Diddakoi Walt Whitman
Take me home...St EmilionHey, what's a Diddakoi??Cast of CharactersThe Saga Continues...  kay@diddakoi.com

Updated: 03/09/04

Other places to visit

The Bleat
Iron Chef
Spaceflight Now
Japanese Engrish
Eric Conveys an Emotion
Free The Grapes
Tim Blair's Blog

What's on the nightstand

"Allan Quartermain"
by H. Rider Haggard



Tuesday, 09 March, 2004

TIME Magazine recently published an interview with John Kerry. Lt. Smash has a nice excerpt:

NOT SURE where John Kerry stands on Iraq? TIME magazine has an exclusive interview with the presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee on that very topic.

TIME: Obviously it's good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost?
KERRY: If there are no weapons of mass destruction— and we may yet find some—then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war.

TIME: So, if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes?,br> KERRY: No, I think you can still—wait, no. You can't—that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction.

That should clear things up.

That reminded me of an old Doonesbury comic strip that we used to have on the bulletin board near the phone when I was growing up. Ironically enough, it was about Ted Kennedy's run for the Presidency, with three panels of reporters listening to Ted ramble on and on and on . . . without saying anything. Then one reporter shouts out, "A verb, Senator, we need a verb!"

[Maybe it's something in the water in Massachusetts.]

On second thought, maybe it's something in the water in California:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Four Democratic California lawmakers on Monday proposed giving teenagers as young as 14 the right to vote in a move that would make the often trailblazing state the first in the nation to do so.

Under the proposal, youths under the current legal voting age of 18 would be able to cast ballots in state and local elections only, although their vote would not have full weight that an adult vote would.

For example, a vote cast by a 14 or 15-year-old would be counted as a quarter of a vote, and a vote by a 16 or 17-year-old would be counted as half a vote.

Lawmakers say giving teenagers partial votes would get them interested in the election process and would not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as it only applied to state ballots.

"We believe it's time to open up the franchise to young Californians at the age of 14, let them register and vote and be seriously included in the process," said Democratic State Senator John Vasconcellos.


New pictures of THE HOUSE are here.

Quote du jour:

"There ought to be one day -- just one -- where there is open season on senators."

-- Will Rogers (1879 - 1935) US actor, lecturer, humorist

previous ~ home ~ next