9/29/2004
LADY, IN MY HEART YOU'RE DEFINITELY A FULL CUP: Last spring, I had the honor of interning in Washington, DC. Fun stuff, right? When I look back on the experience, it's not the job I miss most, nor the lifestyle of DC; it's the friends I made there. Topping the list of them is roommate Ryan Womack. He always had one million brilliant things to say. Needless to say, I learned a lot from the guy.
We may have moved away - he at the University of Tennessee, I at the University of Iowa. But despite the distance, he's still teaching me. Case in point, the Full Cup Theory, developed by Ryan and Ryan's friend Brad.
The Full Cup Theory breaks down women into four distinct categories: the Empty Cup, the 1/2 Cup, the 3/4 Cup, and the Full Cup. The Empty Cup? Well, she's all used up and done. The Full Cup? That's marriage potential:
The Full Cup is a woman worth marrying. She possesses all the qualities of a great wife and a great human being. When you get a Full Cup, you don’t spill it, you don’t set it down and you DEFINITELY don’t let your friends hold it while you go to the bathroom. You nurse it for all that it’s worth and you procure it for the future. This said, a Full Cup is not necessarily THE one to marry. Sometimes, things beyond our control take cups away from us such as cracks, the beverage going stale, and friends stealing your cup and running. Chances are, we’ve all had Full Cups come into our lives. Brad and Ryan have each had a few and they’ve both failed miserably. In spite of this, they’re not giving up and they’re working day and night to correct it! Learn from your mistakes and don’t let that Full Cup out of your hand again.
Their site is definitely worth the read. It's definitely enlightened me.
We may have moved away - he at the University of Tennessee, I at the University of Iowa. But despite the distance, he's still teaching me. Case in point, the Full Cup Theory, developed by Ryan and Ryan's friend Brad.
The Full Cup Theory breaks down women into four distinct categories: the Empty Cup, the 1/2 Cup, the 3/4 Cup, and the Full Cup. The Empty Cup? Well, she's all used up and done. The Full Cup? That's marriage potential:
The Full Cup is a woman worth marrying. She possesses all the qualities of a great wife and a great human being. When you get a Full Cup, you don’t spill it, you don’t set it down and you DEFINITELY don’t let your friends hold it while you go to the bathroom. You nurse it for all that it’s worth and you procure it for the future. This said, a Full Cup is not necessarily THE one to marry. Sometimes, things beyond our control take cups away from us such as cracks, the beverage going stale, and friends stealing your cup and running. Chances are, we’ve all had Full Cups come into our lives. Brad and Ryan have each had a few and they’ve both failed miserably. In spite of this, they’re not giving up and they’re working day and night to correct it! Learn from your mistakes and don’t let that Full Cup out of your hand again.
Their site is definitely worth the read. It's definitely enlightened me.
DC BASEBALL: Here's an excerpt from a letter to my brother regarding the return of Major League Baseball to Washington, DC. The excerpt has been modified from its original form:
In other news, what do you think about the new DC baseball team? Are they going to supplant the Sox as your team? It’s so petty that some in the city, including Mayor Williams, oppose calling the team the Senators because DC isn’t doesn’t have senators since it’s a state. If DC is concerned with naming the team after something the city actually has, it could name the team after a gang. After all, DC has PLENTY of gangs. Perhaps it could be called the DC Luscious B----ches; that’s got a ring to it.
In other news, what do you think about the new DC baseball team? Are they going to supplant the Sox as your team? It’s so petty that some in the city, including Mayor Williams, oppose calling the team the Senators because DC isn’t doesn’t have senators since it’s a state. If DC is concerned with naming the team after something the city actually has, it could name the team after a gang. After all, DC has PLENTY of gangs. Perhaps it could be called the DC Luscious B----ches; that’s got a ring to it.
DEBUNKING LIBERAL MYTHS: The Daily Iowan has moved my columns to every-other-Wednesday. Today is the first of the Wednesday columns. In this column, I debunk a few of those nasty liberal myths. I say "few" because it would take one million conservatives one million years on one million typewriters to touch on them all (the original draft of this column was 200 words beyond the limit of 700, so I wasn't even able to hit on everything I wish to hit). Here's a taste of the column:
First and foremost, President Bush did not "steal" the 2000 election. One may call the Electoral College a flawed system, but Al Gore's campaign certainly did not think so. In the days preceding the election, when polls showed Bush winning the popular majority and Gore winning the electoral majority, the Gore campaign made it very clear through press releases that the winner of the electoral majority wins the election and that the Republicans better not be sore losers should Gore win the electoral vote without the popular majority. Ironically, Gore's campaign changed its mind after the election, when it tried converting Bush's electoral voters by using the same argument it had warned the Republicans not to use.
First and foremost, President Bush did not "steal" the 2000 election. One may call the Electoral College a flawed system, but Al Gore's campaign certainly did not think so. In the days preceding the election, when polls showed Bush winning the popular majority and Gore winning the electoral majority, the Gore campaign made it very clear through press releases that the winner of the electoral majority wins the election and that the Republicans better not be sore losers should Gore win the electoral vote without the popular majority. Ironically, Gore's campaign changed its mind after the election, when it tried converting Bush's electoral voters by using the same argument it had warned the Republicans not to use.
9/28/2004
KERRY'S DIPLOMACY PLAN: For all of Senator John Kerry's inconsistencies on the war in Iraq, he has been steady on one thing: If elected, Kerry will "bring in our allies" to Iraq.
What exactly does he mean by allies? After all, we already have a larger coalition in Iraq than we ever did in Korea or we did at the end of World War II. We have the help of Britain, Japan, Australia, Korea, and on and on. Being that the only major countries to oppose us are France and Germany, we can induce that when Kerry says he wants to bring in our allies, he means France and Germany. That means that Kerry's assuming that the reason France and Germany aren't involved in the first place is because of the current President, George W. Bush. Fair enough, but that means...
1) Bush was terrible at selling the war in Iraq. I find that hard to believe, since many other countries have supported us, the majority of Americans supported it, and the vast majority of the House and the Senate (including Kerry) supported it. That would not have been the case without the President's and his cabinet's selling of the war.
2) France and Germany base their views on Iraq on the personality of the US president. That's a grotesquely condescending view of the two states on Kerry's behalf. Call me cynical, but I'm lead to believe that France and Germany act on their own self-interest, not on whether the US president is a "cowboy".
3) In a Kerry presidency, France and Germany will happily come into Iraq. Again, not likely. They've already said many times that they disagree with the war.
Furthermore, why should they want to get involved with the US under a Kerry presidency? As a candidate, he has slammed every country that helps us, calling the coalition a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." (To this day he has not specified which country/countries were coerced, nor which country/countries were bribed) Along with this, the Kerry campaign has been undermining the effort of Australia by telling them that being involved in Iraq will only bring on more terrorism.
Who's the real diplomat here? Bush, who brought together a large coalition to help in Iraq, or Kerry, who insults and undermines our allies? Apparently the American people favor Bush. The latest Gallup poll has Bush leading Kerry on diplomacy by a margin of 56%-40%.
Regarding France and Germany, the two states acted as they did because they looked at all alternatives and decided that opposing the war was the most optimal. This could be for any number of reasons. It could be that the two states were making a killing off the Hussein regime. It could be that Jacques Chirac, dubbed "Jacques Iraq" in the 1970's for his closeness to Saddam Hussein, did not want to help in the toppling of a dictator he so closely embraced mere years earlier. Or maybe they knew that, even without their help, a resolute leader like President Bush would go ahead and topple Saddam, giving them the benefit of a safer world without the loss of a single Frenchman or German.
Thus, we shouldn't be surprised that Paris and Berlin have made it clear that if Kerry is elected President, they still won't send troops to Iraq.
Now which way will Kerry flop on Iraq?
What exactly does he mean by allies? After all, we already have a larger coalition in Iraq than we ever did in Korea or we did at the end of World War II. We have the help of Britain, Japan, Australia, Korea, and on and on. Being that the only major countries to oppose us are France and Germany, we can induce that when Kerry says he wants to bring in our allies, he means France and Germany. That means that Kerry's assuming that the reason France and Germany aren't involved in the first place is because of the current President, George W. Bush. Fair enough, but that means...
1) Bush was terrible at selling the war in Iraq. I find that hard to believe, since many other countries have supported us, the majority of Americans supported it, and the vast majority of the House and the Senate (including Kerry) supported it. That would not have been the case without the President's and his cabinet's selling of the war.
2) France and Germany base their views on Iraq on the personality of the US president. That's a grotesquely condescending view of the two states on Kerry's behalf. Call me cynical, but I'm lead to believe that France and Germany act on their own self-interest, not on whether the US president is a "cowboy".
3) In a Kerry presidency, France and Germany will happily come into Iraq. Again, not likely. They've already said many times that they disagree with the war.
Furthermore, why should they want to get involved with the US under a Kerry presidency? As a candidate, he has slammed every country that helps us, calling the coalition a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." (To this day he has not specified which country/countries were coerced, nor which country/countries were bribed) Along with this, the Kerry campaign has been undermining the effort of Australia by telling them that being involved in Iraq will only bring on more terrorism.
Who's the real diplomat here? Bush, who brought together a large coalition to help in Iraq, or Kerry, who insults and undermines our allies? Apparently the American people favor Bush. The latest Gallup poll has Bush leading Kerry on diplomacy by a margin of 56%-40%.
Regarding France and Germany, the two states acted as they did because they looked at all alternatives and decided that opposing the war was the most optimal. This could be for any number of reasons. It could be that the two states were making a killing off the Hussein regime. It could be that Jacques Chirac, dubbed "Jacques Iraq" in the 1970's for his closeness to Saddam Hussein, did not want to help in the toppling of a dictator he so closely embraced mere years earlier. Or maybe they knew that, even without their help, a resolute leader like President Bush would go ahead and topple Saddam, giving them the benefit of a safer world without the loss of a single Frenchman or German.
Thus, we shouldn't be surprised that Paris and Berlin have made it clear that if Kerry is elected President, they still won't send troops to Iraq.
Now which way will Kerry flop on Iraq?
9/25/2004
JON'S ON IT: Thanks go out to my friend Jon, who sent this email my way yesterday:
I’ve been perpetually perplexed about one thing regarding the vehement outcry by the left against the war with Iraq. If I’m not mistaken (and indeed I am not) Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 for failing to comply with UN stipulations regarding their weapons programs. Where was the outcry when this was taking place? There’s a link below to the transcript of his remarks to the American people on the night of the initial bombings. I thought it might be interesting for you to read those and put the current situation in an interesting perspective.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
Jon got it exactly right. When President Clinton bombed Iraq mere days before the impeachment vote, he said the same things that President Bush has said all along, that we attack Saddam Hussein for our own national security, that Saddam is a gathering threat whom we cannot allow to have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and who has in the past used these weapons against Israel, Iran, and the Kurds in Iraq.
I’ve been perpetually perplexed about one thing regarding the vehement outcry by the left against the war with Iraq. If I’m not mistaken (and indeed I am not) Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 for failing to comply with UN stipulations regarding their weapons programs. Where was the outcry when this was taking place? There’s a link below to the transcript of his remarks to the American people on the night of the initial bombings. I thought it might be interesting for you to read those and put the current situation in an interesting perspective.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
Jon got it exactly right. When President Clinton bombed Iraq mere days before the impeachment vote, he said the same things that President Bush has said all along, that we attack Saddam Hussein for our own national security, that Saddam is a gathering threat whom we cannot allow to have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and who has in the past used these weapons against Israel, Iran, and the Kurds in Iraq.
KERRY LOSING COOL: William Kristol, one of the best in the business, hit the nail on the head with his latest column for the Weekly Standard, in which he opined on John Kerry's disturbing actions this past week after Prime Minister Allawi's trip to the United States to thank us for liberating he and the other millions in Iraq.
What would happen if, God forbid, Kerry is elected president? Kristol explains:
There is some chance, after all, that John Kerry will be president in four months. If so, what kind of situation will he have created for himself? France will smile on him, but provide no troops. Those allies that have provided troops, from Britain and Poland and Australia and Japan and elsewhere, will likely recall how Kerry sneered at them, calling them "the coerced and the bribed." The leader of the government in Iraq, upon whom the success of John Kerry's Iraq policy will depend, will have been weakened before his enemies and ours--and will also remember the insult. Is this really how Kerry wants to go down in history: Willing to say anything to try to get elected, no matter what the damage to the people of Iraq, to American interests, and even to himself?
Bingo. Kerry says that because of President Bush, we have no allies and are a disliked around the world, but then says that those countries that have helped liberate Iraq (Countries like Great Britain, South Korea, Poland, Italy, Australia, India, and the list goes on and on....) comprise a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." Prime Minister Allawi has risked his life to help a new, free Iraq stabilize, but then Kerry's campaign calls him a puppet of the Bush Administration.
Kerry's vitriol is only hurting his chance of winning the presidency. That probably explains why the latest polls show him losing every state Gore lost in 2000, and in addition losing Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Maine, Oregon, and a strong chance to lose Pennsylvania and Minnesota, all of which were won by Gore in 2000.
What would happen if, God forbid, Kerry is elected president? Kristol explains:
There is some chance, after all, that John Kerry will be president in four months. If so, what kind of situation will he have created for himself? France will smile on him, but provide no troops. Those allies that have provided troops, from Britain and Poland and Australia and Japan and elsewhere, will likely recall how Kerry sneered at them, calling them "the coerced and the bribed." The leader of the government in Iraq, upon whom the success of John Kerry's Iraq policy will depend, will have been weakened before his enemies and ours--and will also remember the insult. Is this really how Kerry wants to go down in history: Willing to say anything to try to get elected, no matter what the damage to the people of Iraq, to American interests, and even to himself?
Bingo. Kerry says that because of President Bush, we have no allies and are a disliked around the world, but then says that those countries that have helped liberate Iraq (Countries like Great Britain, South Korea, Poland, Italy, Australia, India, and the list goes on and on....) comprise a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." Prime Minister Allawi has risked his life to help a new, free Iraq stabilize, but then Kerry's campaign calls him a puppet of the Bush Administration.
Kerry's vitriol is only hurting his chance of winning the presidency. That probably explains why the latest polls show him losing every state Gore lost in 2000, and in addition losing Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Maine, Oregon, and a strong chance to lose Pennsylvania and Minnesota, all of which were won by Gore in 2000.
9/21/2004
FOOTBALL FANS UNITE: He throws like a girl, he catches like a girl. He also loves Buckeye football while in Michigan and watching his beloved Packers play at Lambert Field.
PUT DOWN THAT BIC: Sure, things aren't looking good for the Kerry-Edwards campaign, but it isn't reason to contemplate suicide, is it? Obviously it isn't, unless you are Joe Killian of The Carolinian's opinions page, who said in a recent column:
I read recently that more than million people the world over take their lives every year - more than are murdered or killed in wars. The latest World Health Organization figures suggest a suicide takes place every forty seconds, somewhere in the world.
And so it's not hard to imagine that on November 3rd, if the election can be called by then, there might be a sort of grim mass exodus from this sad planet should Bush pull this election out. My generation may be particularly vulnerable to the urge to lay back in a warm bath and open up their veins as chants of "Four More Years" echo horribly from every 24 hour cable news station.
Seriously, an election is nothing worth suicide. If, God forbid, John Kerry were to win the election on November 2nd, I can tell you that rest assured I will wake up and go about the day as normally as I can, joining the new role that Republicans would find themselves in - the role of loyal opposition.
I read recently that more than million people the world over take their lives every year - more than are murdered or killed in wars. The latest World Health Organization figures suggest a suicide takes place every forty seconds, somewhere in the world.
And so it's not hard to imagine that on November 3rd, if the election can be called by then, there might be a sort of grim mass exodus from this sad planet should Bush pull this election out. My generation may be particularly vulnerable to the urge to lay back in a warm bath and open up their veins as chants of "Four More Years" echo horribly from every 24 hour cable news station.
Seriously, an election is nothing worth suicide. If, God forbid, John Kerry were to win the election on November 2nd, I can tell you that rest assured I will wake up and go about the day as normally as I can, joining the new role that Republicans would find themselves in - the role of loyal opposition.
POLLING AHEAD: The state polls continue to favor President George W. Bush. He has taken the lead in my home state, Iowa, 48%-42%. Ditto for Nevada, where the incumbent leads 50%-45%. Don't forget New Mexico, where he leads 47%-43%.
He continues to lead in what was supposed to be the deciding state, Ohio, this time by an impressive margin of 54%-43%. Don't forget Missouri, where he maintains a seven point lead.
He has even closed the gap in Democrat strongholds New Jersey and Maryland, where the latest polls show a tie!
My apologies for the pun-tastic title of the entry - I just couldn't pass that one up.
He continues to lead in what was supposed to be the deciding state, Ohio, this time by an impressive margin of 54%-43%. Don't forget Missouri, where he maintains a seven point lead.
He has even closed the gap in Democrat strongholds New Jersey and Maryland, where the latest polls show a tie!
My apologies for the pun-tastic title of the entry - I just couldn't pass that one up.
9/14/2004
WISCONSIN TAKES ITS FOOTBALL SERIOUSLY: Time for a timeline.
August 21, 2004: Senator Kerry leads President Bush in Wisconsin by a margin of 4.4 percentage points.
August 26, 2004: During a visit to Lambeau Field, Kerry pandered to the crowd, saying, "[Y]ou are looking at the biggest Cheesehead in America," then followed up by falling Lambeau Field Lambert Field.
September 12, 2004: Kerry trails Bush by a margin of eight percentage points.
August 21, 2004: Senator Kerry leads President Bush in Wisconsin by a margin of 4.4 percentage points.
August 26, 2004: During a visit to Lambeau Field, Kerry pandered to the crowd, saying, "[Y]ou are looking at the biggest Cheesehead in America," then followed up by falling Lambeau Field Lambert Field.
September 12, 2004: Kerry trails Bush by a margin of eight percentage points.
9/13/2004
COLUMN: Click here to read my latest column for the Daily Iowan entitled "Progress, George W. Style." The column touches on Hollywood liberal Ron Silver's speech at the Republican Convention, some highlights of the Bush Administration, finishing with a couple of absurd criticisms by leading Democrats, including Vietnam veteran John Kerry.
PRINCIPAL ROONEY SIGHTING: Why is Jeffrey Jones, better known as Principal Rooney from Ferris Bueller's Day Off, ranting and raving about President Bush to a crowd in Philadelphia?
Don't see the similarity? Check out this recent picture of Jones.
With all due respect to the former Vice-President, his body really has gone to hell over the last few years. He doesn't look anything like the candidate in 2000.
Don't see the similarity? Check out this recent picture of Jones.
With all due respect to the former Vice-President, his body really has gone to hell over the last few years. He doesn't look anything like the candidate in 2000.
# posted by Anonymous @ 9/13/2004 01:14:00 PM 
9/12/2004
BEAT THAT DEAD HORSE: So John Kerry's repeated mantra of "I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as President," isn't really cutting it. The American people are concerned with what the man would do as president, not with what he did 30 years ago.
So what's the DNC going to do now? That's right, they're ignoring the advice of President Clinton, and instead plan to focus more on George W. Bush's National Guard service.
When will the Democrats realize that, while John Kerry's Vietnam service definitely outshines George W. Bush's National Guard service, it will not get him elected President?
So what's the DNC going to do now? That's right, they're ignoring the advice of President Clinton, and instead plan to focus more on George W. Bush's National Guard service.
When will the Democrats realize that, while John Kerry's Vietnam service definitely outshines George W. Bush's National Guard service, it will not get him elected President?
# posted by Anonymous @ 9/12/2004 09:40:00 PM
9/09/2004
FAVORITE PICTURE: Much thanks to former DC roommate / conservative Saint Joseph's University student Justin McCarthy for having the link to the most telling picture of President George W. Bush.
Seeing this article makes me wonder how people can demonize this President to the level that they do. If he's such a liar, why does he show such regard for a common Midwest child?
I can hear the accusations now. Kitty Kelley will say that Bush is hugging this child because she scored him so cocaine. Or perhaps Susan Estrich will say that Bush is hugging this child in order to avoid falling over in a drunken stupor.
Seeing this article makes me wonder how people can demonize this President to the level that they do. If he's such a liar, why does he show such regard for a common Midwest child?
I can hear the accusations now. Kitty Kelley will say that Bush is hugging this child because she scored him so cocaine. Or perhaps Susan Estrich will say that Bush is hugging this child in order to avoid falling over in a drunken stupor.
# posted by Anonymous @ 9/09/2004 10:16:00 AM
9/02/2004
SHOW YOURSELF: Somebody under the pseudonym "Anonymous" had this to say in the comments section to the recent Michael Moore post:
I'm only anonymous because I didn't have time to fill out the registration form today.The previous comment is ludicrous. Michael Moore is an entertainer, similar to Andy Kaufman, no more, no less. He has turned his ODD into a marketable syndrome (read: can stay fat and unshaven and doesn't have to really work), but he doesn't believe anything. Don't let his socialist-Blame-America-first rhetoric lull you into mistakingly believing he agrees with you -he's using his capacity for deception to make lots of money and afford his daily fix of do-nuts and milk shakes by amusing the slack-jawed, faux-cynical Beevis and Butt-head wannabes out there.
Sarge, is that you?
I'm only anonymous because I didn't have time to fill out the registration form today.The previous comment is ludicrous. Michael Moore is an entertainer, similar to Andy Kaufman, no more, no less. He has turned his ODD into a marketable syndrome (read: can stay fat and unshaven and doesn't have to really work), but he doesn't believe anything. Don't let his socialist-Blame-America-first rhetoric lull you into mistakingly believing he agrees with you -he's using his capacity for deception to make lots of money and afford his daily fix of do-nuts and milk shakes by amusing the slack-jawed, faux-cynical Beevis and Butt-head wannabes out there.
Sarge, is that you?
BREAKING NEWS: Apparently there's a counterbalance to the Swift Boat Vets... and they're out to get President Bush!
Oh, and you can't question them, because you weren't there!
Oh, and you can't question them, because you weren't there!
