No McCain

McCain will not be Kerry's VP and just so the right wingers don't forgot, neither will Hillary. I know they need some reason to get people to give them money, but can't they just use something with some truth to it? You know, there's more evidence Iraq had WMD, than Hillary being on the ticket in 2004.

It would have been kick ass if McCain was the VP. His opinions are really conservatives, but it would have pissed the hell out of BushCo if that happened, making it worth it.

Holy Shit!

Shaq swore on live TV!!! Break out the FCC fine book Powell, Georgie needs a new pair of combat boots!

Hurray for Guns!

It never ceases to amaze me the things people find as uses for guns. Shooting up a boat full of people at a marina was something I had not thought of before.

The Battle of Algiers

If this movie can play in Salt Lake City, Utah, then why is it not scheduled to play in Cincinnati yet? Hesiod has more on the movie. I have been reading the script. It is not out on DVD and the VHS version is hard to come by and not the best print. I assume a DVD version is in the works after it makes the art house rounds.

Clooney on Clooney

Marcus Carey, GOP candidate in Kentucky's 4th district, might do well laying off George Clooney and start worrying about Nick Clooney.

I have to ask though where did this part come from:

George Clooney, formerly of Augusta, Ky., is Nick Clooney's son and was president of the Augusta Independent High School Science Club in 1978-79.

Was this a Clooney joke or an Enquirer joke on him?

Smoking Crack at the Enquirer Editorial Board

Who was the brain surgeon who came up with this one with this one?

Paper receipts may seem a good idea to let voters verify that their vote was accurately recorded. But paper receipts enable the possibility of vote-buying. Vote sellers could turn them in as proof needed to collect bribes from corrupt political organizers. The new machines allow voters to review their vote, and the new federal law requires the machines to produce a secure "audit trail" that lets election officials cross-check paper printouts with electronic totals.

Vote-buying? What kind of moron came up with this rationalization? How could you buy a vote after it is cast? Seriously? How? Does someone at the Enquirer Editorial Board think that someone could create fake print outs and try and challenge an election? You would need human bodies to get on the stand and lie for you to do that, a whole bunch of them. That could happen now with our without electronic systems without vote print outs.

I know how to simply do away with the irrational fears of the Enquirer’s Editorial Board.. CREATE TWO PRINT OUTS. One for the voter and one gets turned in at the polling station like paper ballots are currently, simple as that. I don't really think the voter has to have a print out, but that would be the ideal. What we do need is a hard copy of a vote to have in case the hard drive in one of the machines crashes before the data is downloaded or during the download process, not just because of possible fraud. The process is simple and the solutions are easy. Why are some (and I do mean only some) conservatives dragging their feet?

UPDATE: Wes Flinn also comments.

Editorial Bias

Media bias is a common theme in current events commentary these days. Mostly of the time it is a conservative complaining about "liberal bias" in the media. Often they say that liberal reporters can't report on religion without bashing it. I hope Peter Bronson has read this article in his newspaper about religion in the city. This article was written by a liberal. I don't think I am outing Maggie as a liberal, so I hope no one is aghast at this news, especially Maggie. Her article is very positive on a whole variety of religious groups and specific churches in Cincinnati. In fact the article gives no criticism of any of the groups, which some of them deserve. I don't have a problem with that. I would have add a few other things, but likely if they were added, the editors took them out.

What I am most dismayed at is the title of the article: "Younger worshippers flock back to church: From mainline to modern, youthful ministries flourish." Now, I am fairly sure that most reporters never write their own headlines. That is done by editors. In this case the bias of those editors comes out in full glory. Read this excerpt from the article:

According to a March Gallup poll, 48 percent of America's 18- to 29-year-olds and 59 percent of 30- to 49-year-olds say religion is important in their lives.

But a much smaller number attends services. Only 30 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds and 40 percent of 30- to 49-year-olds say they have attended services in the past week.

Despite national surveys that say there has been only a slight attendance increase among young people over the past decade, local churches say they are seeing a significant upswing of young faces in their congregations.

So nationally few younger people are going to church (with a ?slight attendance increase? over the last ten years) and local church groups claim they are seeing a ?significant? increase in attendance, that information is then somehow transformed to "flourish" and "flock back?" Local churches who are in the business of spinning their message to gain new members are claiming they are beating the national trends, but they don't provide support for their comments and this is enough to claim that young people are filling local churches like their is no tomorrow?? (cough, cough) This information is in the article and editors paint the story as a ?Win? for religion on a big church holiday. How convenient.

I also hope that Freddi Caldwell, a subject in the article, was also joking when he told Maggie that he was a former ?heathen.? If not, well that indicates to me a sign of not only ignorance, but a sign of a person grasping for meaning and buying into something because it?s easy. He was going on about drinking filling a void. If he is an alcoholic I hope he is not claiming he drank because he was not religious. Alcoholism is a disease, not the result from the lack of religious conviction. Religion can satisfy people?s emotional needs, but not their physical needs.