Mickey

No spin, just facts. Those are the rankings. I took a look just because I read a post here by someone about how awful life was in New York so I thought I'd check out some stats before I went to bed on where NY stacks up in comparison to other states. I think there is a correlation between that list and states that are likely to go for Bush and those likely to go for Kerry but I have not had the time to investigate whether that relationship is coincidental or not. If I lived in one of those states with the worst infant mortality rate, I would want to know why. The answer in each state might have a political component, it might not. I don't know and unlike many on the board whose names I shall politely not repeat, I am not interested in speculating just because there is a pro-Kerry angle to take. I did in the other thread on mobile homes but that was just because it seemed funny to me. I have heard one person in particular go on about how all democratic voters are by and large, felons, whores, crack addicts, drop outs and morons. I beleive that was based on his perceptions of urban voters who trend strongly in favor of the democrats. There are stereotypes about mobile home dwellers just as there are about urban voters. I thought I would put those numbers up for people to see that the same silly charges could be made about republican voters as the one who shall not be named, insists on making about democratic voters. Lastly, I just love the US Abstract and any chance I get to sprinkle a fact or two upon this see of spin, I jump on it. Here is an irony that I thought about the other day that works against both parties. Democrats would surely bemoan those infant mortality rates in Bush country which, depending on your view, would by pretty hypocritical given their stance on abortion. On the other hand, it would be nice if the right was as upset about already born infants dying because of lousy health care as they are about the "death" of a fetus. If they showed the same dedication to improving infant mortality rates in their home state as they do protesting at clinics in other states, maybe those numbers would improve. Like I said, that is an irony that reveals the hypocrisy of both parties.

Average Annual Pay State Rankings 10 highest: 1. Connecticut $46,852 per year 2. New York 46,328 3. New Jersey 45,182 4. Mass. 44,954 5. Cal. 41,419 6. Ill. 39,688 7. Delaware 39,684 8. Maryland 39,382 9. Washington 38,242 10. Michigan 38,135 The 10 lowest: 50. Montana 26,001 49. South Dakota 26,360 48. North Dakota 26,550 47. Mississippi 26,665 46. Arkansas 28,074 45. Idaho 28,163 44. West Virginia 28,612 43. Oklahoma 28,654 42. Wyoming 28,975 41. New Mexico 29,431 Any similarity between which states are for Kerry and which for Bush is completely coincidental. All the top ten salaries are states taken by Gore and where Kerry leads now. Of the ten bottom feeders, 9 are in Bush country with the only exception being New Mexico which Gore barely won.

States with the highest infant mortality death rate per 1,000 live births: 1. Delaware 10.7 2. Mississippi 10.5 3. Louisiana 9.8 4. Alabama 9.4 5. South Carolina 8.9 6. North Dakota 8.8 7. Tennessee 8.7 8. Georgia 8.6 9. North Carolina 8.5 10. Arkansas 8.3 The ten states with the lowest infant mortality rate: 1. New Hampshire 3.8 2. Utah 4.8 3. Massachusetts 5.0 4. Minnesota 5.3 5. Oregon and California tied 5.4 7. Vermont 5.5 8. Iowa 5.6 9. Nevada 5.7 10. New York, Colorado and Washington tied at 5.8

William Kristol? please, why not quote Rush instead? You could hardly find a less credible attack dog of the right. Where do I start? His roommate at Harvard was Alan Keyes. He was Bill Bennet's chief of staff at the Dept. of Education and he was Quayle's handler until Clinton kicked their butts in '92. He then was hired at ABC by Dorrance Smith, Bush's communications director. After that he got Rupert Murdoch to fund his conservative rag, The Weekly Standard which still loses money with its paltry circulation of 60,000. ABC even fired him from "This Week". One of his peers described him thusly: "He's become part of Washington's circulatory system, this half-pol, half-pundit, full throated advocate with the nice guy image...who is wired to nearly all the Republican Presidential candidates." You might as well be quoting Karl Rove. He is more of an honorary Bush than Prince Bandar.

We want reality, whether it is pleasant, optimistic or frightening. By the way, you still haven't answered my question, how many Americans were killed by Saddam Hussein between 9/11 and our invasion of Iraq? It is a simple question isn't it?

Since, by your own admission you basically hate all democrats ("bitter distaste") and are going to "vote republican to the end" no matter who the democrats run, there really is no point in talking to you or listening to you or even hoping to have any kind of meaningful exchange of ideas with you is there? It is a shame to be 23 and that close minded.

Thanks, it will take more than "bilious colic" to shut me up. Besides, I can now quite literally claim to have the most "stones" of any lawyer in town. My step-d still can't open her eye but is getting some useful vision. She is still with Mr. Soprano but is going to school and in counseling which seems to be building her confidence up so that she may have the wherewithal to walk.

Don't you think that a lot of people see it that way, that we are safer if we defeat bad guys who are kind enough to wear uniforms so that we know they are bad guys? The danger that worries me the most are the bad guys that you never see coming. 9/11 was like that. We didn't see it coming.

Actually, silence when a reasonable person would speak is competent evidence in court in many circumstances. It is not dispositive but almost no single piece of evidence is. Besides, do I have to have DNA evidence sufficient to put a person away for life just to disagree with you? From what I have seen of your posts you seldomly if ever have much to say that is negative when it comes to the right and on the other hand, waste no time in attacking democrats. The comment I responded to very specifically placed blame on "the previous administration". Rather than complaining about standards of proof, why not point out that in fact you do have complaints about other, Republican, administrations and then make those complaints? Would you like to discuss issues or just continue to attack me personally?

When you refer to "present capabilities", it sounds like you are referring to organized, focused weapons, systems and adversaries. I see us as eventually being able to defeat those kinds of capabilities. What scares the bejeezus out of me is that the enemy (loosely defined as those who want to kill us) can cause large scale death to civilians without much in the form of capabilities. How hard would it be to do the same type of suicide bombing, using cars or backpacks, here in the US that they are doing daily in Iraq? You don't need much of an imagination to see that they don't need anything fancy or sophisticated to kill a lot of people.

Man, you are disagreeing with everyone today. Me? I can take it but when you start going after Bib, you are going too far. On a side note, I had wicked abdominal pain yesterday so bad I ended up in the hospital and now I have to have my gall bladder removed. The condition is called "bilious colic". I thought about petitioning for this board to be renamed the "Bilious colic" board, I think it just fits. Once this bile producing gland is removed, I will likely have to resign from the board. Without bile, I have nothing to add.

So I can't hold him to be Bush's expert nor can I blame Bush for keeping an incompetent (your view apparently) on staff. Nice, that way, no matter what, Bush is excused. It really is all Clinton's fault. I guess I shouldn't even bother pointing out that Clarke was not being tossed by the administration but was moving to another anti-terrorist post within the administration, cyber terrorism if I recall correctly. What exactly was going on that left Bush no choice but to keep on this incompetent, undesirable interloper? If he was so incompetent and undesirable, why was he being appointed to another counter terrorism post? Isn't there a chance that they kept him on because they wanted him and had some respect for his abilities and talents? The alternative is that while AQ was becoming a more and more dangerous threat, while the awful 9/11 plan was springing into action, the Bush folks were content to have as their expert an incompetent, undesirable interloper. I guess the historians will have to sort all this out and I am sure that when it is all said and done, there will be enough failures of action, intelligence, imagination and dilligence to go around. 9/11 was a national failure. When I wathed those Towers fall, I didn't think, "How did Bush let this happen?" I thought, "How did we let this happen?"

It is a simple question Richio, how many Americans were killed by Saddam after 9/11 and before we invaded?

Please explain. Maybe I missed all his posts being critical of other administrations and misread his reference to "the previous administration" as opposed to administrations?

It certainly is excusing this one isn't it? Maybe you could point out to me all your posts being critical of Reagan's, HW's and Dubya's pre 9/11 antiterrorism efforts or lack thereof. I'd love to read them.

Rather than dismiss his point of view based on who hired him, wouldn't it be more effective to demonstrate which of his statements are demonstrably false with evidence? I have not seen anyone disprove his material allegations. In fact, a number were not even denied. Why is he "Clinton's expert" when before Clinton he was the second ranking intelligence officer at the State Department under Reagan and remained with the State Department under Bush the First, not leaving until 1992?

Omission by silence

Since 9/11, how many Americans were killed by Saddam and his regime up until when we invaded? I don't know when those 11 were killed in relation to 9/11 nor what others may have been killed enforcing the no-fly zone or in connection with some other activity.

Maybe if you didn't spend so much time excusing the present administration as well as all past republican administrations we would take it more seriously. Besides, I don't think we can go back in time and un-elect Clinton. On top of that, Bush's own counter terrorism expert wrote a book that documented pretty well that Clinton had a better record than Bush on terrorism although both failed any objective measure of anti-terrorism efforts.

In what way is he "using" catholicism? Please explain just how it is that Kerry is using his religion as "a foundation to pursue policies" that the church opposes. This is simply naked politics disguised as religion. The catholic church is against the death penalty and war yet no one faces excommunication on those issues. As far as having the right to whatever, of course the church does, they can do any freaking thing they want. That is not the question. For catholics like myself the issue is the politically partisan application of church doctrine.

Actually, he doesn't pretend, he is quite honest about it. More to the point, he is a comedian. I don't think he has any obligation at all to be non-partisan. None. The job description for a comedian and a journalist are not the same. You are making the same moronic mistake Carlson was making in trying to hold a comedian to a journalistic standard.

Bush went further than that Chef, he accused Kerry of using one of his "exagerations" and the way he emphasized that word made it clear that he was calling Kerry a liar. Now, if he said that he couldn't remember saying that and if he did, he certainly didn't mean it in the way Kerry was implying, then fine, he would have been okay. He didn't though, he denied saying it and then mocked Kerry on it to boot. Bush deserves what he gets on this one.

You beat me to it. I hit "Bush" by mistake and now it won't let me change it. Damn this electronic voting.

Should he also replace Willis if he misses a single blitz pick up or if he fumbles? I think Willis should play if he is the best back on the roster, if not, play the guy who is. What drives me crazy is that MM probably isn't sure right now who the best back is and that is what coaches are there for, to make a decision as to who is the best player, even when it is close.

No it isn't. They looked better Sunday because we played a lot of max protect and threw on first when they were not expecting it which helped take pressure off of the line. We did that because we had those reserves in so the coaches were more conservative in terms of pass protection. We threw 2-3 guys at Taylor on every play. It is what we did in NY in the 4th quarter. Lets not get too giddy over the line play. The team, primarily due to the offense I suspect, was booed going into the locker room at the half. They had a nice drive that stalled resulting in just a field goal and another scored a TD but that started at the Miami 37. The offense was not exactly all world. They were better than they have been and they were good enough to win but we still have problems on the line. Tucker and Price are not the answer to the glaringly bad O-line play we have seen for most of the season.