GraniteGrok

I would like to know more about this little nugget from Tom Fahey’s State House Dome column in this morning’s Union Leader:

[Democrat Party Chairman Ray] Buckley had made the only outburst during Thursday's Senate debate. As Sen. Martha Fuller Clark finished her speech, he loudly told two men behind him to keep their comments to themselves. He said the two had engaged in a running critique of Clark's remarks. Troopers quickly quieted things down and the Senate voted 14-10 to pass the bill.

I wish Doug Lambert had been there with his video camera.  It is certainly possible that the two men seated behind Chairman Buckley were being unruly and obnoxious.  But knowing Chairman Buckley as I do, I think it is far more likely that they were expressing legitimate disagreement with Sen. Fuller Clark’s statement in hushed tones and Chairman Buckley popped. The fact that troopers needed to quiet things down only after Chairman Buckley entered the “discussion” lends credence to my bias.

Chairman Buckley’s outburst is darkly reminiscent of Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter’s behavior last February in which she is alleged to have called and berated two women who have family members serving in Iraq.

Has New Hampshire elected a bunch of liberal bullies to run the state?  Sheesh. If Chairman Buckley or Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter ever accept our numerous invitations to appear on "Meet the New Press," they should know that we only engage in polite reasoned dialogue and bullying behavior is not acceptable on the program.

Posted by Pat H at 6:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Check out the op-ed in today's Foster's by Republican State Rep Dave Hess on education funding.  Hess is part of the "leadership" of House Republicans, so you know his views reflect the views of the House Republican leadership.  The gist of the op-ed is that we, the Republicans, know how to spend your money more wisely than Governor Lynch.  Here's an excerpt.

"There is neither rhyme nor reason to [Lynch's] formula. In fact, the governor's plan spends the exact same amount, dollar for dollar, as the state would have spent under current law. The governor's current plan, which the Democratically controlled House of Representatives passed unchanged, just shuffles the money around, not unlike a shell game. The biggest difference is that 86 towns lose over $16 million under the governor's plan — towns that can ill afford to lose money, including four of the five original Claremont lawsuit towns."

There isn't a dime's worth of difference between Hess' plan and Lynch's.  Both agree that the quality of public education depends on how much we spend.  Both agree that we need to spend more.  And both agree that the "wise men" in Concord should decide how the money gets spent.  The only difference is they disagree over how best to spend our money.

Thus, the voters in this State just get to choose between two shades of blue.  A real Republican approach to public education would recognize that just increasing spending on public schools is not going to improve pubic education; competition is needed to do that.  It would be based on the premise that parents are much better decision-makers than the "wise men" in Concord.  To cut to the chase, the real Republican approach is school choice.

But how bad are things here?  Not only are the Republicans not advocating school choice.  They're not even for same but less.  They're just for the same. 

Posted by Ed Mosca at 6:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

• Freelance writer Jennifer Rubin. She is published in American Spectator, NRO and ABC.com, as well as Human Events, Weekly Standard, and National Review. We will discuss Rudy's years as a prosecutor, the Gonzales mess, and Ward Connerly's affirmative action plans for '08. This is her fourth appearance here on MTNP.
• Tim Pawlenty is the Governor of MN.  He won reelection in 2006, one of the few Republicans in a Dem-leaning state to do so.  He is national co-chair for McCain.  He is in NH for the official office opening. He'll join us for a segment.
• Civil Unions in NH!! The gang will discuss this at great length today. Joining the panel will be Judy Paris, who penned an excellent op-ed in this week's Union Leader and another, posted here on the 'Grok. What are they (Dems) doing to our state?
• Ryan Bilodeau, chair of the URI College Republicans will give us a wrap on his group's successful defense of free speech. (story here) Believe it or not, the ACLU jumped in on his behalf. We'll ask him what that was like. (next week)
• Sheryl Crow knows how to wipe out global warming.
• NH welfare softened/Sgambati vulnerable?
• Hang 'em high Ayotte
• Joe Kenney for governor? Who's he?
• YOUR PHONE CALLS AT 603 527 1490

Posted by Doug at 7:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Meet The New Press - Live Streaming!

Yes, the MTNP crew has finally got it working the way we want it to.  During the show, 9am - 11pm on Saturdays - WEMJ 1490am, we will be streaming the entire show.  It will start JUST before the show, but only a couple of minutes before and will end pretty much at the end of the show (for now).  So if you want to join us:

                    Player choices:

                        WinAmp - Click  Here  
                        WinAmp or QuickTime - Click Here
                        Windows Media Player - Click  Here

Note: f there is a problem with Windows Media Player in listening to the stream and the "Click here" doesn't work (as we are still transitioning to a new server hosting company), follow the below instructions:

Open up Media Player, full mode, go to FILE, open URL, and paste in:

http://www.GraniteGrok.com:8000

That should work.  If not, email me:  Skip   GraniteGrok.com    (you know what goes inbetween Skip and GraniteGrok!)
 

We are excited that those of you who are Internet-centric will now be able to join us!  Remember, we are just a phone call away at 603-527-1490 if you have a question or a comment during the show.  All we ask is that you keep it on topic (or reference something we just finished talking about) and pithy.  Jerrod, our engineer, will take the call and let us know you are on the line.  We will take your call at the first logical break, so please hold on until we get to you! 

One other thing - while we have just doubled our capacity, please do not get upset if you cannot get a stream first time out.  We are "playing this by ear" as we wait to see how many folks wish to be part of the show by this method.  If you have problems during the show, email me at Skip   at the usual GraniteGrok.com (yeah, let's give the robo-spammers a hard time with that email address formatting - you know how to do it!). 

Posted by Skip at 6:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (20)

Do tough-on-crime death penalty advocates have a new hero in state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte?  Perhaps.  Ayotte is seeking the death penalty against John A. Brooks for allegedly engineering a 2005 murder-for-hire scheme. New Hampshire Union Leader reporter Kathryn Marchocki points out in her story, "[t]his is the second time Ayotte has sought the death penalty since she became the state's top prosecutor, in July 2004."

I oppose the death penalty, but I recognize that I am in the extreme minority on this matter. With crime seemingly on the rise here in the Granite State, Ayotte is well positioned to cast herself as a genuine crime fighter if she were ever to seek higher state office (Note to Gov. Lynch: There's only one state office higher than Ayotte's present office). And given the impressive manner in which she represented the state against Planned Parenthood of Northern New England before the U.S. Supreme Court, we could be looking at a new rising star.

Posted by Pat H at 6:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

I was recently invited to join a Facebook group called “Draft Joe Kenney for Governor 2008.”  Joe Kenney, of course is New Hampshire’s District 3 State Senator from Carroll County.

While I am hardly prepared at this point to join the Draft Joe Kenney movement, I think the Granite State could do a whole lot worse than to elect as it’s next Governor a Republican who served in both the Gulf War and the Iraq War. 

I also note that “Draft Joe Kenney for Governor 2008” already has 38 Facebook members, which is a whole lot more than the Draft Patrick Hynes movement has. Heh.

Finally, and more important for our immediate purposes, I have started my own Facebook group called, simply enough, “New Hampshire Republicans.”  I hope to use it in conjunction with Granite Grok as a tool to capture some of the latent activism on the right here in the Granite State.  Please consider becoming a Facebook member and joining “New Hampshire Republicans.”

Posted by Pat H at 5:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

District 4 state Senator Kathy Sgambati is a person of unquestionable competence.  Immediately upon winning election she was recognized in Concord as a valuable resource on matters relating to Health and Human Services, a state department she essentially ran for years.  And I believe the motives that guide her decision making in Concord are pure.

And that’s the problem.  Kathy Sgambati simply does not share the values of the voters of Belknap County.  She demonstrated as much this week when she, along with the rest of her Democratic colleagues, voted to redefine marriage in the Granite State … without ever having mentioned it on the campaign stump and without any real public input. Most disappointingly, Sen. Sgambati is apparently unwilling to come onto “Meet the New Press” on WEMJ 1490 AM to discuss her vote, which indicates a level of discomfort with even talking about this, the Democrats’ number one priority issue.

Sen. Sgambati is also the author of a measure to relax work requirements for welfare recipients.  She would, in effect, extend the length of time people could collect welfare payments, even though we have the most robust jobs market in the state’s history.

Only 733 votes separated Kathy Sgambati and Jim Fitzgerald in the 2006 Senate race.  We know that Jim lost primarily because of the high-level of state-at-home, non-voting Republicans that year. 2008 will be a presidential election year. Provided the Republicans nominate a reasonably competent presidential candidate, turnout in District 4 will likely be closer to what it was in 2004, the last presidential year.  That means roughly 9,264 people (though, perhaps more) who did not vote in 2006 will vote in 2008.  See my point?  If Republican State Chairman Fergus Cullen recruits a solid candidate who can clear the primary field, and together they begin hammering on Sen. Sgambati’s “values gap” early and often, her seat will be highly vulnerable to Republican takeover. 

Republicans are learning the painful way that elections have consequences.  Democrats will learn that voting records have consequences, too.

Posted by Pat H at 4:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"Every effort must be made to get anybody that inflicts harm on the US. Osama still holds a degree of control and is the symbol of Al Qaida."

"not ready to impose government controls or have government intervene."

"any effort to reform the tax code that a majority of the people and Congress support,"

"will face bankruptcy or ruinous taxation if we don't fix it."

"I would rather lose a campaign versus losing the war."

Posted by Doug at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Doug and I were both pleased to be invited to Senator John McCain's

Pat is speaking.....part of the announcement
McCain

WIll try to be doing this every two weeks.

He is in Sioux City

Notes that bloggers would rather question than listen

He is happy with audiences, notes that healthcare is one of the top issues.....war in Iraq.
He enjoys the Town Hall venues the best

Jennifer Reuban - Romney - not worth capturing OBL.  Agree or disagree.
John - usually don't comment....this is national security...he has some operational and figurehead.  He agrees with Israelis ....follow to the end of the world  so he disagrees absolutely

Klien - war funding - when will the effects start to take effect. 
John - drop dead is early in June.  Problem is that they have to make plans...like MRAP - have to plan the factories and the committments....short, med, and long range plans.  We have to allow the tropops to do the max that they can do.  Any day that the troops don't know is not good.  If he was Pres, he'd veto it and play up the port money and the sponsors.  It is obscene and corrupt

Ryan Sager - romney and guil.  agaistnt civil union.  His stance?  He is opposed to the it...but it is up to the States.  He believes that agreements are fine...but is against anything that is aginst the sanctimony of marriagne

Soren dayton - Michael ware who heckled you....is there a shift i n the press in how it is being reported and is he seeing a change. 
J - Suicide bombers are still focus , there is progress in baghdad...dayala province is getting the isnurgencies.  He is hearing rumors thaty Maliki govt wants to take 2 months off.  They have to work on security and oil sharing.  Patreus is concerned about bombers and quipment from Syria and Iran.  measured and small progress is being made, but Maliki govt has to step up to the plate....

Mike Goldfarb - deadline to the Sec Air Force on CSAR has passed - did you get a resonse? 
J hasn't been in the office will send an email

Patrick Bell - Saudi's disrupted an attack.....how hi a priority is hybrid / plug ins and where do you stand.
j - his speech prev day of VT....saudis already stopped an attack on a oil.  He would not subsidize ethanol, but get it from lots of places.  Need nuclear badly....streamline the process and fix the reporccessing / storage of waste.  Hybrid - electric could be important as most cars < 25 mi /day.  Govetn should not intervene.  What happens in the middle east is important to us.

Lori Bird - Pres Bush shortcoming - communications.  "Lighten up and get a life".  Have you seen the change from the press in how they treat you? 
J - Bush need to provide better updates and more often.  Politicians blame peress / bloggers.....he takes his own blame...if he cannot manage the press now, he shouldn't be pres.  He will continue to be him, maintain sense of humor....shouldn't blame media

Doug - issue of prok - you'd do a veto.  Gilford  wash and excercise - upset that under Homeland.  How can they get it - all over it.   How would you manage it?
J - laden with pork, states does not target hi priority areas.  Pork breeds corruption.  Te process is broken by putting lots of stuff into bills that should not have them. 

Ann Althouse - who would you appoint to Supreme?  Put a conserv or work with liberals with moders
J - no litmus tests.wants strict interpretations.  He feels founding fathers should not legistlate but decide.  He wants people with judicial experience AND other life experiences other than lwyer and judge - like military, small business, corportion. = knowledge of the real world.  Strict is the most improtant.

John Hinderacker - strong language on SS and Medicare
J - supported Bush.  It is going broke.  Reach out to Dems...and the folks to tell them to reach back. It has to be bipartisan, a quick commission study

Jim Gauraty - WaPo editorial Broder - Mc is the Anti Bush
j


Pat Curley - inside baseball question - electoral map.....those states that were blue - are thre any you can change to red?
j - CA.  Oregan, WA, PA, NY  cannot write off states automatically even considering money. 

Robert Bluey - Defense - Mitt.  Speanding wants 4% of GDP. 
J - what we do vs how much is more important.  Increased spending is vital - like missle defence.  Are we buying the right stuff to fight radical Islamofacists and spending on stuff we don't.  Have to cap spending.  Get the smartest like Fred Smith, those that have made billions, and put them in DoD and make it work right.  Heads of services need to be involved more in acuisitions.

I asked Fair Tax
Supprotive of redoing the tax code.  very complicated has to be revised.  Had dinner with head of Estonia (grew up in Brooklyn), they can dial up, flick and get it donw with 98.8% compliance.

Kinda equivocated in that he was not quite ready to sing onto anything specific just yet. but it does need to be studied and fixed.

He hesited



 

 

Posted by Skip at 4:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A story in the Associated Press characterizes Mitt Romney's statements in a recent interview this way:

[Romney] said the country would be safer by only "a small percentage" and would see "a very insignificant increase in safety" if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," Romney said. Instead, he said he supports a broader strategy to defeat the Islamic jihad movement.

I haven't seen the full text of the interview, so perhaps there is some missing context.  But if the quote is correct, just speaking as one taxpayer, I would say a) we have already spent billions and gone to a lot of effort to try to get bin Laden, and b) it would be worth still more money and still more effort to kill the man behind 9/11.  I can't imagine any serious Republican candidate for president would say otherwise.  Perhaps Romney should watch the tape of the planes hitting the towers again.

My Take On Things:  we (average Joe Sixpack) really don't know if OBL is still actively running things or not.  Is he merely a figurehead, or not?

As far as I am concerned, I disagree with Dems - the fight against Islamofascists is NOT just limited to Afghanistan.  Their claim that Iraq (effectively) is a mere distraction is wrong - ANYWHERE Islamofascists are located is where the "war" is located.  And we have to kill them - they will not discuss (unless they see it in their interests), they will not settle for a truce (unless they see it in their interests), and they will not stop (unless they see it in their interests) or until we have all converted or die or submit to Shar'ia law as Dhimmis (after all, Islam means submission).

Or we get them first. 

We go to long lengths in this country for justice.  Yes, we have flaws, and yes, mistakes (sometimes grevious ones) are made.  But that is the bedrock of our society - the rule of law.  And one of those tenets is that those who are suspects must face justice, and let our system decide innocence or not.

That is the way it should be.

But ya gotta have the perp to do it!  And OBL has admitted to launching and blessing the attack - for all those 3,000 people who died, and their families, the rule of law must be fulfilled.  Justice must be served.

Romney may be technically correct (think Law of Diminishing Returns), but not in the grander sense of Justice completed.  The trail to OBL goes through all kinds of other, lower level Islamists.  To capture OBL, lots of others will, most likely, be rounded up or killed - their terror cells as well. 

Getting OBL gets the others. Give me someone who is relentless in this cause.  Get them all!

Sorry, but Romney's statement doesn't make it for me. 

Posted by Skip at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Two RedState bloggers are presently in Iraq.  They are filing their posts regularly.You should go there are read up …

Posted by Pat H at 9:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In Response to Not a Religious Issue, Monitor, April 26

I have a commentary (Opposition to same-sex marriage does not equal hatred of homosexuals) printed in the April 26 Union Leader that Ms. Potter and others may find of interest.

.

I’d also like to add that Ms. Potter’s views are nothing more than her opinion just like my views are my opinion. Let’s face it; most of us would rather be “right” than get along.

. 

The definition I find of “bullying” in the dictionary differs; i.e., “a person who hurts, frightens, threatens, or tyrannizes over those who are smaller or weaker.” I don’t know how Ms. Potter knows the condition of my heart (nor anyone else’s) as far as my motives, so it could be she’s being a bit presumptuous in her statements that some of us are out to “hurt” homosexuals or that they are smaller or weaker.

.

If you look up the word respect it states: “deserve our admiration” and diversity means “difference.” We could argue all day from both points of view as to whether homosexuals (or anybody else for that matter) “deserve” admiration. There would be adamant opinions on both sides.

While she’s “wary of those who use religion in their ‘defense’ (justification or support) of discrimination” (to “distinguish or observe the difference between”), and I’m wary of her quoting scriptures out of context to support her position that some Christians’ quote scriptures to “justify their intolerance.” First of all, she’s taken all of her scripture quotes out of the entire context of the Bible (e.g., see my reference in the “Union Leader” regarding children) and at best doesn’t understand the difference between Old Testament (simplistically put, some scriptures are a historical reference) and New Testament scripture, etc. At worst, she’s manipulating and misusing scripture to support her position and place blame merely because everyone doesn’t agree with her. She is obviously not a biblical scholar (nor do I profess to be) or theologian and should perhaps stick to her 30-years of experience in secular teaching and leave something she does not have much knowledge about to others who do.

.

Also, the definition of intolerance could more easily apply to her; i.e., “lack of tolerance, especially in matters of religion.”

.

In truth, just because she thinks the civil union bill is not a moral issue does not mean that everyone else agrees with her. Many people believe it has a lot to do with morality. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, and perhaps we all need to stop confusing our opinions with being absolutely right or wrong.

.

I do agree with her that it’s about granting equal legal protections and responsibilities but since it only applies to same-sex couples and not to any two-people living together, it is giving preference to a small percentage of NH’s population and therefore discriminates against all other two-people living together other than married couples. So homosexual’s who profess about being discriminated against will now be ok being discriminators against many others because they now have what they want?
.
Yes, there will likely be a “backlash from citizens” especially during the next election depending on who voted for or against the civil union bill and other legislation that has taken the focus off of what’s more important to many NH citizens.

.

I don’t think anybody’s changing anybody’s mind on the issue because all of us have to be willing and open to changing our mind on this or any other issue. It seems like most of us have made up our minds as to where we stand, many of whom haven’t done an ounce of their own research on this or much of anything else.

.

Let’s move on to the “realistic” people (some of whom believe everything they read or hear in the left-wing media but have never done any of their own research) who hate President Bush (some just because it’s the “popular” thing to do and those outstanding Hollywood role models say so too!) more than the President of Iran (who supports terrorists and wants to kill Americans) for a more perplexing debate!

.

Oh yeah, don’t forget to use only one square of toilet paper because Sheryl Crow says so and the “alarmists” have moved onto Global Warming as their new God of self from last year’s crises…hmmm, sorry I forget what it was. Am I a “victim” or is it that people with no rudder just seem to move too fast from one thing to the next and are too accepting of what they’re told partly because of who tells it to them? I’ll have to do my research and get back to you.

.

Can I hitch a ride on your jet Mr. Gore so I can save on my gas and do my part to save on those dreaded carbon emissions? It’s keeping me awake at night with worry.

.

It’s a very scary world in la, la land out there.

Posted by Doug at 6:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 2:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to the Associated Press (sorry no link yet) the New Hampshire Senate just passed the civil unions legislation and have now shuffled it off to Gov. Lynch.  All 14 Democrats in the State Senate voted for it.  All ten Republicans voted against it.  As I said, I have been unable to secure even a single Democrat to appear on “Meet the New Press” this Saturday to discuss the subject.  Oh well, we're certainly going to talk about it anyway. I will spend the next couple of days analyzing which Democratic Senators this shortsighted blunder will hurt the most.  But right off the bat, I think Kathy Sgambati in District 4, as bright and as well-respected as she is, has done herself serious political harm.

Posted by Pat H at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today's Concord Monitor's editorial is about same-sex marriage --oops, I mean civil unions.  Pravda-on-the-Merrimack dutifully repeats the Left's "talking point," which is that the law is about ending discrimination and creating "equal rights for all."   

So a law that discriminates against opposite sex couples who want to enter into civil unions is a law that treats everyone equally? 

Well, actually, yes. The so-called civil union law is not really about establishing civil unions, but about establishing same-sex marriage.  The Monitor just can't tell it like it is, because Governor Empty-Suit said he was against same-sex marriage. 

Posted by Ed Mosca at 8:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“This is the number one issue for us as we move forward.”

Those were the words of NH party chair Ray Buckley at the April 14th meeting of the Belknap County Democrats. What was he referring to? Property taxes? The state budget? Perhaps something to do with the environment? Was he talking about protecting children against predators? How about improving education in general? No, we could only wish that one of these matters was what Chairman Buckley was speaking about at the crowded meeting featuring presidential aspirant Joe Biden. No, what Buckley was referring to, accompanied by thunderous cheers from the attendees, was civil unions.

“Senate Democrats voted as a unit last week to make it easier for single parents, most of them women, to keep drawing state welfare checks. Senate bill 226, co-sponsored by Senator Kathy Sgambati (D-Tilton) passed in a 14-10 party line roll call and moves to the house.”

“The legislation gives bureaucrats more leeway to meet some high federal standards imposed last year. It also buffers the toughest features of the new welfare reform rules at the state and federal levels to wean people from the public dole and make them support themselves.”

“assured the group that she supported civil unions as well as legislation that protects the rights of gays and lesbians to adopt children and serve as foster parents. Her years of experience at the NH Department of Health and Human Services, she recalled, which included supporting the well-being of families and children, had introduced her to many gays and lesbians who had proved to be outstanding parents. ‘And there are many heterosexuals who are not good parents,’ she said, noting that sexual orientation has nothing to do with parenting skills.’”

.
Surely this is not your grandfather’s Democratic Party. I firmly believe that if more regular folks, especially those who voted Democrat because they were mad at the Republicans, knew what was actually going on at the ground level of that party and thought about the fundamental changes taking place in the Granite State as a result, would have voted differently. Unfortunately, the GOP gave little reason for voters to choose them. So far, I don’t see much changing in that regard.

Posted by Doug at 6:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have invited Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley, House Speaker Terri Norelli, and State Senator Kathy Sgambati to appear on "Meet the New Press" on WEMJ 1490 AM this Saturday morning to talk about civil unions in New Hampshire. Anyone who listens to five minutes of our show can tell you that we are not "shout radio" and guests are treated with respect.

Sadly none of these has responded to my request to appear on the program.  I am growing concerned that our friends on the other side of the aisle wish they could change New Hampshire's marriage laws without the resultant discussion and backlash.

More here.

Posted by Pat H at 5:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A loyal read (H/T: Russell) brought the following emails to my attention concerning how NBC views itself regarding the reporting of the Virginia Tech massacre.  Now, I have not intentions of posting ANY pictures as I have come to the conclusion that I do not wish to give this evil person any more publicity than NBC already gave him when they published his materials.

Sick puppies, all.  Russell agreed in his email to me

This is the story that set me off... 'fraid I took brisk exception to this MSM crackberry and his spinnage. Aside from the obvious attempt to demonize hunters, I think it's contemptible that NBC enabled this lunatic bring more pain to folks after his death. It's wrong.

Anyways, one of the pictures show him wearing a vest.  Here is how Robert Windrem, an investigative producer at NBC News wrote about the story here (bold emphasis mine):

There also appears to be a change of personality between the first clips and those marked as “end.”  Cho is angrier, his language cruder and his speech more rambling. In many of the others, he mumbles and is apologetic about what he is about to do. And in at least two, he talks about what he has done “today.” He is dressed differently as well. In the earlier videos, he is dressed in a black T-shirt, sometimes wearing a hood. In the later ones, he is seen wearing his ammunition-laden vest, with a baseball cap, as if dressed for hunting.

Disclaimer: I am not hunter, nor have I ever hunted.  However, both my stepdad and my father-in-law did.  I know what a hunter, if s/he is safety conscious, will wear and bring.  Our Now, I saw the photo, I would never, ever, have thought this personification of evil was going hunting in the traditional manner.

Anyways, what is important was that this also caught Russell's eye and emailed Mr. Windrem (emphasis mine):

From: <redacted>
To: Windrem, Robert (NBC Universal)
CC: <redacted>
Sent: Thu Apr 19 2007
Subject: "As if dressed for hunting...?"

Your 4/19/07 update article re: VTI killer leads into its concluding paragraph with the sentence "In the later ones, he is seen wearing his ammunition-laden vest, with a baseball cap, as if dressed for hunting."

That vest, and other very similar designs, is also used by Time magazine photographers, NBC videographers, NPR sound engineers, birdwatchers etc - and that type would not be commonly worn by a hunter - it is not blaze orange, or camo, and so not a good choice for hunters.  Your attempt to associate this psycho with hunting did not and is not going to go un-noticed.

You are either uninformed, did not research, or just took a cheap shot - not smart - pretty transparent in fact.  Your agenda is showing.

I believe that the call-out was justified.  Hunters, because of the gun issue and the "Bambi" issue, in my eyes, are denigrated by the Left all the time.  However, I'm not going to go off on a rant - not tonite.

However, the response to the email was quite illustrative (emphasis mine): 

From: Windrem, Robert (NBC Universal)
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007
To: <redacted>
Subject: Re: "As if dressed for hunting...?"

So is yours

Robert Windrem
NBC Nightly News

I have removed Mr. Windrem's email address and his phone numbers...if you really wish to contact him, it should be easy enough.

To me, it continues to show a bias....at one level, it tries to tie evil to hunters...after all, guns are guns, right?  They all can kill people, right?  Therefore, they are all bad.

Sure, let's get two targets with one stone (MSM thinking).

And they continue to wonder why the dead tree media outlets are losing profits and employees hand over fist, and the network share ratings are starting to follow suit.  They have not gotten the message that people want them to REPORT THE NEWS - straight up.  Leave the opinions on the Op Ed page, or at least make it clear.

Bloggers are not the end all be all.  However, we ARE subject matters in what we do for livings (or serious hobbies).  We also depend a lot on the MSM for actual news (and thus give us food for fodder).

But the vast majority of us tell our readers who we are and what our biases are. 

Posted by Skip at 8:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today's Union Leader has an op-ed from former Congressman and N.H. Supreme Court Justice Chuck Douglas arguing that "voters will find the common sense conservative values they are looking for in John McCain."

The op-ed focuses on federal spending, which is understandable given that McCain is not that conservative on immigration, free speech or Congress' advice and consent power (I'm talking about the Gang of 14).  Ironically, Douglas' op-ed ran the same day as the U.S. Supreme Court heard another challenge to that exercise in censorship known as campaign finance reform.

Would McCain be far preferable to any Democrat running for Prez?  Of course.  But one is not going to get just "common sense conservative values" with McCain.

Posted by Ed Mosca at 6:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Said the Iraq War is “Lost”

We, the members of the Portsmouth N.H. Air Terminal Greeters, thank and honor all our forces as they go to or return from Iraq. When we speak to those who are doing the fighting, we never hear a trace of the pessimism as that expressed by Senator Harry Reid.

.

As a soldier with two tours of duty in Vietnam, I am disgusted that there are those in our governmental leadership that are attempting to repeat the disastrous mistakes of 1968. 

.

In January 1968 the Communist Forces launched their surprise Tet Offensive throughout Vietnam.  The American T V coverage of the offensive made the war seem hopeless, wasteful, and most likely lost.  Walter Cronkite, viewing the battle from Saigon declared the war, “un-winnable”.  Later our soldiers’ actions were characterized as, “immoral”.

.

Published memoirs, documents, and interviews made public by Hanoi, reveal an entirely different assessment of offensive. The elites in media and universities have access to all these documents.  However, they have ignored even their very existence. The fact that we came close to winning the war in1968 conflicted with their left wing mind set.  

.

The losses suffered by the Communist’s Forces in their Tet Offensive of 1968 were so devastating, that Hanoi was at the brink of suing for piece. Their only hope for victory lay in what they saw on American T V.  They could not win on the battle field. However, using their ideological friends in the U S they resolved to erode our political will on our city streets. This resulted in seven more years of war, 30,000 more U S deaths and defeat.

In 1973 we withdrew our few remaining forces. In 1974 congress stopped all aid to Cambodia and Vietnam. In 1975 the enemy won. The blood bath that followed consumed millions and enslavement of tens of millions, all made possible by our lovers of “peace”.

.

Now fast forward to 2007.  The “peace” advocates now look much different than they did in 1968. They have cut their hair, bathed, and dress in conservative clothing.  However, most have not lost their desire “to make a difference”.  Many have risen to positions of great prominence. Their values now control congress, over 90% of the mass media, the entertainment industry, and the social studies departments of all our universities. 

.

Lenin could not have wished for more. One of the “peace” protestors even went on to occupy the White House for eight years. Another almost became our 44th U S President, if the press had been able to keep his Swift Boat Comrades quiet. He said of our soldiers that they, “acted in a manner reminiscent of Genius Khan”. Hanoi must have loved him.

.

We must learn from 1968. Our foe is fanatical and capable of enormous destruction. They must be stopped now or generations of Americans will pay a terrible price for our failure.

.

James J. Reilley
LTC USA (RET)

.

Posted by Doug at 7:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The extreme left in New Hampshire is united on issues like balloon fines, relaxed work-for-welfare requirements, civil unions, and revoking parental rights in cases of minors wanting to obtain an abortion (even though, by statute, those girls have been raped and we ought to crack down on the child molesters who impregnated them, but that’s the subject for another post, I suppose.) But when it comes to the singular issue in which the New Hampshire voters granted them a mandate to run the Granite State—a permanent fix regarding the school funding controversy—they don’t seem to be reading from the same, uh, textbook.

The NEA-NH is saying Nein! to Gov. John Lynch’s constitutional amendment relative to school funding, CACR 18, according to Tom Fahey.  And NEA-NH president Karen McDonough is going to deploy the organization’s 16,000 political operatives teachers to pressure legislators to kill it.  Not that it was ever likely to pass anyway.

And so again, not to be so redundant but this stuff needs to be drilled into the minds of voters, the Democrats promised us a progressive, permanent solution to the lingering school funding controversy.  Instead they are giving us a radical agenda they didn’t mention once in their 2006 campaign.  New Hampshire voters can never make this mistake again.

Posted by Pat H at 5:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Pravda-on-the-Merrimack was late to join the liberal press's piling on regarding the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on partial-birth abortion.  But Pravda-on-the Merrimack's contribution is particularly vapid, even for Pravda-on-the-Merrimack.

The op-ed begins, "

That is because Casey was a political, not a legal decision.  The case introduced the "undue burden" standard, which is a political, not a legal, judgment.  Unlike due process or equal protection there is no constitutional text or history or precedent to guide a judge deciding when a law regulating abortion is an "undue burden."  An "undue burden" is simply a matter of opinion, which made and makes cases like Stenberg inevitable.

The Monitor claims that "there is no supporting logic" for Justice Kennedy's opinion.  Try this:  "Under precedents that we assume to be controlling, the Act would be unconstitutional if it subjected women to significant health risks.  There is documented medical disagreement on this question.  In the face of this uncertainty and given the availability of other abortion procedures that are considered to be safe alternatives, the Court’s precedents instruct that the Act survives a facial attack."  In other words, the Court deferred to Congress' determination that the ban would not result in significant health risks for women.  How illogical!  After all, the judges' years of legal training and experience obviously makes them better suited to make medical judgments.   

Posted by Ed Mosca at 7:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. "I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting."

Posted by Doug at 7:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My friend Doug sees technology as the ultimate disinfectant against “funny business” in local government and elsewhere.  He’s been known to bring his shiny new digital camera around with him to various political events and public gatherings and subsequently post the video online.  Doug has never suspected corruption on the part of his or any other local government—he’s never expressed it to me that way, anyway—but he believes technology has the p