

Bush picked one phrase Kerry used in the debate and is using his usual method of repeating something enough until people stop questioning. That phrase is "global test." Bush, in his own special way, has twisted it from what its meaning was. He lies and distorts its meaning.

William Saleton has an excellent write-up on it. Basically Kerry was saying if you can present your idea to anyone - be they Russian, Peruvian, or (especially) American, and they trust you on your word because they know it is backed up with hard evidence, then you should have no trouble getting things accomplished.

Of course Bush sees the world in black and white. He cannot see the subtle shades of gray that lie between the two. The world is simple not easily divided into a world of good versus evil.

Novak Needs to Stick to His Day Job

CNN gave Robert Novak a "blog" so he can post his thoughts on the debate. I have to wonder if he was watching the same debate I was or if he was using sock puppets - Bush on his right hand and Kerry on his left and having and imaginary debate in his bedroom. Robert Novak just needs to stick to his day job of outing CIA operatives.

Thanks to TBogg for pointing to Novak's "blog."