Comments Posted By Ashley
Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments
You might want to stay off the hormones for a minute so you can get good and riled up when you see what is happening at The Wide Awakes. Momma, you are getting yourself banned.
» Posted By Ashley On 23/February/2005 @ 1:26 pm
Bite me:twisted:
LOL
» Posted By Ashley On 22/February/2005 @ 11:37 am
you never had pms my butt:)
» Posted By Ashley On 22/February/2005 @ 8:27 am
I serve my country by working every day and voting. I do not believe in mandatory service. I think it is utterly ridiculous and would breed resentment. Just the thought that someone could steal 3 years of my life makes my blood boil.
Kevin is right – we need to stop intervening in other countries.
» Posted By Ashley On 18/February/2005 @ 12:53 pm
Costa Mesa (I thought that didn’t sound right when I typed it)
» Posted By Ashley On 19/February/2005 @ 7:48 am
I know this is random but the thing about this post that stood out for me was that Koreans helpfully corrected your pronunciation. I can’t imagine trying to correct an immigrant’s pronunciation – people would find it so rude here.
Also, I think it’s interesting how so many things are in English over there. Is that b/c of the American military base or is it like that everywhere in Korea? Interesting.
Anyhoo, it sounds like an adventure. I am going to a foreign country myself on business in March –Santa Mesa, CA:)
» Posted By Ashley On 18/February/2005 @ 1:04 pm
TJ-
by “and nothing else” I meant that was the government’s sole purpose not that public interest should be the only thing considered. Of course the defendent and plantiff are a part of the public too but I think it’s lame to say that someone’s reputation (in what I gleaned about the case in question)trumps making available unclassified gov’t information.
Hope that clears up my post.
» Posted By Ashley On 17/February/2005 @ 9:39 am
Ok-since the post is about the 1st amendment. Check this out (under the the 1st amendment wedgie post): http://www.instapundit.com/
(I put the link to instapundit instead of the actual website so I could say “reverse-instalanche”–yeah that’s how I roll:) )
Anyway, I read the file and I don’t agree with Mr. Instapundit. What got stuck in my craw is that on the 5th page it said that the court needed to consider (1)harm to plantiff (2) harm to defendent (3)likelihood the plantiff to succeed and (4)public interest. And then it said the harm considerations were the most important where I would think that public interest should be the most important – in that, the government is there to serve us and nothing else.
I don’t know anything about the particular case – it was the language of the decision that bothered me. I get the part about people not having to comment or give reasons for their refusal to comment, but I don’t get the part about them not having to give information requested. It should be easy not hard to request unclassified information from the government. I think this ruling goes against that basic principle.
What about you guys?
» Posted By Ashley On 16/February/2005 @ 1:39 pm
Isn’t that what John said:
“The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress.”I assume that gov’t departments that hire contractors fall under “the entire federal gov’t.”
» Posted By Ashley On 16/February/2005 @ 10:43 am
I alluded to in my last comment, and will reiterate here that I don’t have any better idea of Jordan said than you do. I then laid out my reasons for thinking he is probably guilty of what he has been accused of. I do not think the freedom of the press is liberal and unAmerican. I don’t think he was exercising freedom of the press I think (based on what I know so far) that he is guilty of slander and treason.
» Posted By Ashley On 15/February/2005 @ 11:20 am
I read your comment Mom and the last part made me think:
“the far-right is suppressing our ability to dissent, to air criticisms freely, to challenge the status quo. If people fear that their jobs, their ability to care for their families will be impacted by speaking out then they will quit speaking out.”
That could be a very real danger (from either side). But, the fact is, that no one knows exactly what Jordan said. He could have easily cleared his name by asking for the video of the event to be released. He didn’t. And, the “deliberatley targeting” comment – you don’t really have to go out on a limb to interpret that. It is hard, I think, to misinterpret that. Please don’t defend someone because people who have a different political ideology than you attack him. You don’t want people like Jordan on your side.
The saddest part to me, is that your last post on this subject sounds like a sloppy paraphrase of this Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6490-2005Feb7.html
» Posted By Ashley On 14/February/2005 @ 12:00 pm
I just found more:
http://bussorah.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_
bussorah_archive.html#110767705592357815» Posted By Ashley On 15/February/2005 @ 12:08 pm
Not pretty enough (I’m talking about Streep, not you)
» Posted By Ashley On 12/February/2005 @ 2:33 am
You obviously read it. Read it again, you admitted yourself you were doing this on the fly. They used the ADA numbers for the reps and then think tanks were considered left or right based on the average ADA score of the reps citing them-with 42.2 being the cutoff between the two groups. So they never had to make a determination on ideaology. They also explain why the think tanks might not come up they way they thought they would. Over half of the references to the ACLU were from a republican citing positively their opposition to the campaign finance reform bill. So, over half their score would be based on his score. The researchers also recalculated ACLU without any of his references and they had a score of 70.12 The Children’s Defense Fund was probably cited by a lot of Dems b/c they want gun control and more gov’t support for poor children.
Well, it is all in there so I suggest you read it closer. The only real issue with the study would be 39 being the mean. But, that has nothing to do with the study. It should be reasonable to expect that our Representatives truly represent their constituents. That isn’t really true-but it also has nothing to do with the study and it is a discussion for another time.
» Posted By Ashley On 10/February/2005 @ 5:20 am
Jiminy Cricket John! It is 3 AM and it is a Tuesday night–what are you doing to me???
» Posted By Ashley On 09/February/2005 @ 4:52 pm
Mom, your last paragraph is something I can totally get with you on.
I go back and forth on faith based initiatives. On one hand, they should not be discriminated against just because they are religion-based organizations. On the other hand, I think religious people are crazy and I don’t want them to have my tax dollars because I’m afraid they will use them to push their moral agenda (even though it is expressly forbidden.) Overall, I would have to say “against†just because I don’t think the risk is worth it. However, by making religious groups the focus of social-welfare programs we are setting the stage for government getting out of them. Social-welfare programs had their start in religion and that is where they should stay.
Abstinence is stupid. Did I ever tell you about the time that I amazed and horrified a co-worker by telling her that I believed that if God didn’t want us to screw (sorry Bonnie, no other word will do. Well, one would, but I have been expressly forbidden to use it here by my Mom…) he wouldn’t have programmed us to hit puberty at such a young age. Or, did I tell you about the time I told my boss that, “if you Baptists wanted to make people feel guilty about something, why did you have to pick sex? You guys have turned a perfectly normal biological necessity into something dirty.†Trying to get myself fired aside, as long as biology exists abstinence will never work. And if Bush is really horrified by the idea of pre-marital sex he ought to use that money to fund promotion of self-esteem in teenagers. Right now, self-esteem is taught by making everyone feel equal-which doesn’t do squat. But, if you instilled the values of individualism and self-determination in kids along with a healthy dose of integrity then maybe kids would be more selective in sexual partners and self-involved enough to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and diseases, not to mention heartache and shame. That is something I would put my money behind.
Drugs vs. social assistance: Theoretically, I am for the legalization of drugs. I say theoretically because I have no way of determining the impact of legalization. Would it make drugs safer, would it make drug use go down because of the loss of “illicit funâ€, or would it make all of us unsafe because of an increased number of addicts? I don’t know. But I do feel that it is a waste of resources to try to “fight†drugs. The “war on drugs†has been going on since I was a child and I don’t think it has made one bit of progress. I do agree with you that this crap needs to get cut out of the budget. It is ridiculous. On the other hand, the social programs you mentioned (assistance for housing, heating and food) also get quite a bit of funding. I know this because of my job. I don’t agree that they should be last on the chopping block. There is much duplication that could be removed. Furthermore, I think that the programs that are getting gov’t grants really need to be looked at to see what, and how, they are accomplishing their goals. I don’t want to give any of my money to anyone for assistance – but if I am forced to, I would like it to go to programs that “teach a man to fish,†if you know what I mean. But, the government is not stringent in making sure that our money is used to that end.
The only exception I take to your last paragraph is the “moral†comment. If the gov’t cut all entitlement programs and gave that money back to the citizens then the citizens could give that money to charities as they saw fit. For you, it is a moral imperative to take care of those without the basic necessities in life. You could give your money to them. I don’t think it is my moral imperative to give other people my money. And, I think that the government appropriating my money to give to these people is immoral, because it is theft. What keeps coming into my head, although I don’t really know how to introduce it here, is that: when I go in public with you, you do not say “thank you†to waiters, cashiers, or sales clerks. You breeze on by them like they are robots. My moral code tells me to treat them like human beings and acknowledge their presence and the job they are doing. I treat others (usually, I’m not perfect) the way I want to be treated. The golden rule and all. Why can’t you say a simple “thank you†to hard working people but you are willing to throw money at people that may or may not be deserving? I was going to speculate, but I came up blank.
» Posted By Ashley On 09/February/2005 @ 4:39 pm
OK-I guessed. Well, I really googled-guessing is such a waste of time when cold hard facts are available so quickly:
1. Washington post-no surprise there
2. AP, (this is the one you probably found on MSNBC. ABC also carried the story) money quote: “slice aid to farmers and college studentsâ€
3. LA Times, money quote: “will call for billions of dollars in cuts that will touch people on food stamps and farmers on price supports, children under Medicaid and adults in public housing.â€
4. Washington Times, money quote: “lean $2.57 trillion budget that slashes nondefense spending and the deficit, while relying more heavily on taxes from affluent Americans.â€
5. Business Week-didn’t want to register but I am guessing by title it is bad
6. ABC—no money quote, but had an overall negative tone.I found each article and read them all except for the Post article and the Business Week article. I pulled a money quote when I found one and then I decided to see how each source was perceived.
So, I googled media bias and found multiple references to a study called “A Measure of Media Bias.†Here, a quote from the study gives a very simplified version of what they did:
“As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative. Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one. Our method asks: What is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches? This is the score that our method would assign to the New York Times.”
The ADA, Americas for Democratic Action, is a self-described liberal lobbying group. So, the researchers started with the “liberal score†of Congress members as judged by a liberal group. That’s fair.
Here is the link to the PDF document that fully documents the study:
http://www.cbrss.harvard.edu/events/ppe/papers/Tim%20Groseclose%20Media%20Bias%20Paper.pdf
Here is a run down of the scores available for the outlets you quoted (the higher the score the more liberal):
I got these from this website, which referenced the study:
http://www.worldthreats.com/general_information/Liberal%20Bias%20Quantified.htm
Washington Post – 66.6
ABC World News Tonight 61.0
ABC Good Morning America 56.1
Washington Times 35.4
Los Angeles Times – 70.0There were no stats available for MSNBC or Business Week, so I googled them separately.
Business Week: I would have thought that Business Week would be a “conservative†publication because it deals with business. However, when I did a search to see what type of bias Business Week appeared to have (if any) what I returned was Amazon, where people rate the product. I went through three pages of reviews and was surprised to see that quite a few people had cancelled their subscriptions because the magazine was becoming too political and that those politics were liberal. It was in those comments that I found these leads:
1. Bob Kuttner is co-editor of the American Prospect (liberal magazine) and a contributing columnist to Business Week.
2. And is published by McGraw-Hill, the same company that puts out school textbooks. Here is a choice quote on McGraw-Hill:
http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i02/02b02001.htm
“Today, schoolbooks and standardized tests are routinely bowdlerized to make them conform to absurd standards of sensitivity. McGraw-Hill has banned the words “lady,” “tomboy,” “man-made,” and “fisherman” from its textbooks, Ravitch tells us, because they are deemed sexist.”
Hope THAT makes you think…
MSNBC: that is up in the air. I searched for bias on their part and found them being ripped from both sides. Odd.
So, to review, of the six headlines you gave two appeared to have a conservative bias and the other four a negative, I mean liberal bias. Here are the two that appeared conservative to me:
“Bush to Propose Billions In Cuts†– which I took to mean tax cuts (yea!). But that isn’t what it meant. It meant cuts in the amount of money crack whores are allowed to legally steal from me and it was from LA Times.“Bush Offers Budget That Sets Priorities†– which has your quote about heavily taxing affluent Americans. This was a pretty balanced article, they even quoted Pelosi pretty early on. No potshots were taken at either side. This article was from the Washington Times.
So, um, all of this research took awhile, but in the end you proved that the media is even more liberally biased than I thought. I went into this thinking that Business Week, MSNBC, and Washington Times would show at least a slight conservative bias – but the Times was fair, MSNBC went liberal, and although I refused to register to read the Business Week article I sense from the title that it was also liberal.
I think John owes you on this one:)
» Posted By Ashley On 09/February/2005 @ 3:45 pm
My marriage is entirely too new for a divorce just yet.
I think if I have something I want to say I will just introduce it randomly on your blog like Mom did.:smile:» Posted By Ashley On 08/February/2005 @ 1:44 pm
Killing is not antithetical to Christian beliefs. (Ok-maybe according to Christ it is, but you said Christian-Judeo beliefs.) Christians have been killing people from their first taste of power. Hell, there is a hymn called “Onward Christian Soldier.” I googled it, so I know that it isn’t really about war, but it still uses war imagery and it has been used in that context since I bet.
But that was an aside. John does have a point. I try to get news from different sources so I can see what people are talking about, but this blog thing is new to me. So, a couple of days ago I see a cartoon on Instapundit, I think, that was talking about Eason Jordan and I had no idea what it was all about until I read John’s post today. And as far as Mattis goes-damn, soldiers kill. That is what they are paid to do-you can’t whitewash that because of delicate sensibilities. You know, we send these people to war, we send them to kill, and then we expect them to be normal. I blame people like you for expecting that, but I blame people like John for creating that need in the first place. When I think about our soldiers I hope they come home safe, and then I hope they come home not f’d up. When I think about Hillary, I always fervently hope she never has to kill anyone. Mattis isn’t a pyscho, he is a soldier-it is what happens. Just be thankful that he didn’t say “It’s fun to kill Muslims.” His words make it clear that he is fighting against injustice.
I am getting off track again…
I watch the Today Show (liberal) every morning, I read the Times (liberal), the Weekly Standard (conservative), the National Review (conservative), and the Economist(as conservative as Europeans can be) (and today I got my first issue of Reason (libertarian)). Occasionally I get the Washington Post(LIBERAL). And now that I have discovered blogs (boy is Michael PO’d at you John:)) I can read Instapundit, IMAO, John’s blog, and the Democratic Underground. I am learning lots of new stuff. And, yes there is always a slant. And yes the liberals dominate mainstream media. And the important thing here, is that most people get their news from MSM. If you want to know the weather in the morning you watch a morning show (like Today), you don’t listen to Sean Hannity. If you want to find out what is going on in the Metro region you read the Post, you don’t watch O’Reilly. And, I thought I was the only one who read the editorials anyway.What is fun is seeing how each source portrays the same issue differently. I think that is why I don’t tow a party line. I see stuff in different places that makes sense to me and I am (usually) able to view things neutrally because I don’t feel that I have to feel a certain way.
Anyway, John: baiting Mom is too much fun. Could you blog about something that Mom and I agree on so we can gang up on you?
» Posted By Ashley On 08/February/2005 @ 12:11 pm
The best ad had to be the “Cat Murder” ad. That was friggin hilarious! The troops one was touching until you realized it would never, ever happen-then it was just sad.
» Posted By Ashley On 08/February/2005 @ 1:46 pm
753 Broken Wheel, Durango, CO 81303
Ms. Young’s address
» Posted By Ashley On 06/February/2005 @ 2:18 pm
You know what. Everyone in that community knows who that woman is now. I bet her life isn’t going to be very pleasant from here on out and she can’t sue everybody. This is just one of those situations that karma is going to have fix.
» Posted By Ashley On 05/February/2005 @ 11:04 am
Rock on!
» Posted By Ashley On 05/February/2005 @ 11:09 am
Something else bears do in the woods
umm, was the “grisly” thing supposed to be a pun as in grizzly bear? If so, really, really bad puns must run in the family. And that is definately scarier than the picture. I was afraid I was going to have nightmares last night because of the picture. Now I KNOW I am going to have nightmares about bad puns and wake up exhausted. That being said, my previous post still stands:)
» Posted By Ashley On 05/February/2005 @ 2:09 pm
Grisly not only because of the leg either. I bet if he had known he was going to get eaten by a bear he would have tidyied up a little. We have all heard the “wear clean underwear in case you get in an accident thing.” Now maybe we need a new one – “You never know when you are going to have your pants pulled down by a ravenous grizzly bear so be sure to trim the tree.”
» Posted By Ashley On 05/February/2005 @ 11:13 am
I was going to post and thank you for hiding the last picture. Unfortunately, when you go to comment it isn’t hidden anymore.
That bear is freakin huge, whoa. That guy must have been scared s***less.
» Posted By Ashley On 04/February/2005 @ 11:55 am
Hmmm, I want to believe this is true…
According to those quizzes I’m 23 and my year is 1974–the horror!
The song one was horrible-I knew it was going to be bad when none of the artist choices are on my iTunes (and I have 970 songs at this point).
And how is this for funny–this is what my name means: altruistic, spiritual, helpful, loving, enjoyable, young. Hah! That guy who compared me to Jeffrey Dahmer can suck it:twisted:
» Posted By Ashley On 06/February/2005 @ 4:05 pm
Social Security: Point/Counterpoint
I am done with this conversation. I am bored of going back and forth. I leave you with this link:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1771
» Posted By Ashley On 05/February/2005 @ 11:30 am
I hesitate to defend Anthony’s position because he will doubtless make a better argument than I could.
I do believe that the thrift plan he is talking about is the one my Mom referred to in one of her early posts. My Mother has a seperate retirement account as a government employee that the rest of us don’t have. And even though she has an opportunity that we don’t have she is arguing against reform that could help us. The thrift account is good for her, but it is too good for the rest of us.
I do not believe that Anthony thinks the government has the right to seize private accounts. He is making the point that we should all have private accounts.
You don’t appear to really be following the discussion. The “conservative” opinion is that people should control their own money, not the government. The liberal side is the one who thinks it is preferable for the government to take people’s money and re-distribute it.
» Posted By Ashley On 04/February/2005 @ 2:50 pm
«« Back To Stats PageJim S,
I was not “name calling†when I called FDR a socialist. He was a socialist.
The following is an excerpt is from http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/fr32.html
By 1935 the Nation had achieved some measure of recovery, but businessmen and bankers were turning more and more against Roosevelt’s New Deal program. They feared his experiments, were appalled because he had taken the Nation off the gold standard and allowed deficits in the budget, and disliked the concessions to labor. Roosevelt responded with a new program of reform: Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, new controls over banks and public utilities, and an enormous work relief program for the unemployed.
In 1936 he was re-elected by a top-heavy margin. Feeling he was armed with a popular mandate, he sought legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court, which had been invalidating key New Deal measures. Roosevelt lost the Supreme Court battle, but a revolution in constitutional law took place. Thereafter the Government could legally regulate the economy.The New Deal in all of it various components, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority (which created gov’t owned utiltity companies among other things) and Social Security, took economic control out of people’s hands and put it in the government’s hands. That IS socialism. The only thing I will grant you is that it was socialism-lite.
Next, because I started my next post by saying I would indeed do some homework I don’t see how your comment is in the least bit relevant. I would love to know exactly how I don’t understand the “actual mathematics or economics of the situation.†And I think that if you were so confident of that fact you would have backed it up by showing how I was wrong, but you didn’t and I suspect you can’t.
Next, Michael’s post was pretty damn clear. He, and I, will not feel sorry for those who refuse to take care of themselves and expect someone else to do it. You don’t have to like it. In fact, your defensiveness makes me think that my taxes just may be paying for your internet connection. And for the record, we prefer Ed Gein to Jeffrey Dahmer. Michael did not trivialize liberty. America, as a sovereign nation, may never have come to be if it were not for unfair taxation. (So I guess at this point I could throw your quote back in your face-you seem to be the one forgetting history.)
And, finally, you can wish whatever you want on us. There are a lot of things that scare me in life, but hippies aren’t one of them. The reason they don’t scare me is because they don’t have the drive or the determination to do anything about anything-they just “wish.†And you do not understand the concept of “justice†if you think justice would be us being punished for being angry that we are being stolen from.
» Posted By Ashley On 04/February/2005 @ 11:34 am