Monday, August 30, 2004
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Jerry Falwell Responds to watts4u2 blog
WorldNetDaily: The GOP is not a church
The week after I posted this:
"I miss Reagan, and it angers me that some Republicans see W as the "new
Reagan". George W ain't no Ronnie, folks. Sure, he's firm, determined and
won't he back down. It's just that he was wrong to push this war, wrong in
the planning for the aftermath, wrong not to listen to the right advisors,
and wrong if he thinks the $400 Billion spent on this war could not have
done much more for our safety had we used it here in America"
Jerry Falwell writes:
"At this moment in time, I would say that conservative people of faith are as energized behind President Bush as we have been behind any president in history. President Bush – like Ronald Reagan – has won our hearts because of his moral clarity, his unswerving integrity and his desire to intrepidly defend our nation against militant terrorists who seek to destroy us. (Fighting a "sensitive" battle against terrorism just doesn't seem plausible.) "
How can Falwell justify this war when the reasons given for going to war have proven false? And why the backhanded jab about "sensitive"? Certainly Jesus would have prefered we treat prisoners at Abu Grabe with sensitivity, in fact, that was at the core of Jesus' teachings, no? Turn the other cheek? The only way it makes sense for Jerry Falwell to defend this war is blind allegiance to the Republican Party and/or he wishes for the Christians and Muslims to battle it out in a race to armageddon.
Reagan was right. He hastened the end of the Cold War, got the economy moving, and gave us optimism.
W is a failure. Led us into unjust war, gave tax breaks mostly for the wealthiest while running the largest debts ever, and he plays on fear. I think he's a normal, good hearted person doing what he thinks is right. But he's not right. He's wrong.
Reagan came into office with unemployment, interest rates and inflation all over 10%. Just imagine! By the time he left office, all were well under control and communism was all but finished in Europe.
W inherited a budget surplus and with 9/11 was given the opportunity to unite the world in a common goal to stop terrorism. Instead, he launches a vandetta against his Daddy's arch-rival, while his puppeteer and his cronies rake in the profits from running the war. At least when Reagan made a mistake, it was a heartfelt (yet misguided) effort to save hostages, not a Bible-toting crusade against anyone who could be considered a terrorist. Like Ted Kennedy?
Ah, thanks Jerry, it's good to know you still push my buttons.
The week after I posted this:
"I miss Reagan, and it angers me that some Republicans see W as the "new
Reagan". George W ain't no Ronnie, folks. Sure, he's firm, determined and
won't he back down. It's just that he was wrong to push this war, wrong in
the planning for the aftermath, wrong not to listen to the right advisors,
and wrong if he thinks the $400 Billion spent on this war could not have
done much more for our safety had we used it here in America"
Jerry Falwell writes:
"At this moment in time, I would say that conservative people of faith are as energized behind President Bush as we have been behind any president in history. President Bush – like Ronald Reagan – has won our hearts because of his moral clarity, his unswerving integrity and his desire to intrepidly defend our nation against militant terrorists who seek to destroy us. (Fighting a "sensitive" battle against terrorism just doesn't seem plausible.) "
How can Falwell justify this war when the reasons given for going to war have proven false? And why the backhanded jab about "sensitive"? Certainly Jesus would have prefered we treat prisoners at Abu Grabe with sensitivity, in fact, that was at the core of Jesus' teachings, no? Turn the other cheek? The only way it makes sense for Jerry Falwell to defend this war is blind allegiance to the Republican Party and/or he wishes for the Christians and Muslims to battle it out in a race to armageddon.
Reagan was right. He hastened the end of the Cold War, got the economy moving, and gave us optimism.
W is a failure. Led us into unjust war, gave tax breaks mostly for the wealthiest while running the largest debts ever, and he plays on fear. I think he's a normal, good hearted person doing what he thinks is right. But he's not right. He's wrong.
Reagan came into office with unemployment, interest rates and inflation all over 10%. Just imagine! By the time he left office, all were well under control and communism was all but finished in Europe.
W inherited a budget surplus and with 9/11 was given the opportunity to unite the world in a common goal to stop terrorism. Instead, he launches a vandetta against his Daddy's arch-rival, while his puppeteer and his cronies rake in the profits from running the war. At least when Reagan made a mistake, it was a heartfelt (yet misguided) effort to save hostages, not a Bible-toting crusade against anyone who could be considered a terrorist. Like Ted Kennedy?
Ah, thanks Jerry, it's good to know you still push my buttons.
Saturday, August 28, 2004
Moon Zoom
Gonna try to post some moon photos I took and played around with in Photoshop.
You know who the man on the moon is?
John Fogerty. He's singing "The Midnight Special".
Now you know.
You know who the man on the moon is?
John Fogerty. He's singing "The Midnight Special".
Now you know.
Friday, August 27, 2004
Watts on the Clie
Updated when warranted, "Watts on the Clie" highlights tunes running on my MP3 player. You'll notice a major shift from the premiere edition of "Watts on the Clie" (check the archives). These tunes are mostly classics sprinkled with some lesser known yet almost just as great tunes.
Prescription Drug Commercials
There is no need to advertise prescription medicines. There have been studies that show the ads increase the number of people who go to see the doctor, and they insist that is a good thing, but I'm not so sure.
For instance, one company is now running an ad for the product "Singulair". It's hard to tell what the drug is for by watching the ad, but all the kids at camp sure are enjoing it. At the beginning of the TV spot, there is a bus dropping the kids off at camp. If you look closely you can see the name of the camp on the front of the bus:
"Camp Watchatakin"
(What-ya-takin')
When I went to summer camp (I went to a lot of camps), I can only recall two kids out of hundreds that went to see the nurse for pills daily. One was an epileptic and the other was hyperactive. I wonder what percentage of kids are taking pills daily now? Is there a line out the nurse's door at lunch, kids waiting for their next pill to halt the sniffles or calm them?
I argue that the drug ads on TV are propping up big profit-makers for the drug industry, and a lot of these prescriptions are unnecessary, and the government is happy to go along with it. I am not against drug companies making a profit, but isn't medicine a higher calling? The ads are what I call "comfort drugs", they give you a hug, make grow hair, enlarge your manhood or whatever. Pills that are useful and have a place, but they're not life-saving medicines, they're kinda like add-ons. When the add-ons are the profit makers, where is the incentive to make cures for debilitating or life threatening diseases? Where is the incentive for a cure...if the goal is profit, then drug companies would benefit from making drugs that you have to continue taking for life rather than drugs that you take once and are cured forever. Where is the profit in that?
I have read (but cannot source) that drug companies spend more on advertising than research. That is completely out of whack, and a disgrace to our culture.
I think it's time we take a hard look at the health care system as a whole, and get the best minds together to come up with solutions. Hillary couldn't do it, as a politician she was doomed to fail from the start, this is a fight that needs to be led by doctors and lawyers (ug!)....the private sector needs to take the lead. Health care costs are spiraling upward and it's having a dramatic effect on the economy for average people who pay for health insurance. If the private sector can't police itself better, and provide health care at a reasonable price for all Americans, it's probably in part due to the natural influence of capitalism in the drug marketplace. Maybe the government does need to take a bigger role in policing the health care system.
A easy place to start would be more restrictions on advertising prescription drugs to the public. Could we require drug companies to spend at least 10X more on research than advertising? Could we allow drug companies to run ads that don't mention the product at all, only list symptoms and tell consumers to ask their doctor about drugs? Or are we doomed to have our kids come home from camp asking "Daddy, I want to take pills like Sally, and Jill, and Jimmy, and Alice and....."
Camp Watchatakin. Ug!
For instance, one company is now running an ad for the product "Singulair". It's hard to tell what the drug is for by watching the ad, but all the kids at camp sure are enjoing it. At the beginning of the TV spot, there is a bus dropping the kids off at camp. If you look closely you can see the name of the camp on the front of the bus:
"Camp Watchatakin"
(What-ya-takin')
When I went to summer camp (I went to a lot of camps), I can only recall two kids out of hundreds that went to see the nurse for pills daily. One was an epileptic and the other was hyperactive. I wonder what percentage of kids are taking pills daily now? Is there a line out the nurse's door at lunch, kids waiting for their next pill to halt the sniffles or calm them?
I argue that the drug ads on TV are propping up big profit-makers for the drug industry, and a lot of these prescriptions are unnecessary, and the government is happy to go along with it. I am not against drug companies making a profit, but isn't medicine a higher calling? The ads are what I call "comfort drugs", they give you a hug, make grow hair, enlarge your manhood or whatever. Pills that are useful and have a place, but they're not life-saving medicines, they're kinda like add-ons. When the add-ons are the profit makers, where is the incentive to make cures for debilitating or life threatening diseases? Where is the incentive for a cure...if the goal is profit, then drug companies would benefit from making drugs that you have to continue taking for life rather than drugs that you take once and are cured forever. Where is the profit in that?
I have read (but cannot source) that drug companies spend more on advertising than research. That is completely out of whack, and a disgrace to our culture.
I think it's time we take a hard look at the health care system as a whole, and get the best minds together to come up with solutions. Hillary couldn't do it, as a politician she was doomed to fail from the start, this is a fight that needs to be led by doctors and lawyers (ug!)....the private sector needs to take the lead. Health care costs are spiraling upward and it's having a dramatic effect on the economy for average people who pay for health insurance. If the private sector can't police itself better, and provide health care at a reasonable price for all Americans, it's probably in part due to the natural influence of capitalism in the drug marketplace. Maybe the government does need to take a bigger role in policing the health care system.
A easy place to start would be more restrictions on advertising prescription drugs to the public. Could we require drug companies to spend at least 10X more on research than advertising? Could we allow drug companies to run ads that don't mention the product at all, only list symptoms and tell consumers to ask their doctor about drugs? Or are we doomed to have our kids come home from camp asking "Daddy, I want to take pills like Sally, and Jill, and Jimmy, and Alice and....."
Camp Watchatakin. Ug!
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Hear What You Type
TTS Interactive Demo
Several voices to choose from....just type whatever you want in the box and listen to the voice of your choice read it.
Several voices to choose from....just type whatever you want in the box and listen to the voice of your choice read it.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Morning in Wilmington, now with Swift Vets
Anna Grace is with me today, as Tracey is off to work. She woke up happy and we're off to a good start. Today we are going to the Children's Clinic to get her records together for daycare that starts next week. I know she will really mature quickly playing with other kids more and I want to savor what "little baby" there is left in her. Contemplating a beach run with her today, it is another "U2 song" day out there and if the beach happens, I'll be sure to post some pictures.
Been loving posting pictures to the blog through the Clie. The memory stick compatibility with the Sony camera is just the bomb.
Time to read the news. Amazing how the Republicans have been able to turn Kerry's Vietnam record against him. Um, let's just stack Bush and Kerry's military service records to gether and see who wins? The real media tried to avoid the Swift Vet story's conflicting details because it is, essentially, meaningless.
I wish McCain would press Bush on this issue...this gives him an excuse to change his endorsement to Kerry, whom I am sure McCain respects more than Bush, even if he won't admit it. Yet.
Been loving posting pictures to the blog through the Clie. The memory stick compatibility with the Sony camera is just the bomb.
Time to read the news. Amazing how the Republicans have been able to turn Kerry's Vietnam record against him. Um, let's just stack Bush and Kerry's military service records to gether and see who wins? The real media tried to avoid the Swift Vet story's conflicting details because it is, essentially, meaningless.
I wish McCain would press Bush on this issue...this gives him an excuse to change his endorsement to Kerry, whom I am sure McCain respects more than Bush, even if he won't admit it. Yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)