17 September 2004
Hurricane Eye-van
[source]
Hurricane Ivan as seen from the International Space Station, back when it was a real storm
UN-threatening
[source]
Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told the BBC that diplomacy should be given a chance to take effect.
[…]
“You need the carrot and the stick - the incentive and disincentive […]” Mr ElBaradei said.
[…]
Mr ElBaradei cautioned against creating further barriers between the country and the international community.
Yep, we need the carrot and the stick, only without the stick.
Playing with the polls
[source]
The Los Angeles Times has a front-page story today titled: Long a Republican Bulwark, a Growing Arizona Is in Play. Not until page A20 does the paper tell us what is meant by the term “in play”:
A poll taken for the Arizona Republic and released last week showed Bush ahead of Kerry, 54% to 38%.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!! Bush leads Kerry by 16 points, and the headline says a “Republican bulwark” is “in play.”
I got news for you, L.A. Times. In California, a recent Rassmussen poll shows Kerry leading Bush, 50% to 42%. That’s a mere eight-point difference — half the spread between Bush and Kerry in Arizona.
I look forward to your front-page article tomorrow: “Long a Democratic Bulwark, a Growing California Is in Play.”
Clearly, as long as anyone in the state would vote for Kerry, it’s in play.
It's not smart to run against your own record
Every self-respecting fiscal conservative will gag upon reading:
Seeking to gain ground against Sen. John Kerry, President Bush said Thursday that his Democratic opponent “wants to expand government” in education, health care, taxes and virtually every other area of domestic policy.
I will be voting for Bush—but not because I believe this talking point tripe. It wasn’t Kerry who signed into law such behemoth government expansions as the No Child Left Behind Act and the abominable Medicare prescription drug entitlement. Bruce Bartlett has more on Bush’s big government conservatism; see also here and here. W. James Antle asks: What are big government conservatives trying to conserve?
And who are they trying to kid?
How can you not view this as a flip-flop by President Bush?
It's not supposed to be hard for us!
[source, source, source, source]
Environmental regulations are notoriously difficult to keep up with, what with all the paperwork and communication required. Just ask Greenpeace.
The radical environmental group and habitual filer of lawsuits is learning how the other side feels after prosecutors in Alaska filed criminal charges against it for violating state environmental laws. It seems a Greenpeace boat, the Arctic Sunrise, entered Alaskan water without the required oil spill prevention plan and proof of financial responsibility should a spill occur. The vessel, which can carry 128,000 gallons of fuel and lubricants (Exxon Valdez, anyone?), was sailing near Ketchikan to protest logging activities.
The state charges that when the environmental group was notified of the violations on July 14, the ship’s agent agreed to remain anchored until the situation was fixed. Instead, the Arctic Sunrise left port that very morning and went joyriding in “environmentally sensitive areas during peak salmon runs, without care or consideration for the catastrophic impacts that would occur from failure to have the necessary resources to initiate a response.” The case goes to trial in October.
As for Greenpeace, it sounds, well, positively corporate in its explanations. The organization pleaded not guilty at its arraignment. But it has also blamed its decision to go sailing on a communications mishap and noted that a “clerical error” was behind its lack of proper documentation. According to the Washington Legal Foundation, a lawyer for Greenpeace was also quoted as saying that environmental regulations are “getting to be more complicated in this day and age.” You don’t say.
Aren’t regulations only applied to the Evil Corporatist and not the Good Guys?