Let's Ditch Mitch. Daily Kos Weekly State of the Nation Poll shows that, in national approval ratings, Barak Obama leads "Mitch" McConnell 55% to 18%. Electmore Democrats.
Research 2000, Adults MoE 2%, Aug 24, 2009 - Aug 27, 2009 (last week's results in parentheses)
Crosstabs FAV. UNFAV. DON'T KNOW CHANGE
PRESIDENT OBAMA 55 (58) 40 (38) 5 (4) -5
PELOSI: 33 (34) 58 (57) 9 (9) -2
REID: 32 (33) 57 (56) 11 (11) -2
McCONNELL: 18 (17) 64 (65) 18 (18) 2
BOEHNER: 14 (13) 64 (65) 22 (22) 2
CONGRESSIONAL DEMS: 40 (41) 54 (53) 6 (6) -2
CONGRESSIONAL GOPS: 14 (12) 73 (75) 13 (13) 4
DEMOCRATIC PARTY: 43 (44) 50 (49) 7 (7) -2
REPUBLICAN PARTY: 20 (18) 71 (72) 9 (10) 3
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The day I saw a future President.
I planned to see a future President of the U.S. that day. I was a law student trying to get through law school. The Law Day (May 1st) speaker at my Law School that day would be the U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, Teddy Kennedy. My old high school chum Kent Lawrence was the chief of security for that speech, as he was the County Police Chief. We students at the Law School were all excited about seeing and hearing a future President of the U.S. that day. Before Senator Kennedy gave his speech, the local dignitaries were introduced. There was the United States Senator Herman Talmadge. Also seated on the podium behind Senator Kennedy was the local State Governor Jimmy Carter. After Senator Kennedy's speech, he and the other dignitaries left. Yep, I did see a future U.S. President at the University of Georgia Law School Law Day speech that day, but it was not Teddy Kennedy, it was Jimmy Carter. Yes, it was the speaker that everyone came to hear that had the thirty-year career in the U.S. Senate, but it was the man sitting quietly behind him during his speech that grabbed the brass ring and had the four years in the White House. Kenneth Stepp.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Teddy Kennedy will be missed.
Remembering Ted Kennedy's Prescient 2002 Speech Against The Iraq War
digg Huffpost - Remembering Ted Kennedy's Prescient 2002 Speech Against The Iraq War stumble reddit del.ico.us ShareThis
First Posted: 08-26-09 01:00 PM | Updated: 08-26-09 01:59 PM
I Like ItI Don’t Like It Read More: Iraq War, Kennedy Iraq War Speech, Ted Kennedy, Ted Kennedy Brain Tumor, Ted Kennedy Dead, Ted Kennedy Dies, Ted-Kennedy-Iraq, War On Terror, War On Terrorism, Media News
Be the First to Submit
This Story to DiggBuzz up!
Get Breaking News Alerts
never spam
Share Print CommentsAs the press labors today to capture the life and legacy of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, it will be interesting to see if anyone makes mention of Kennedy's response to one of the singular events of recent years -- the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. On September 27, 2002, Kennedy gave a speech at Johns Hopkins' Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. concerning the war.
In the speech, Kennedy evinced many of the same qualities for which he is being lionized today. His oration combined the powerful idealism that powered his opposition to the invasion with the same generosity of spirit that fueled so many across-the-aisle gestures, and, in the speech, revealed itself in a refusal to demonize his political opponents. One other aspect of the speech that might be worth mentioning today? The fact that Kennedy got it right.
Kennedy's speech is astoundingly prescient, to put it mildly. Key sections include:
In the months that followed September 11, the Bush Administration marshaled an international coalition. Today, 90 countries are enlisted in the effort, from providing troops to providing law enforcement, intelligence, and other critical support.
But I am concerned that using force against Iraq before other means are tried will sorely test both the integrity and effectiveness of the coalition. Just one year into the campaign against Al Qaeda, the Administration is shifting focus, resources, and energy to Iraq. The change in priority is coming before we have fully eliminated the threat from Al Qaeda, before we know whether Osama Bin Laden is dead or alive, and before we can be assured that the fragile post-Taliban government in Afghanistan will consolidate its authority.
With all the talk of war, the Administration has not explicitly acknowledged, let alone explained to the American people, the immense post-war commitment that will be required to create a stable Iraq.
The Bush Administration says America can fight a war in Iraq without undermining our most pressing national security priority -- the war against Al Qaeda. But I believe it is inevitable that a war in Iraq without serious international support will weaken our effort to ensure that Al Qaeda terrorists can never, never, never threaten American lives again.
Even with the Taliban out of power, Afghanistan remains fragile. Security remains tenuous. Warlords still dominate many regions. Our reconstruction effort, which is vital to long-term stability and security, is halting and inadequate. Some Al Qaeda operatives - no one knows how many - have faded into the general population. Terrorist attacks are on the rise. President Karzai, who has already survived one assassination attempt, is still struggling to solidify his hold on power. And although neighboring Pakistan has been our ally, its stability is far from certain.
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.
War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, or without genuine international support -- could swell the ranks of Al Qaeda sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts."
That last point, by the way, is an almost universally underappreciated one. Yet it's very, tragically true. Teddy Kennedy was another Democrat for Peace. He will be missed.
digg Huffpost - Remembering Ted Kennedy's Prescient 2002 Speech Against The Iraq War stumble reddit del.ico.us ShareThis
First Posted: 08-26-09 01:00 PM | Updated: 08-26-09 01:59 PM
I Like ItI Don’t Like It Read More: Iraq War, Kennedy Iraq War Speech, Ted Kennedy, Ted Kennedy Brain Tumor, Ted Kennedy Dead, Ted Kennedy Dies, Ted-Kennedy-Iraq, War On Terror, War On Terrorism, Media News
Be the First to Submit
This Story to DiggBuzz up!
Get Breaking News Alerts
never spam
Share Print CommentsAs the press labors today to capture the life and legacy of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, it will be interesting to see if anyone makes mention of Kennedy's response to one of the singular events of recent years -- the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. On September 27, 2002, Kennedy gave a speech at Johns Hopkins' Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. concerning the war.
In the speech, Kennedy evinced many of the same qualities for which he is being lionized today. His oration combined the powerful idealism that powered his opposition to the invasion with the same generosity of spirit that fueled so many across-the-aisle gestures, and, in the speech, revealed itself in a refusal to demonize his political opponents. One other aspect of the speech that might be worth mentioning today? The fact that Kennedy got it right.
Kennedy's speech is astoundingly prescient, to put it mildly. Key sections include:
In the months that followed September 11, the Bush Administration marshaled an international coalition. Today, 90 countries are enlisted in the effort, from providing troops to providing law enforcement, intelligence, and other critical support.
But I am concerned that using force against Iraq before other means are tried will sorely test both the integrity and effectiveness of the coalition. Just one year into the campaign against Al Qaeda, the Administration is shifting focus, resources, and energy to Iraq. The change in priority is coming before we have fully eliminated the threat from Al Qaeda, before we know whether Osama Bin Laden is dead or alive, and before we can be assured that the fragile post-Taliban government in Afghanistan will consolidate its authority.
With all the talk of war, the Administration has not explicitly acknowledged, let alone explained to the American people, the immense post-war commitment that will be required to create a stable Iraq.
The Bush Administration says America can fight a war in Iraq without undermining our most pressing national security priority -- the war against Al Qaeda. But I believe it is inevitable that a war in Iraq without serious international support will weaken our effort to ensure that Al Qaeda terrorists can never, never, never threaten American lives again.
Even with the Taliban out of power, Afghanistan remains fragile. Security remains tenuous. Warlords still dominate many regions. Our reconstruction effort, which is vital to long-term stability and security, is halting and inadequate. Some Al Qaeda operatives - no one knows how many - have faded into the general population. Terrorist attacks are on the rise. President Karzai, who has already survived one assassination attempt, is still struggling to solidify his hold on power. And although neighboring Pakistan has been our ally, its stability is far from certain.
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.
War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, or without genuine international support -- could swell the ranks of Al Qaeda sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts."
That last point, by the way, is an almost universally underappreciated one. Yet it's very, tragically true. Teddy Kennedy was another Democrat for Peace. He will be missed.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Doubling of money supply could be inflationary!
Bernanke is not just taking flak from powerless “town hall” questioners out in the heartland at PBS events, he’s also taking criticism from U.S. debtors abroad for doubling the U.S. money supply over the past year. "As a major reserve currency-issuing country in the world, the United States should properly balance and properly handle the impact of the dollar supply on the domestic economy and the world economy as a whole," Chinese Vice Premier Qishan Wang said at a U.S.-China summit July 28 with U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Meanwhile, this week’s auction of new U.S. debt is going poorly, and the U.S. government is having to raise discounts and yields in order to push its paper debt. “It was a very weak and poor auction,” George Goncalves of Cantor Fitzgerald LP told Bloomberg.com. “Yields were not compelling enough to bring investors in today, relative to where they were in the recent auction.”
The dollar is losing value in the markets and inflation is already here. The PBS viewers in Kansas City already know this. Bernanke can “watch” all he wants, but his doubling of the money supply over the past year means the Consumer Price Index will eventually catch up with the mounting supply of money. And June's 1.8 percent growth in the Producer Price index may be the first sign of that inevitable rise in prices that follows a doubling of the money supply.
The New American.
Curb Inflation; elect more rural Democrats.
Meanwhile, this week’s auction of new U.S. debt is going poorly, and the U.S. government is having to raise discounts and yields in order to push its paper debt. “It was a very weak and poor auction,” George Goncalves of Cantor Fitzgerald LP told Bloomberg.com. “Yields were not compelling enough to bring investors in today, relative to where they were in the recent auction.”
The dollar is losing value in the markets and inflation is already here. The PBS viewers in Kansas City already know this. Bernanke can “watch” all he wants, but his doubling of the money supply over the past year means the Consumer Price Index will eventually catch up with the mounting supply of money. And June's 1.8 percent growth in the Producer Price index may be the first sign of that inevitable rise in prices that follows a doubling of the money supply.
The New American.
Curb Inflation; elect more rural Democrats.
Electmore Democrats and we can do it together!
Congress now faces a decision on funding another year of war. Bring U.S. troops home from Iraq and take care of the needs of people in the U.S.
Since the war began, dozens of federal programs have been cut, including Head Start, the Community Food and Nutrition program, youth job training and maternal and child health programs. Millions lost their health insurance.
What could those millions spent on the Iraq war buy here at home?
Health insurance for a child costs $1,700 per year. $720 million could cover 423,529 children
The average cost of a four-year state university is $20,628. $720 million could put 34,904 students through college
An average school teacher's salary is $57,000. $720 million could put 12,478 new teachers in the classroom
A year of Head Start costs $7,550. $720 million could open 95,364 new slots
Defund the war and refund human needs in the U.S.
Electmore Democrats, and together we can do it!
Since the war began, dozens of federal programs have been cut, including Head Start, the Community Food and Nutrition program, youth job training and maternal and child health programs. Millions lost their health insurance.
What could those millions spent on the Iraq war buy here at home?
Health insurance for a child costs $1,700 per year. $720 million could cover 423,529 children
The average cost of a four-year state university is $20,628. $720 million could put 34,904 students through college
An average school teacher's salary is $57,000. $720 million could put 12,478 new teachers in the classroom
A year of Head Start costs $7,550. $720 million could open 95,364 new slots
Defund the war and refund human needs in the U.S.
Electmore Democrats, and together we can do it!
U.S. District Court throws out Warrantless Wiretap Suit!
U.S. District Court Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York dismissed an ACLU challenge to the U.S. government's warrantless wiretapping program under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA) on August 20. Koeltl threw out the case for technical reasons, however, not the merits of the clearly unconstitutional program.
“The plaintiffs' failure to show that they are subject to the FAA in any concrete way is sufficient to conclude that the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the FAA," Koeltl wrote.
* * *
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution puts four restrictions on government searches:
1. Warrants: All searches have to have to involve a court (judicial branch) warrant;
2. Probable Cause: Warrants can only be issued based upon “probable cause” (i.e., there must be more than a 50-percent chance a crime has been committed;
3. Specificity: The warrants have to be specific about what is being searched and what is being looked for; warrants can't be along the lines of a “general warrant” like those issued by the British prior to the War for Independence wherein a search could cover everything a person owns for any crime, or to search everyone's house for a particular piece of contraband;
4. Oaths: Warrants have to be based upon an “oath” from someone in responsibility involved in the probable cause claim; it can't be based upon an anonymous source unknown to the court.
The Fourth Amendment begins with a preamble that outlines the fact that the amendment is designed to prohibit “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The preamble is followed by the four restrictions on searches that make them reasonable:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The ACLU noted that because judge dismissed the case on technical grounds having to do with a lack of standing means that Americans will not be able to challenge the policy in court if Judge Koeltl's decision is allowed to stand on appeal. "We are disappointed by today's ruling, which will allow the mass acquisition of Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls to continue unchecked. To say, as the court says, that plaintiffs can't challenge this statute unless they can show that their own communications have been collected under it is to say that this statute may not be subject to judicial review at all.” The ACLU noted that, like the U.S. soldiers who had their intimate talks with wives and girlfriends listened into, most Americans won't know that their right to privacy has been violated. “The vast majority of people whose communications are intercepted under this statute will never know about it — in fact it's possible that no one will ever be able to make the showing that the court says is required.”
Electmore Rural Democrats and restore Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights.
“The plaintiffs' failure to show that they are subject to the FAA in any concrete way is sufficient to conclude that the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the FAA," Koeltl wrote.
* * *
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution puts four restrictions on government searches:
1. Warrants: All searches have to have to involve a court (judicial branch) warrant;
2. Probable Cause: Warrants can only be issued based upon “probable cause” (i.e., there must be more than a 50-percent chance a crime has been committed;
3. Specificity: The warrants have to be specific about what is being searched and what is being looked for; warrants can't be along the lines of a “general warrant” like those issued by the British prior to the War for Independence wherein a search could cover everything a person owns for any crime, or to search everyone's house for a particular piece of contraband;
4. Oaths: Warrants have to be based upon an “oath” from someone in responsibility involved in the probable cause claim; it can't be based upon an anonymous source unknown to the court.
The Fourth Amendment begins with a preamble that outlines the fact that the amendment is designed to prohibit “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The preamble is followed by the four restrictions on searches that make them reasonable:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The ACLU noted that because judge dismissed the case on technical grounds having to do with a lack of standing means that Americans will not be able to challenge the policy in court if Judge Koeltl's decision is allowed to stand on appeal. "We are disappointed by today's ruling, which will allow the mass acquisition of Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls to continue unchecked. To say, as the court says, that plaintiffs can't challenge this statute unless they can show that their own communications have been collected under it is to say that this statute may not be subject to judicial review at all.” The ACLU noted that, like the U.S. soldiers who had their intimate talks with wives and girlfriends listened into, most Americans won't know that their right to privacy has been violated. “The vast majority of people whose communications are intercepted under this statute will never know about it — in fact it's possible that no one will ever be able to make the showing that the court says is required.”
Electmore Rural Democrats and restore Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights.
Republican jubilant about latest polls!
Daily Kos Weekly State of the Nation Poll
Research 2000, Adults MoE 2%, Aug 17, 2009 - Aug 20, 2009 (last week's results in parentheses)
Full Crosstabs FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE DON'T KNOW NET CHANGE
PRESIDENT OBAMA 58 (60) 38 (36) 4 (4) -4
PELOSI: 34 (36) 57 (56) 9 (8) -3
REID: 33 (34) 56 (55) 11 (11) -2
McCONNELL: 17 (16) 65 (66) 18 (18) 2
BOEHNER: 13 (11) 65 (66) 22 (23) 3
CONGRESSIONAL DEMS: 41 (43) 53 (51) 6 (6) -4
CONGRESSIONAL GOPS: 12 (10) 75 (76) 13 (14) 3
DEMOCRATIC PARTY: 44 (45) 49 (48) 7 (7) -2
REPUBLICAN PARTY: 18 (17) 72 (74) 10 (9) 3
What do the Republicans have to be jubilant about? Nothing!
Research 2000, Adults MoE 2%, Aug 17, 2009 - Aug 20, 2009 (last week's results in parentheses)
Full Crosstabs FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE DON'T KNOW NET CHANGE
PRESIDENT OBAMA 58 (60) 38 (36) 4 (4) -4
PELOSI: 34 (36) 57 (56) 9 (8) -3
REID: 33 (34) 56 (55) 11 (11) -2
McCONNELL: 17 (16) 65 (66) 18 (18) 2
BOEHNER: 13 (11) 65 (66) 22 (23) 3
CONGRESSIONAL DEMS: 41 (43) 53 (51) 6 (6) -4
CONGRESSIONAL GOPS: 12 (10) 75 (76) 13 (14) 3
DEMOCRATIC PARTY: 44 (45) 49 (48) 7 (7) -2
REPUBLICAN PARTY: 18 (17) 72 (74) 10 (9) 3
What do the Republicans have to be jubilant about? Nothing!
Blair Holt
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act requires that within the first two years of its enactment, all new guns be registered and it would become retroactive after two years, meaning all firearms in a citizen’s possession would have to be registered. If passed, this legislation wouldn't only apply to guns purchased after the bill's enactment, it would apply to every gun in circulation -- even antique firearms -- because there would be no grandfather clause. Although I am a Democrat, I am a "Second Amendment Democrat" and believe that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed." I would vote "No" on the Blair Holt bill, and I predict it will die in Committee. Kenneth Stepp.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Who's running up the Federal Debt?
The figures are from the New York Times, but the graph was made by others. Don't like the government throwing away all your money and running up a huge deficit? Then Electmore Democrats! Kenneth Stepp.
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Almost everybody less popular this week except Reid.
Daily Kos Weekly State of the Nation Poll
Research 2000, Adults MoE 2%, Aug 03, 2009 - Aug 06, 2009 (last week's results in parentheses)
Full Crosstabs FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE DON'T KNOW NET CHANGE
PRESIDENT OBAMA 60 (62) 37 (36) 3 (2) -3
PELOSI: 35 (34) 57 (56) 8 (10) 0
REID: 33 (32) 56 (57) 11 (11) 2
McCONNELL: 17 (18) 66 (65) 17 (17) -2
BOEHNER: 12 (13) 65 (64) 23 (23) -2
CONGRESSIONAL DEMS: 42 (41) 52 (51) 6 (8) 0
CONGRESSIONAL GOPS: 10 (10) 75 (74) 15 (16) -1
DEMOCRATIC PARTY: 44 (45) 49 (48) 7 (7) -2
REPUBLICAN PARTY: 18 (19) 73 (72) 9 (9) -2
Research 2000, Adults MoE 2%, Aug 03, 2009 - Aug 06, 2009 (last week's results in parentheses)
Full Crosstabs FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE DON'T KNOW NET CHANGE
PRESIDENT OBAMA 60 (62) 37 (36) 3 (2) -3
PELOSI: 35 (34) 57 (56) 8 (10) 0
REID: 33 (32) 56 (57) 11 (11) 2
McCONNELL: 17 (18) 66 (65) 17 (17) -2
BOEHNER: 12 (13) 65 (64) 23 (23) -2
CONGRESSIONAL DEMS: 42 (41) 52 (51) 6 (8) 0
CONGRESSIONAL GOPS: 10 (10) 75 (74) 15 (16) -1
DEMOCRATIC PARTY: 44 (45) 49 (48) 7 (7) -2
REPUBLICAN PARTY: 18 (19) 73 (72) 9 (9) -2
Puerto Rico Statehood.
One of the neocon pundits had said one reason that Ms. Sotomeyer should not be allowed to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court is that she favors U.S. Statehood for Puerto Rico. I favor U.S. Statehood for Puerto Rico, too.
That would benefit the people of the United States mainly because the residents of Puerto Rico pay no United States Income Tax, but they are eligible to draw all sorts of money from the U.S. government such as food stamps, etc.
That would benefit the people of Puerto Rico because it would form permanent union with the United States that could not be terminated by a mere Act of Congress, like the United States union with the Phillippines was terminated by Act of Congress with no referendum vote, making the Phillippines an independent country, after it had been under U.S. Administration from the Spanish-American War until World War II. Permanent union with the U.S. would attract more investment to Puerto Rico; and the other non-contiguous states in the U.S.--Alaska and Hawaii have done quite well.
I spent a year and a half as a resident of the Navy Base at Roosevelt Roads Puerto Rico, while attached to the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Range, and enjoyed my stay there. Kenneth Stepp.
That would benefit the people of the United States mainly because the residents of Puerto Rico pay no United States Income Tax, but they are eligible to draw all sorts of money from the U.S. government such as food stamps, etc.
That would benefit the people of Puerto Rico because it would form permanent union with the United States that could not be terminated by a mere Act of Congress, like the United States union with the Phillippines was terminated by Act of Congress with no referendum vote, making the Phillippines an independent country, after it had been under U.S. Administration from the Spanish-American War until World War II. Permanent union with the U.S. would attract more investment to Puerto Rico; and the other non-contiguous states in the U.S.--Alaska and Hawaii have done quite well.
I spent a year and a half as a resident of the Navy Base at Roosevelt Roads Puerto Rico, while attached to the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Range, and enjoyed my stay there. Kenneth Stepp.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Gazooks! What strange bedfellows do politics make!
Politics do strange bedfellows make. What better way to honor Republican Icon Anne Northup than for President Barak Obama to appoint her to a high-paying Washington DC job? I guess the politics of "minimum differentiation" pays off and keeps the Prez at his 62% approval rating. Kenneth Stepp, slugging it out for the Democratic Party base.
Remembering Bowman Field.
I remember a lot about Bowman Field at Clemson University, in Clemson, South Carolina. When we were little, there was Farmer's Week on Bowman Field. All the major Tractor Corporations had their tractors lined up for the farmers to approve--and for little kids to play on. Did you ever get on one, and pretend you were driving it? And pretend you were a farmer?
There was the time I bought my Mom a flower vase at Farmer's Week on Bowman Field when I was about nine years old, and tried to return home by crossing diagonally across the 4-way intersection in front of the Old Library. I had a close call, and ended up dropping and breaking the vase, in escaping getting run over! Wow, what a day.
Then, there was YMCA football on Bowman Field for the older boys attending Calhoun-Clemson School in the late '50's. There was a lot of tackling and body-blocking going on. A lot of us went on to have a high school season or two with Coach Singleton, and Coach Ron Autry, if we made the cut.
Finally, after the Kennedy Assassination, the Viet Nam War grew like a storm on the horizon, and it was on Bowman Field where boys were taught to become men, with the Army ROTC drilling with rifles, but the Air Force ROTC at Clemson drilling without. "Pass in Review" was the command, and the cadet corps, as it was in the 60's would march in review around the edges of Bowman Field, just after our Democratic Congressman William Jennings Bryan Dorn had presented the newest Viet Nam War widow from Upstate South Carolina with her own neatly-folded American Flag.
There were pranksters, too. Sometimes, late at night, while I was working as a bellhop at the Clemson House hotel, I'd hear a "boom" from Bowman Field; I later learned that a favorite prank there in the late 1960's was to take an unfiltered cigarette, stuff a cherry bomb fuse in it until the tobacco smacked against the cherry part of the bomb, then to light the other end of the cigarette, and lay it down on Bowman Field. About an hour later, after the culprit was at the Clemson House or back in his dorm, there would be a terrific "boom" from Bowman field as the cigarette had burned for about an hour, and caught the fuse on fire, which had blown up the cherry bomb. I understand cherry bombs are illegal in most states. Too bad, eh? Kenneth Stepp.
There was the time I bought my Mom a flower vase at Farmer's Week on Bowman Field when I was about nine years old, and tried to return home by crossing diagonally across the 4-way intersection in front of the Old Library. I had a close call, and ended up dropping and breaking the vase, in escaping getting run over! Wow, what a day.
Then, there was YMCA football on Bowman Field for the older boys attending Calhoun-Clemson School in the late '50's. There was a lot of tackling and body-blocking going on. A lot of us went on to have a high school season or two with Coach Singleton, and Coach Ron Autry, if we made the cut.
Finally, after the Kennedy Assassination, the Viet Nam War grew like a storm on the horizon, and it was on Bowman Field where boys were taught to become men, with the Army ROTC drilling with rifles, but the Air Force ROTC at Clemson drilling without. "Pass in Review" was the command, and the cadet corps, as it was in the 60's would march in review around the edges of Bowman Field, just after our Democratic Congressman William Jennings Bryan Dorn had presented the newest Viet Nam War widow from Upstate South Carolina with her own neatly-folded American Flag.
There were pranksters, too. Sometimes, late at night, while I was working as a bellhop at the Clemson House hotel, I'd hear a "boom" from Bowman Field; I later learned that a favorite prank there in the late 1960's was to take an unfiltered cigarette, stuff a cherry bomb fuse in it until the tobacco smacked against the cherry part of the bomb, then to light the other end of the cigarette, and lay it down on Bowman Field. About an hour later, after the culprit was at the Clemson House or back in his dorm, there would be a terrific "boom" from Bowman field as the cigarette had burned for about an hour, and caught the fuse on fire, which had blown up the cherry bomb. I understand cherry bombs are illegal in most states. Too bad, eh? Kenneth Stepp.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
National Approval Rating, Obama 62%, Mitch McConnell 18%!
Daily Kos Weekly State of the Nation Poll
Research 2000, Adults MoE 2%, Jul 27, 2009 - Jul 30, 2009 (last week's results in parentheses)
Full Crosstabs FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE DON'T KNOW NET CHANGE
PRESIDENT OBAMA 62 (61) 36 (36) 2 (3) 1
PELOSI: 34 (33) 56 (57) 10 (10) 2
REID: 32 (31) 57 (57) 11 (12) 1
McCONNELL: 18 (19) 65 (64) 17 (17) -2
BOEHNER: 13 (14) 64 (64) 23 (22) -1
CONGRESSIONAL DEMS: 41 (40) 51 (52) 8 (8) 2
CONGRESSIONAL GOPS: 10 (11) 74 (73) 16 (16) -2
DEMOCRATIC PARTY: 45 (46) 48 (47) 7 (7) -2
REPUBLICAN PARTY: 19 (20) 72 (71) 9 (9) -2
The Stepp Solution? Electmore Rural Democrats!
Research 2000, Adults MoE 2%, Jul 27, 2009 - Jul 30, 2009 (last week's results in parentheses)
Full Crosstabs FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE DON'T KNOW NET CHANGE
PRESIDENT OBAMA 62 (61) 36 (36) 2 (3) 1
PELOSI: 34 (33) 56 (57) 10 (10) 2
REID: 32 (31) 57 (57) 11 (12) 1
McCONNELL: 18 (19) 65 (64) 17 (17) -2
BOEHNER: 13 (14) 64 (64) 23 (22) -1
CONGRESSIONAL DEMS: 41 (40) 51 (52) 8 (8) 2
CONGRESSIONAL GOPS: 10 (11) 74 (73) 16 (16) -2
DEMOCRATIC PARTY: 45 (46) 48 (47) 7 (7) -2
REPUBLICAN PARTY: 19 (20) 72 (71) 9 (9) -2
The Stepp Solution? Electmore Rural Democrats!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
