Bill's Comment: I found this piece in a folder, as I was cleaning out my workspace. It is valid for both politics and life in general. Enjoy!
Eight Ways to Tell If Someone Is Lying to You by Marty Nemco
Top Eight List of Suspicious Behaviors
1. A change in the voice's pitch.,
2. A change in the rate of speech.,
3. A sudden increase in the number of "ums" and "ahs".,
4. A change in eye contact. Normally, one makes eye contact one-quarter to one-half of the time. If suddenly, at the convenient moment to lie, he's staring at you or looking away, beware.,
5. Turning his body away from you, even if just slightly.,
6. Suddenly being able to see the white on the top and bottom of a person's eyes, not just the sides.,
7. A hand reaching, even if momentarily, to cover part of the face, especially the mouth.
8. Nervous movement of feet or legs.
Other points of noteworthiness:
* Look for suspicious behaviors
- Watch the person when talking about innocuous issues.
* A Mixed Signal
- "To Tell the Truth"- words, face, and body language are all congruent.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Bill's Comment: I found this piece in a folder, as I was cleaning out my workspace. It is valid for both politics and life in general. Enjoy!
Posted by William N. Phillips, Jr. at 10/30/2004 10:32:00 AM
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Friday, Oct. 29, 2004 10:45 a.m. EDT
Rendell Flip Came After Exposure of Jailhouse Vote Drive
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell's decision Friday morning to seek an extension for absentee ballots returned by soldiers serving overseas came less than 24 hours after Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., accused him of mounting an absentee ballot vote drive for his state's prison population while disenfranchising the military.
"I've been in office twenty-three years and I've never had any governor send a nine-page document to our prison wardens across the state, telling them that they had to post a document in every cell block to allow our prisoners to vote by absentee ballot," Weldon told ABC radio host Sean Hannity on Thursday.
"I'm friends with Ed Rendell, too," an angry Weldon continued. "But I've go to call a pig a pig. I've got to call something the way it is. To me it's purely partisan. This is about Pennsylvania being a very close state."
Asked point blank if he though Rendell was trying to "disenfranchise" military voters in his state, Weldon told Hannity: "That's exactly what he's doing. I have soldiers e-mailing me from overseas ... Marines coming up to me saying, 'I have friends who haven't got their absentee ballot.'"
Asked how many prisoners would take advantage of Gov. Rendell's absentee ballot outreach, Weldon said, "I have no idea."
Surveys show that two-thirds of active-duty military back President Bush, while the same proportion of the prison population supports John Kerry.
In announcing his decision to seek an extension for military voters, Rendell said Friday, "I've decided that one military or civilian overseas [voter] not getting a ballot in time is too much."
Rendell served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the 2000 election.
Posted by William N. Phillips, Jr. at 10/30/2004 10:18:00 AM
Bill's Comment: All of this came full-circle early in the week on "The Sean Hannity Show", when Mr. Hannity made it known to the nationwide audience that Pennsylvania was disenfranchising the military vote, and allowing prisoners to vote. (I suppose for John Kerry.) Governor Rendell, along with his other Democratic Party cohorts will stop at nothing to try and pull this election in their favor. This is also the same folks who are trying to prevent the use of electronic voting machines, and allowing two week election drives before the actual Election Day. This adds up to more voting fraud and/or corruption.
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Friday, Oct. 29, 2004 10:15 a.m. EDT
Gov. Rendell Reversal: Will Seek Extension on Military Ballots
HARRISBURG – Under intense pressure from military voters and Republicans, Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell said Friday that he will ask a federal judge to extend the deadline for counting overseas military and civilian ballots by one week.
Rendell told CNN that Republicans could only produce one voter – out of 26,000 overseas military and civilian voters – who failed to get the absentee ballot he requested.
Nonetheless, "I've decided that one military or civilian overseas [voter] not getting a ballot in time is too much," Rendell said.
A Republican-financed federal lawsuit by two servicemen in Iraq and Kuwait filed Wednesday against Rendell and Secretary of State Pedro Cortes seeks a 15-day extension for their ballots' return. One of the plaintiffs lives in Venango County, where records show that 131 of the 134 overseas ballots mailed out have already come back to the elections office.
Rendell said one of the plaintiffs' ballots was sent and delivered to the address he put on his absentee ballot request form. He said there was no explanation why the other plaintiff never received an absentee ballot.
"There may have been a screw-up in the mail. But it's not widespread," Rendell said.
A hearing on the federal lawsuit was scheduled for Friday morning before U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane, and Rendell said his lawyers would ask for a one-week extension beyond the Nov. 2 election. Rendell had initially resisted asking for an extension.
Fanned by conservative radio hosts, the issue has erupted over the past week, with thousands of callers jamming phone lines at the governor's office and Rendell facing repeated questions about it from the public during his ongoing bus tour in support of Democratic candidate Sen. John F. Kerry.
State records obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday indicate that military voters stationed overseas are returning absentee ballots in Pennsylvania at about the same rate as all absentee ballots are coming in.
According to electronic reporting by 53 county elections offices, 15,373 ballots were mailed to servicemen and women and their families overseas, and so far 9,522 have been returned, a rate of 62 percent.
For all foreign absentee ballots and all domestic absentee ballots, the rate is an identical 63 percent each. Nonmilitary overseas ballots are coming in slightly faster, at 67 percent.
The figures were released as Republicans raise concerns that mailing delays could unfairly reduce the number of military overseas ballots counted in Tuesday's presidential election. Ballots for military families and overseas voters in remote parts of the world were mailed out starting Aug. 24, and all other overseas ballots were mailed out starting Sept. 20. Domestic absentee ballots were mailed starting Oct. 19.
"I think it shows that people are not only receiving their ballots, but they're returning them," Kate Philips, Rendell's press secretary, said Thursday.
Republican politicians have argued that delays caused by the legal dispute over independent candidate Ralph Nader's status on the presidential ballot could disenfranchise active-duty military people who are deployed overseas.
Republicans said the rate of return indicated many voters will not make the deadline and renewed their call for Rendell to join their effort to extend the time limit.
"His operating theory seems to have become, 'Well, it's not that many, it doesn't matter.' To which we say every one matters," said Senate GOP aide Erik Arneson said Thursday.
Rendell said Friday that there was no delay in mailing the ballots.
The absentee ballot numbers released by Rendell's office Thursday night do not include 11 counties that are not on the statewide elections computer system, nor do they include three counties that do not process absentee ballots over the network.
© 2004 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Posted by William N. Phillips, Jr. at 10/30/2004 10:04:00 AM
Bill's Comment: Link courtesy of The Drudge Repory, 10/30/04.
Labor Memo Suggests Bush to Win Election
Oct 29, 3:53 PM (ET)
By LEIGH STROPE
WASHINGTON (AP) - Labor Department staff, analyzing statistics from private economists, report in an internal memo that President Bush is likely to do "much better" in Tuesday's election than the polls are predicting.
The Kerry campaign said the analysis was an improper use of taxpayer money, and the Labor Department acknowledged Friday, "Clearly, this kind of armchair political analysis doesn't belong in government memos, even if they are entirely internal."
The Labor Department report, obtained by The Associated Press, includes an analysis of economic models that suggest Bush will beat Democrat John Kerry. Titled "In Focus: Predicting the Election Outcome," the memo says, "Nearly every single model has him winning."
"Some show the margin of victory being smaller than the models' inherent margin of error, while others report the lead as substantial. And this is without the consideration of a third-party candidate."
Bush's win of the popular vote could be 57.5 percent, 55.7 percent or 51.2 percent, said the paper, dated Oct. 22 and prepared by the department's Employment and Training Administration staff for the assistant labor secretary.
The Bush administration blamed midlevel employees for preparing inappropriate government material.
"This appears to be an internal ETA document prepared by midlevel ETA staff," said Labor Department spokesman Ed Frank.
Kerry's campaign contended the Bush administration was wasting taxpayers' money.
"If the Bush administration focused more on the economy and less on politics, George Bush would not be the first president in 70 years to lose jobs," said Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer. "George Bush has turned the government into his own taxpayer-funded political machine."
The document also includes a Washington Post story, an article from Monster.com and charts and briefs on the latest economic indicators.
One factor in the election that has been "downplayed is the president's popularity," a variable the report says may be important. "Fortunately, there are models (that) incorporate this concept," it says.
The economic models are not infallible, but they do "systematically measure past data, which is a far cry better than relying on anecdotal evidence," the paper says. The models looked at an array of economic indicators, including gross domestic product, unemployment and inflation.
The analysis also discusses a futures market that lets players bid on a probable election outcome. It also checked Web sites of oddsmakers in America and abroad.
Posted by William N. Phillips, Jr. at 10/30/2004 09:52:00 AM
Why W Will Win
John L. Perry
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
The reasons being given why George W. Bush will not be reelected are the very reasons he will be reelected – and by an impressive margin.
This is because his opponents have grossly failed to judge the nature of America and the character of the man, himself – the same way and for the same reasons Ronald Reagan’s opponents grossly misjudged him and the nature of America during his presidency.
It’s no accident that many of those now maligning Bush are of the same crowd in the news media who maligned Reagan. They are still making the same self-defeating mistake of actually believing what they see in the mirrors of distortion they are holding up to America. They didn’t understand America then; they don’t understand America now.
Here are the principal distortions that condescending leftists are instructing American voters will cause them to defeat Bush in November –and why just the opposite is the case.
* Distortion: The country is divided, and it’s all Bush’s fault.
Correction: America has never been entirely of one mind, but it is certainly less divided now than during or right after the Vietnam War.
The reality is that America is of three minds, not two. There are the far left and the far right (both distinct minorities) and there is a non-stationary middle, occupied by the huge majority of Americans. Increasingly, this great middle has been redefining toward the conservative side.
Bush did not cause that, but is facilitating the shift. The leftists, more and more irresponsibly out of touch with the middle, are the ones accelerating it. America is now a nation more conservative than not, growing ever more united in that direction, not more divided.
How Bush benefits: By identifying with, and leading, this political realignment, Bush gains every step along the way.
* Distortion: The economy is in the dumpster, and it’s all Bush’s fault.
Correction: No. The economy was shrinking dangerously in the early months of the Bush administration, but no longer. Every economic indicator since January 2004 is on a dramatic upswing.
And no. The “Bush recession” was in truth caused by events in the administration of Bill Clinton and was well along its downward way when Bush took office. Were it not for Bush’s tax cuts, that Clinton recession would have descended right into a Bush depression.
How Bush benefits: The welcome impact of the authentic Bush recovery is just now being realized in Americans’ daily lives. The more the leftists harp on the economy, the more that will help Bush in November.
* Distortion: Bush is bullheaded, and won’t take advice from his betters.
Correction: Those know-it-alls are the failed practitioners and surly apologists of the Clinton era. The news media call them in to testify at every turn of events, and the more they carp the more obvious become their motivations and their ineffectiveness.
Americans are beginning to realize that what critics call Bush’s bullheadedness is in truth a resolute steadfastness of principles.
How Bush benefits: In a world where unfamiliar uncertainty and unprecedented danger lurk, Americans welcome surety of principle and purpose in the presidency. The temptation to change horses in the middle of such a stream has less and less appeal.
* Distortion: Bush is politically incorrect, out of step with most Americans.
Correction: The opposite is true. The leftists are indulging in self-sycophancy if they think they represent mainstream America.
How Bush benefits: He has the proper posture for reelection in today’s America – one foot planted firmly in the unshakable, traditional conservative base and the other comfortably far enough into the mostly conservative middle. Neither footing alone is sufficient to win an election; taken together, they constitute an astonishing new majority.
* Distortion: Bush is a reckless cowboy, who has put America in greater peril.
Correction: If that is so, then for the same reasons so were Ronald Reagan and Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. Each was scolded in his time that he was leading America to ruin. Had they lacked the courage to take the risks they took, America would be in ruins today. Bush has demonstrated such courage.
How Bush benefits: Americans are now beginning to see Bush in the true light of historic reality, thanks to the conjunction of three colossal events – the birthing of a free Iraq rising out of the Bush-led war of liberation, the 60th commemoration of D-Day launching the liberation of Europe from Nazi tyranny and the “surprising” outpouring of national affection and respect in remembrance of Ronald Reagan as the kind of president America admires.
* Distortion: The Iraq war is a disaster, not worth the cost of undertaking or seeing through to the end.
Correction: Not even the press can keep hidden the truth that the liberation of Iraq is one of the noblest acts ever undertaken by any nation in the advancement of human freedom.
How Bush benefits: It is going to be political immolation for the Democratic presidential candidate if he tries to tell American families their sacrifices in Iraq are worthless. It’s one thing for John Kerry scornfully to throw away his own medals from the Vietnam War, something else to trash those earned by American troops in Iraq.
* Distortion: Bush insists on going it alone, alienating other nations.
Correction: He did not go it alone – except for feckless France, ungrateful Germany and devious Russia. Now that Bush has done the hard work in Iraq, he has a unanimous Security Council – France, Germany and Russia unwilling to “go it alone.” And he will likely have NATO with him in short order.
How Bush benefits: Beyond that, there’s a swelling good-for-Bush feeling in America even if he were to go it alone. Lincoln didn’t beg Europe’s permission. FDR got the approval of only Congress, as did Bush. Reagan went entirely alone to the Berlin Wall and never said, “Mr. Gorbachev, if it’s all right with you, please tear down this wall.” Kerry will have tough sledding advocating groveling.
* Distortion: Bush isn’t qualified intellectually, simply not up to the job.
Correction: That was easy to say four years ago, impossible to peddle now. America and the world have seen the stuff of which Bush is made.
How Bush benefits: Here again is the parallel with Reagan, who it is now clear knew exactly what he was doing while just about everyone else was dithering.
Kerry is the one who has the unassailable record of flipping and flopping, triple-tonguing an uncertain trumpet, groping around for a running mate agile enough to hop on first one foot and then the other keeping up with Kerry from moment to moment.
So waste no time listening to leftist politicians and news-media mind-minders who complain about this and grump about that when characterizing Bush. Of course they don’t like him, for all the reasons they give.
It’s precisely because of those reasons that, to their doom and gloom, George W. Bush is going to win reelection – and win big.
That’s the kind of America that America really is.
John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents, is a regular columnist for NewsMax.com.
Posted by William N. Phillips, Jr. at 10/30/2004 07:11:00 AM
'The Danger Only Increases With Denial'
Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2003
Editor's note: This is the transcript of the president's speech at Whitehall Palace in London.
Thank you very much. Secretary Straw and Secretary Hoon, Admiral Cobbald and Dr. Chipman, distinguished guests: I want to thank you for your very kind welcome that you've given to me and to Laura. I also thank the groups hosting this event - The Royal United Services Institute and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. We're honored to be in the United Kingdom, and we bring the good wishes of the American people.
It was pointed out to me that the last noted American to visit London stayed in a glass box dangling over the Thames. [Laughter] A few might have been happy to provide similar arrangements for me. [Laughter] I thank Her Majesty the Queen for interceding. [Laughter] We're honored to be staying at her house.
Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities to our country than differences. I've been here only a short time, but I've noticed that the tradition of free speech - exercised with enthusiasm - [laughter] - is alive and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that right in Baghdad, as well. [Applause]
The people of Great Britain also might see some familiar traits in Americans. We're sometimes faulted for a naive faith that liberty can change the world. If that's an error it began with reading too much John Locke and Adam Smith.
Americans have, on occasion, been called moralists who often speak in terms of right and wrong. That zeal has been inspired by examples on this island, by the tireless compassion of Lord Shaftesbury, the righteous courage of Wilberforce, and the firm determination of the Royal Navy over the decades to fight and end the trade in slaves.
It's rightly said that Americans are a religious people. That's, in part, because the "Good News" was translated by Tyndale, preached by Wesley, lived out in the example of William Booth. At times, Americans are even said to have a puritan streak - where might that have come from? [Laughter] Well, we can start with the Puritans.
To this fine heritage, Americans have added a few traits of our own: the good influence of our immigrants, the spirit of the frontier. Yet, there remains a bit of England in every American. So much of our national character comes from you, and we're glad for it.
The fellowship of generations is the cause of common beliefs. We believe in open societies ordered by moral conviction. We believe in private markets, humanized by compassionate government. We believe in economies that reward effort, communities that protect the weak, and the duty of nations to respect the dignity and the rights of all. And whether one learns these ideals in County Durham or in West Texas, they instill mutual respect and they inspire common purpose.
'Alliance of Values'
More than an alliance of security and commerce, the British and American peoples have an alliance of values. And, today, this old and tested alliance is very strong. [Applause]
The deepest beliefs of our nations set the direction of our foreign policy. We value our own civil rights, so we stand for the human rights of others. We affirm the God-given dignity of every person, so we are moved to action by poverty and oppression and famine and disease.
The United States and Great Britain share a mission in the world beyond the balance of power or the simple pursuit of interest. We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings. Together our nations are standing and sacrificing for this high goal in a distant land at this very hour. And America honors the idealism and the bravery of the sons and daughters of Britain.
The last president to stay at Buckingham Palace was an idealist, without question. At a dinner hosted by King George V, in 1918, Woodrow Wilson made a pledge; with typical American understatement, he vowed that right and justice would become the predominant and controlling force in the world.
President Wilson had come to Europe with his 14 Points for Peace. Many complimented him on his vision; yet some were dubious. Take, for example, the prime minister of France. He complained that God, himself, had only 10 commandments. [Laughter] Sounds familiar. [Laughter]
At Wilson's high point of idealism, however, Europe was one short generation from Munich and Auschwitz and the Blitz. Looking back, we see the reasons why. The League of Nations, lacking both credibility and will, collapsed at the first challenge of the dictators. Free nations failed to recognize, much less confront, the aggressive evil in plain sight. And so dictators went about their business, feeding resentments and anti-Semitism, bringing death to innocent people in this city and across the world, and filling the last century with violence and genocide.
Through world war and cold war, we learned that idealism, if it is to do any good in this world, requires common purpose and national strength, moral courage and patience in difficult tasks. And now our generation has need of these qualities.
On September the 11th, 2001, terrorists left their mark of murder on my country, and took the lives of 67 British citizens. With the passing of months and years, it is the natural human desire to resume a quiet life and to put that day behind us, as if waking from a dark dream. The hope that danger has passed is comforting, is understanding, and it is false.
The attacks that followed - on Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Bombay, Mombassa, Najaf, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Baghdad, and Istanbul - were not dreams. They're part of the global campaign by terrorist networks to intimidate and demoralize all who oppose them.
'The Evil Is in Plain Sight'
These terrorists target the innocent, and they kill by the thousands. And they would, if they gain the weapons they seek, kill by the millions and not be finished. The greatest threat of our age is nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists, and the dictators who aid them. The evil is in plain sight. The danger only increases with denial. Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies. We will face these threats with open eyes, and we will defeat them. [Applause]
The peace and security of free nations now rests on three pillars:
* First, international organizations must be equal to the challenges facing our world, from lifting up failing states to opposing proliferation.
Like 11 presidents before me, I believe in the international institutions and alliances that America helped to form and helps to lead. The United States and Great Britain have labored hard to help make the United Nations what it is supposed to be: an effective instrument of our collective security.
In recent months, we've sought and gained three additional resolutions on Iraq - Resolutions 1441, 1483 and 1511 - precisely because the global danger of terror demands a global response. The United Nations has no more compelling advocate than your prime minister, who at every turn has championed its ideals and appealed to its authority. He understands, as well, that the credibility of the U.N. depends on a willingness to keep its word and to act when action is required.
Saving the U.N. From 'Its Own Irrelevance'
America and Great Britain have done, and will do, all in their power to prevent the United Nations from solemnly choosing its own irrelevance and inviting the fate of the League of Nations. It's not enough to meet the dangers of the world with resolutions; we must meet those dangers with resolve.
In this century, as in the last, nations can accomplish more together than apart. For 54 years, America has stood with our partners in NATO, the most effective multilateral institution in history. We're committed to this great democratic alliance, and we believe it must have the will and the capacity to act beyond Europe where threats emerge.
My nation welcomes the growing unity of Europe, and the world needs America and the European Union to work in common purpose for the advance of security and justice. America is cooperating with four other nations to meet the dangers posed by North Korea. America believes the IAEA must be true to its purpose and hold Iran to its obligations.
Our first choice, and our constant practice, is to work with other responsible governments. We understand, as well, that the success of multilateralism is not measured by adherence to forms alone, the tidiness of the process, but by the results we achieve to keep our nations secure.
* The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to retain [sic] aggression and evil by force. There are principled objections to the use of force in every generation, and I credit the good motives behind these views.
'Violent Restraint of Violent Men'
Those in authority, however, are not judged only by good motivations. The people have given us the duty to defend them. And that duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men. In some cases, the measured use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force.
Most in the peaceful West have no living memory of that kind of world. Yet in some countries, the memories are recent: The victims of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, those who survived the rapists and the death squads, have few qualms when NATO applied force to help end those crimes. The women of Afghanistan, imprisoned in their homes and beaten in the streets and executed in public spectacles, did not reproach us for routing the Taliban. The inhabitants of Iraq's Baathist hell, with its lavish palaces and its torture chambers, with its massive statues and its mass graves, do not miss their fugitive dictator. They rejoiced at his fall.
In all these cases, military action was proceeded by diplomatic initiatives and negotiations and ultimatums, and final chances until the final moment. In Iraq, year after year, the dictator was given the chance to account for his weapons programs, and end the nightmare for his people. Now the resolutions he defied have been enforced.
And who will say that Iraq was better off when Saddam Hussein was strutting and killing, or that the world was safer when he held power? Who doubts that Afghanistan is a more just society and less dangerous without Mullah Omar playing host to terrorists from around the world. And Europe, too, is plainly better off with Milosevic answering for his crimes, instead of committing more.
It's been said that those who live near a police station find it hard to believe in the triumph of violence, in the same way free peoples might be tempted to take for granted the orderly societies we have come to know. Europe's peaceful unity is one of the great achievements of the last half-century. And because European countries now resolve differences through negotiation and consensus, there's sometimes an assumption that the entire world functions in the same way.
'Never Forget How Europe's Unity Was Achieved'
But let us never forget how Europe's unity was achieved: by allied armies of liberation and NATO armies of defense. And let us never forget, beyond Europe's borders, in a world where oppression and violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal, and freedom and security still need defenders. [Applause]
* The third pillar of security is our commitment to the global expansion of democracy, and the hope and progress it brings, as the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror. We cannot rely exclusively on military power to assure our long-term security. Lasting peace is gained as justice and democracy advance.
In democratic and successful societies, men and women do not swear allegiance to malcontents and murderers; they turn their hearts and labor to building better lives. And democratic governments do not shelter terrorist camps or attack their peaceful neighbors; they honor the aspirations and dignity of their own people. In our conflict with terror and tyranny, we have an unmatched advantage, a power that cannot be resisted, and that is the appeal of freedom to all mankind.
As global powers, both our nations serve the cause of freedom in many ways, in many places. By promoting development, and fighting famine and AIDS and other diseases, we're fulfilling our moral duties, as well as encouraging stability and building a firmer basis for democratic institutions. By working for justice in Burma, in the Sudan and in Zimbabwe, we give hope to suffering people and improve the chances for stability and progress. By extending the reach of trade we foster prosperity and the habits of liberty. And by advancing freedom in the greater Middle East, we help end a cycle of dictatorship and radicalism that brings millions of people to misery and brings danger to our own people.
The stakes in that region could not be higher. If the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation and anger and violence for export. And as we saw in the ruins of two towers, no distance on the map will protect our lives and way of life. If the greater Middle East joins the democratic revolution that has reached much of the world, the lives of millions in that region will be bettered, and a trend of conflict and fear will be ended at its source.
The movement of history will not come about quickly. Because of our own democratic development - the fact that it was gradual and, at times, turbulent - we must be patient with others. And the Middle East countries have some distance to travel.
Arab scholars speak of a freedom deficit that has separated whole nations from the progress of our time. The essentials of social and material progress - limited government, equal justice under law, religious and economic liberty, political participation, free press, and respect for the rights of women - have been scarce across the region. Yet that has begun to change.
In an arc of reform from Morocco to Jordan to Qatar, we are seeing elections and new protections for women and the stirring of political pluralism. Many governments are realizing that theocracy and dictatorship do not lead to national greatness; they end in national ruin. They are finding, as others will find, that national progress and dignity are achieved when governments are just and people are free.
The democratic progress we've seen in the Middle East was not imposed from abroad, and neither will the greater progress we hope to see. Freedom, by definition, must be chosen, and defended by those who choose it. Our part, as free nations, is to ally ourselves with reform, wherever it occurs.
Perhaps the most helpful change we can make is to change in our own thinking. In the West, there's been a certain skepticism about the capacity or even the desire of Middle Eastern peoples for self-government. We're told that Islam is somehow inconsistent with a democratic culture. Yet more than half of the world's Muslims are today contributing citizens in democratic societies. It is suggested that the poor, in their daily struggles, care little for self-government. Yet the poor, especially, need the power of democracy to defend themselves against corrupt elites.
Peoples of the Middle East share a high civilization, a religion of personal responsibility, and a need for freedom as deep as our own. It is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty; it is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of it. [Applause]
'Oppression for the Sake of Stability'
We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.
As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found. [Applause]
Now we're pursuing a different course, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. We will consistently challenge the enemies of reform and confront the allies of terror. We will expect a higher standard from our friends in the region, and we will meet our responsibilities in Afghanistan and in Iraq by finishing the work of democracy we have begun.
There were good-faith disagreements in your country and mine over the course and timing of military action in Iraq. Whatever has come before, we now have only two options: to keep our word, or to break our word.
The failure of democracy in Iraq would throw its people back into misery and turn that country over to terrorists who wish to destroy us. Yet democracy will succeed in Iraq, because our will is firm, our word is good, and the Iraqi people will not surrender their freedom. [Applause]
Since the liberation of Iraq, we have seen changes that could hardly have been imagined a year ago. A new Iraqi police force protects the people, instead of bullying them. More than 150 Iraqi newspapers are now in circulation, printing what they choose, not what they're ordered. Schools are open with textbooks free of propaganda. Hospitals are functioning and are well-supplied. Iraq has a new currency, the first battalion of a new army, representative local governments, and a Governing Council with an aggressive timetable for national sovereignty.
This is substantial progress. And much of it has proceeded faster than similar efforts in Germany and Japan after World War II.
Yet the violence we are seeing in Iraq today is serious. And it comes from Baathist holdouts and Jihadists from other countries, and terrorists drawn to the prospect of innocent bloodshed. It is the nature of terrorism and the cruelty of a few to try to bring grief in the loss to many.
The armed forces of both our countries have taken losses, felt deeply by our citizens. Some families now live with a burden of great sorrow. We cannot take the pain away. But these families can know they are not alone. We pray for their strength; we pray for their comfort; and we will never forget the courage of the ones they loved.
The terrorists have a purpose, a strategy to their cruelty. They view the rise of democracy in Iraq as a powerful threat to their ambitions. In this, they are correct. They believe their acts of terror against our coalition, against international aid workers and against innocent Iraqis, will make us recoil and retreat. In this, they are mistaken. [Applause]
We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq and pay a bitter cost of casualties, and liberate 25 million people, only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins. [Applause] We will help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East. And by doing so, we will defend our people from danger.
The forward strategy of freedom must also apply to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's a difficult period in a part of the world that has known many. Yet, our commitment remains firm. We seek justice and dignity. We seek a viable, independent state for the Palestinian people, who have been betrayed by others for too long. [Applause] We seek security and recognition for the state of Israel, which has lived in the shadow of random death for too long. [Applause] These are worthy goals in themselves, and by reaching them we will also remove an occasion and excuse for hatred and violence in the broader Middle East.
Achieving peace in the Holy Land is not just a matter of the shape of a border. As we work on the details of peace, we must look to the heart of the matter, which is the need for a viable Palestinian democracy. Peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition, who tolerate and profit from corruption and maintain their ties to terrorist groups. These are the methods of the old elites, who time and again had put their own self-interest above the interest of the people they claim to serve. The long-suffering Palestinian people deserve better. They deserve true leaders, capable of creating and governing a Palestinian state.
Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months, goodwill and hard effort can bring about a Palestinian state and a secure Israel. Those who would lead a new Palestine should adopt peaceful means to achieve the rights of their people and create the reformed institutions of a stable democracy.
Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and not prejudice final negotiations with the placements of walls and fences. Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with Israel.
Leaders in Europe should withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause. And Europe's leaders, and all leaders, should strongly oppose anti-Semitism, which poisons public debates over the future of the Middle East. [Applause]
'Security of All Free Nations'
Ladies and gentlemen, we have great objectives before us that make our Atlantic alliance as vital as it has ever been. We will encourage the strength and effectiveness of international institutions. We will use force when necessary in the defense of freedom. And we will raise up an ideal of democracy in every part of the world. On these three pillars we will build the peace and security of all free nations in a time of danger.
So much good has come from our alliance of conviction and might. So much now depends on the strength of this alliance as we go forward. America has always found strong partners in London, leaders of good judgment and blunt counsel and backbone when times are tough. And I have found all those qualities in your current Prime Minister, who has my respect and my deepest thanks. [Applause]
The ties between our nations, however, are deeper than the relationship between leaders. These ties endure because they are formed by the experience and responsibilities and adversity we have shared. And in the memory of our peoples, there will always be one experience, one central event when the seal was fixed on the friendship between Britain and the United States: The arrival in Great Britain of more than 1.5 million American soldiers and airmen in the 1940s was a turning point in the second world war. For many Britons, it was a first close look at Americans, other than in the movies. Some of you here today may still remember the "friendly invasion." Our lads, they took some getting used to. There was even a saying about what many of them were up to, in addition to be "overpaid and over here." [Laughter]
At a reunion in North London some years ago, an American pilot who had settled in England after his military service, said, "Well, I'm still over here, and probably overpaid. So two out of three isn't bad." [Laughter]
In that time of war, the English people did get used to the Americans. They welcomed soldiers and fliers into their villages and homes, and took to calling them, "our boys." About 70,000 of those boys did their part to affirm our special relationship. They returned home with English brides.
Americans gained a certain image of Britain, as well. We saw an island threatened on every side, a leader who did not waver, and a country of the firmest character. And that has not changed.
The British people are the sort of partners you want when serious work needs doing. The men and women of this Kingdom are kind and steadfast and generous and brave. And America is fortunate to call this country our closest friend in the world.
May God bless you all. [Applause]
Posted by William N. Phillips, Jr. at 10/30/2004 06:38:00 AM
Bill's Comment: This article confronts probably the biggest single-issue of this election, national security. After reading this, it should be obvious that the Republicans will mop and wax the Democrats on the dance floor each and every time. Remember- The Democrats HAVE NO REAL PLAN TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE, just a bunch of smoke and mirrors from a group of acidic, far-left liberal Democratic Party snake oil salesmen.
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Thursday, July 22, 2004
'Test Runs' Conducted for the Next 9/11
Last week NewsMax linked for several days to journalist Annie Jacobsen's widely reported eyewitness account of suspicious behavior by Arab men on a flight from the Muslim haven of Detroit to L.A. But her report is just the beginning.
"Flight crews and air marshals say Middle Eastern men are staking out airports, probing security measures and conducting test runs aboard airplanes for a terrorist attack," the Washington Times revealed today.
The article singles out the flight Jacobsen took on June 29, Northwest Airlines Flight 327, as well as American Airlines Flight 1732 from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to New York's JFK Airport on Feb. 15.
"No doubt these are dry runs for a terrorist attack," the Times quoted an anonymous air marshal as saying.
"It's happening, and it's a sad state of affairs," the paper quoted an anonymous pilot as saying.
Jacobsen, a business writer for the online Women's Wall Street, described how 14 Middle Eastern men alarmed and "terrified" her and other passengers as well as the crew. Seated throughout the plane, the men at first pretended to be strangers but then exchanged "unusual glances," gathered in small groups, stood throughout most of the flight, filed in and out of the lavatories and even brought a camera into one.
"One man took a McDonald's bag into the bathroom, then passed it off to another passenger upon returning to his seat. When the pilot announced the plane was cleared for landing and to fasten seat belts, seven men jumped up in unison and went to different bathrooms."
David Adams, a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service, confirmed Jacobsen's account. He said officers who were on board checked the restrooms several times but found nothing.
"Given the facts, they had no legal basis to take an enforcement action. But there was enough of a suspicious nature for the FAMS, passengers and crew to take notice," Adams said.
Federal officials and L.A. police detained the Syrian men upon arrival, fingerprinted them and released them after checking their story that they were musicians hired to play at a casino.
Bombs in the Bathrooms
The Times noted: "A January FBI memo says suicide terrorists are plotting to hijack trans-Atlantic planes by smuggling 'ready-to-build' bomb kits past airport security, and later assembling the explosives in aircraft bathrooms."
The incident on the flight from San Juan was similar. Six Middle Eastern men pretended at first to be strangers, but it became clear they knew each other, observant stewardesses said.
The Arabs tried to videotape the takeoff, made multiple trips to the restroom and congregated in the area until crew members intervened.
A pilot reported another flight in which an air marshal broke into a lavatory that an Arab had locked himself into for a long time. The man had removed the mirror and was trying to break through the wall, on the other side of which was the cockpit, the pilot said.
Terrorists "absolutely" are testing security, he told the Times. "There is a great degree of concern in the airline industry that not only are these dry runs for a terrorist attack, but that there is absolutely no defense capabilities on a vast majority of airlines."
But Profiling Terrorists Isn't P.C.
Then why is so little being done? Political correctness and fear of pressure groups.
Only yesterday, Council on American-Islamic Relations raged that the FBI was daring to interview Muslims and Arabs in states including California, New York, Virginia and Florida "as part of an attempt to root out a possible terror attacks in the United States."
CAIR director Nihad Awad complained: "The way it's being done stigmatizes the entire community and makes Muslims objects of suspicion to their neighbors and co-workers. This is not right. This is more politics than security."
As NewsMax noted last week, an anti-terror program in Florida had to be emasculated because of grumbling from American Civil Liberties Union and Muslim groups.
The Citizen Awareness Program, proposed by a domestic security task force in Orlando, had planned to ask firemen, utility workers and other workers who go into homes to report any suspected terrorist activity. One possible sign, the program had planned to note, would be "multiple adult males living together, usually of Middle Eastern appearance and between the ages of 18 and 45, with little or no furnishings."
Scott Rost of ACLU's Orlando office claimed the program would "encourage racial profiling with little reason to believe it will make us safer."
How shocking. What in the world do groups of young Middle Eastern men have to do with terrorism? Everyone knows that 80-year-old American church ladies carried out 9/11. They're the ones who should be profiled!
We've said it before, and we'll say it again: Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. Anyone who ignores this reality is abetting the next 9/11.
Posted by William N. Phillips, Jr. at 10/30/2004 06:10:00 AM
College Republicans Poke Fun at Kerry's 'Flip-Flops'
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
July 27, 2004
Boston (CNSNews.com) - Even in a city full of Democrats, a group of College Republicans had no fear taking to the streets Monday in a playful protest of John Kerry's famous "flip-flops" on issues like the war in Iraq to homosexual marriage.
A handful of Republicans stood a few blocks from the FleetCenter, where the Democratic National Convention got underway at 4 p.m. Monday. They encountered some heckling, but many interested passersby stopped to snap pictures of the giant flip-flop sandals they carried.
Republicans have made Kerry's "flip-flops" a central issue of the campaign. The Massachusetts senator supported the war in Iraq, for instance, but later voted against funding it. He also opposes same-sex marriage, but he has reached out to the homosexual community, and he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.
"Kerry flip-flops on issues, and young people aren't going to go for that," said Alison Aikele, the College Republican National Committee's communications director. "This is a lot of fun. It's a way for young people to get involved and show what they believe in."
Those who did heckle the band of young Republicans got smiles in return. The Republicans started their day early, walking around neighborhoods of the city before ending up outside the FleetCenter. Overall, they said most people welcomed their viewpoints.
The protest was organized in part by Max Buccini, chairman of the Boston College chapter and treasurer of the Massachusetts Alliance of College Republicans. Buccini said he wanted Bostonians to know that not everyone in this city supports the Democrat ticket.
"It's going to be a tough sell for them to say that Kerry and Edwards are supporting the same values as the American people," Buccini said.
But it's Kerry's stance on the issues -- or lack thereof -- that bothers Buccini most. He said voters are left with no real understanding of what Kerry believes.
"There's a myriad of issues that John Kerry has flip-flopped on; especially on free trade and gay marriages he's waffled and shifted. He says they're nuanced positions, but I really think it's political expediency," Buccini said. "He'll basically do anything to further his political ambition."
But protesting Kerry isn't all that the College Republican National Committee has planned. The group will launch a field program on college campuses in 40 states on Aug. 24. More than 60 field representatives will be dispatched to add to the group's 120,000-student membership.
"Our goal is to identify every single Republican student and student who supports our president," said Oliver Wolf, a student at Bates College and vice chairman of the Maine College Republicans. "We need to get them to provide the voice and volunteers for the campaign."
Posted by William N. Phillips, Jr. at 10/30/2004 06:01:00 AM
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Thursday, July 29, 2004 8:04 p.m. EDT
Even the Left Bashes 'Botox' Kerry
We just received the latest from liberal Sam Smith's Progressive Review, with Smith's latest "Notes" on the Democrat Convention.
Here are some of his observations:
* "Next time let's try to get Ron Reagan Jr to sound a little less like a trial lawyer and that trial lawyer to sound a little less like Ron Reagan Sr."
* "Edwards reminded me of one of those attorneys where you want to acquit the defendant just because he got stuck with such poor counsel."
* "Can we round up a few more people who look like Edwards' parents? That crowd on the convention floor isn't the sort you'd find at Wal-Mart (or, in sufficient numbers, in the voting booth)"
As for Kerry's speech tonight, Smith concludes:
"Good luck with tonight. Just bear in mind that there is no Botox for the soul.
*"THINGS TO REMEMBER WHILE WATCHING KERRY TONIGHT: Kerry is your classic Washington Ivy League preppy hustler who gets ahead by substituting gravitas for achievement and, in Russell Baker's phrase, letting solemnity serve for seriousness. He has done little in the Senate, produced few bills of significance, and even missed most of his intelligence committee hearings. He is arrogant, narcissistic, and so self-serving that he even filmed reenactments of his Vietnam exploits for future use. He is wrong on Iraq, healthcare, education, the Middle East, and the Patriot Act and when he is right he doesn't say it very well. On the other hand, like 98% of the American voting age population, he is better in many ways than George W. Bush but the only such person with the backing of a major party."
Posted by William N. Phillips, Jr. at 10/30/2004 05:50:00 AM
Friday, October 29, 2004
6 Career lessons from U.S. Presidents
By Laura Morsch, CareerBuilder.com
Our nation's presidents have plunged us into economic depression and guided us to wartime victory. All of their triumphs and failures can teach us a thing or two about our own careers. With Election Day on the horizon, here are some important lessons we can learn from our former U.S. leaders:
Conquer your fears.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." When Franklin D. Roosevelt uttered these words at his first inaugural address in 1933, the country was at the height of the Great Depression. He would go on to take risky moves to pull the nation out of economic crisis and provided strong leadership during wartime.
Being afraid to take risks can keep you from advancing your own career. So send out that resume. Make those phone calls. And most importantly, don't let fear of rejection or change keep you from the career of your dreams.
Keep your skills current.
The Civil War was a turning point American history, and knowing this, Abraham Lincoln adjusted the presidential role to fit the times by expanding the military, freeing slaves and spending more money. Sure, he was met with criticism, but he told Congress, "As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew."
Lincoln's ability to react to the changing times made him widely hailed as one of the greatest presidents in history. You can apply his lessons to your own career by taking classes or undergoing additional training to be sure your skills are up-to-date.
Keep your hands clean.
The Enron crew and Martha Stewart might be facing different career prospects if they had taken a lesson from Richard Nixon. Similar to recent corporate scandals, an investigation into a 1972 break-in of the Democratic National Committee offices at the Watergate complex slowly implicated government staff - eventually reaching the very top. Expecting impeachment, Nixon resigned his post - and the Watergate scandal will forever haunt his legacy.
Be wary of office romance.
If you think you can keep your office fling quiet, remember two words: Monica Lewinsky. After rumors of Bill Clinton's extramarital affair with a young White House intern exploded into national news, the president had to protect more than just his morality - he had to defend his job from impeachment. If the president can get caught, so can you.
Learn from your mistakes.
All presidents made some mistakes - some of them huge. What separated the most successful presidents was their ability to learn from their errors, own up to them and then move on. Take John F. Kennedy: Shortly after his inauguration, Kennedy approved an invasion into Cuba to topple dictator Fidel Castro. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a dismal failure, embarrassing the Kennedy administration. But instead of letting the mortification ruin his career, he simply assumed responsibility - and Americans respected him for it.
Stand out in the pack.
Can you list the accomplishments of President Chester Arthur? You're not alone. A Web site dedicated to Arthur, John Tyler and James Polk hails them as the "forgotten presidents." In contrast, the accomplishments of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt are permanently etched into Americans' memories (and history books).
What separates the remembered presidents? They weren't afraid to take a stand and change things in our country. Don't be content with mediocrity in your career. Flaunt your greatness, and leave a legacy!
Posted by William N. Phillips, Jr. at 10/29/2004 08:40:00 PM
Looking for a Job When You Already Have One
By M. Rose Jonas
The old adage is no longer true, that you have to have a job in order to find a job. The economy has just been too scary, with layoffs and company closings, downsizings and outsourcings. Employers are not surprised when applicants are between jobs.
In fact, those folks standing slack-jawed at the unemployment office have an advantage over the cubicle wretches sitting at their pc, wishing the day would end, that this miserable job would end. The unemployed at least have the time to look for a job, and that's a key point for the employed job seeker to remember.
Here's what's true about job search duration. To find a job, it takes slightly less than a month for every $10,000 you make. In a down economy, add a month or two. If you're employed, add four to six months on top of that. Why? During the day you just don't have the time. At night you don't have the energy. And that's assuming you know what you want to do next AND that your job didn't go to Bombay.
If you are employed, and you are sure you want to move on, here are some points to ponder:
1. Make a realistic assessment of how long this will take you. Nine to 12 months is generally right.
2. Talk to yourself. Can you hang on that long, or should you just take a deep breath and leap?
3. Talk to your spouse or partner and weigh the pros and cons. What does a job change mean to the family? Will you get the same money? Will your spouse need to get another job? Can you stay in the same city? Are you sure your partner would move to another city if you got a job offer out of town?
4. Plan your strategy, and that often means to hire a career coach. The job world has changed so much, we aren't often sure how to move, where to look, or how to talk about what we've done. You'll save yourself time if an expert is helping you.
5. Look at your days/weeks and determine what you can carve out for the job search. You have to do research, networking, resume writing, and interviews. Can you get up an hour earlier a couple of days a week? Can you get to the library at lunch to research companies? Can you go to a conference room with your laptop and surf the job net? Can you have early morning coffees throughout the week to network with friends or people who can help you develop leads?
6. Get an accountability buddy. One man in the Northeast who wanted to return to his Midwestern roots, spent a year fretting over the above points/issues, and going nowhere. His most trusted ally was his sister, so they decided to formalize the arrangement, following the procedures typical of job clubs. The deal was he had to call her on Sunday evenings to report his progress and detail goals for the upcoming week. She was to be supportive as well as challenging. He found a new job in about three months. She kept him on the mark.
7. Don't be afraid of networking. People hate to do it; it's still one of the primary ways to find a job. For over two-thirds of us, the next job is gotten through networking…going to coffees, saying what you're looking for, asking for leads. Ya gotta be out there.
8. Keep the search confidential. Don't tell your boss till you have the next job. You'll have a problem in certain professions, which are small, tight and highly networked. Gossip fairly zings along those communication lines. If the boss will find out in about five seconds, 'fess up. Otherwise, play your cards close to your chest. Have NOTHING come to the office, tell potential employers not to contact your present one, take vacation or sick days to do interviews. People at work will find out if you're careless. Trust no one.
M. Rose Jonas, Ph.D., is widely recognized as TV's "Job Doctor," and is the author of a new book "Can I Lie On My Resume?"
Posted by William N. Phillips, Jr. at 10/29/2004 07:59:00 PM
Job Hunting? Don't Just Go For The Openings!
By Judi Craig
In case you're thinking of contacting a company for future employment only when there is a posted "job opening," you may be eliminating a large part of the job market. Many, if not most, jobs are never listed in the newspapers or on the Internet. If you ask a company representative about "vacancies," they may correctly tell you there are none when, in fact, you could well find employment in that organization.
The truth is that many companies have an employee who may not be performing up to par. The individual may lack desired skills, not get along well with others, be disorganized or fail to meet productivity requirements. Or an employee may lack the necessary competencies to step into a new role that's coming up in an anticipated reorganization, downsizing or merger.
Perhaps the manager doesn't want to remove the person because she knows there will be so much more work for everyone else while a new hire is recruited, interviewed and selected. That whole process takes time (something we're all short on) and puts more stress on other people who have to pitch in and make up the work that used to be done by the person who leaves. Resentments often surface ("How could the company have done that to an employee who's been with us that long?") and morale can decline as everyone begins to wonder "who's next?"
Then there's the expense of a search for someone to fill the new position. And maybe a relocation package.
Also, executives and managers tend to put off the unpleasant task of demoting or firing someone. It's easier to rock along with the status quo, especially if the person who has to deliver the bad news is someone who doesn't want to be perceived as a "bad guy," personally disagrees with the decision, is highly empathetic with the person in question or is simply conflict avoidant. Besides, demoting or firing someone is just not a fun thing to do.
But if someone very qualified comes along, who isn't more tempted to make the necessary change? This is where you, the job seeker, have an opportunity.
Now imagine this scenario: You're an executive in a company and you get a letter that comes across your desk, addressed specifically to you. You open it and discover that the writer obviously has researched your industry/company well enough to sense what it is that you need—specific qualities, experience, etc.—and is telling you what he could do for you. This claim is then followed by four to six bullets outlining specific accomplishments—including quantifiable measures—that the writer has achieved. Then follows an invitation to contact him or her for an interview. Wouldn't you be impressed?
Let's face it: To get a job, you need to get an interview. Once in the door, you have an opportunity to sell yourself. If the interviewer likes what he sees, his mind clicks into thoughts of where you could fit in to the company—and to those you might replace.
It is even possible to sell a potential employer on a job that you basically create for yourself. There may no ready fit for you. But if they are sold on you, you can brainstorm with them on the possible ways they could use your talents. You might create a new position right there during the interview, essentially outlining your own job description.
The point is, don't just go for companies that you know have an "opening" or you could be dealing yourself out on a terrific job.
Judi Craig, Ph.D., MCC is an Executive & Career Coach in San Antonio, TX and President of COACH SQUARED, INC.
Bill's Comment: If you want to learn more about this subject, especiall about selling yourself to create a new position, I personally recommend Think and Grow Rich, by Dale Carnegie.
Posted by William N. Phillips, Jr. at 10/29/2004 07:40:00 PM
Thursday, October 28, 2004
The Real World
Charles Sykes is the author of DUMBING DOWN OUR KIDS. In his book, he talks about how the liberal, feel-good, politically correct garbage has created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and set them up for failure in the real world.
Life is not fair; get used to it.
The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world Will expect You to accomplish something before you feel good about yourself.
You will not make 40 thousand dollars a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice president with a car phone until you "earn" both.
If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss. He doesn't have tenure.
Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your grandparents had a different word for burger flipping; they called it opportunity.
If you screw up, it's not your parents' fault so don't whine about your mistakes. Learn from them.
Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way paying your bills, cleaning your room and listening to you tell them how idealistic you are. So before you save the rain forest from the blood-sucking parasites of your parents' generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Your school may have done away with winners and losers but life has not. In some schools they have abolished failing grades, they'll give you as many chances as you want to got the right answer. This, of course, bears not the slightest resemblance to anything in real life.
Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you find yourself. Do that on your own time.
Television is not real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
Posted by William N. Phillips, Jr. at 10/28/2004 09:45:00 PM
Monday, October 25, 2004
Here is the latest in the soap opera regarding soon-to-be-leaving, "Gay American", New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey:
Report: No evidence of extortion in Cipel-McGreevey dealings
October 24, 2004, 6:14 PM EDT
comment; picks up 5th graf pvs; phqdp2jpmbas
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) _ A federal investigation has uncovered no evidence that a former aide to Gov. James E. McGreevey tried to extort millions of dollars from him, according to the aide's lawyer and law enforcement officials.
A lawyer representing Golan Cipel, the former state homeland security adviser named by McGreevey associates as the man the governor admitted having an extra-marital affair with, said federal officials told him Cipel and a second lawyer acted properly during talks about a settlement in the weeks before McGreevey announced his resignation on Aug. 12.
"I'm certain there's no chance they would be accused of a crime," attorney Paul Batista told The Philadelphia Inquirer. "As far as my job, I consider my work done."
FBI spokesman Steve Kodak declined to comment Sunday, saying it is an active investigation. But other law enforcement officials familiar with the case told the newspaper that they would not dispute Batista's statements.
A lawyer representing the governor disagreed with Batista's conclusion.
"There's clearly evidence of extortion," said William Lawler. "It's up to the government to evaluate how the evidence fits into a total picture."
FBI agents have yet to speak with Cipel, who is in his native Israel, but plan to meet with him soon, Batista said.
Cipel has denied that he is gay or had an affair with McGreevey, and has claimed that the governor sexually harassed him. He threatened a sexual harassment suit but never filed it.
According to Sen. Raymond Lesniak, D-Union, a McGreevey confidant, Cipel's lawyers did not offer facts or proof of damages during the settlement talks, but instead "just wanted money."
"It was extortion thinly disguised as a lawsuit," Lesniak said. "This whole thing is ridiculous."
Officials on both sides told The Inquirer that McGreevey supporters sent people to try and talk to Cipel in the weeks before McGreevey resigned. One of those people was Rabbi Yosef Z. Carlebach, a longtime supporter of the governor who also knew Cipel.
Allen Lowy, the lawyer who handled Cipel's sexual harassment case, said he had specifically asked administration officials that no one contact Cipel. Lawler, meanwhile, denied that Carlebach was sent to try to "talk anybody out of anything."
Through a spokesman, McGreevey declined to discuss the investigation.
"The governor made his statement on Aug. 12," said Micah Rasmussen. "He's focusing on his family and moving on with his life."
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press
Posted by William N. Phillips, Jr. at 10/25/2004 01:21:00 PM