Thursday, April 30, 2009
The CIA's $1,000 a Day Specialists on Waterboarding, Interrogations
What is relevant about this story is that they gave the names, the name of their company, the city the company is located in, and displayed pictures of the men that the CIA consulted for it's waterboarding technique.
Does anybody else think that these treasonous SOBs at ABC have now endangered the lives of these men?
I decided to do a little research. Let me show you how ABC reported on the Valerie Plame case.
ABC: Plame/Libby Trial to Remind Americans of 'Dirty Politics'
Valerie Plame used the CIA's money to send her husband to Niger for the sole purpose of writing an attack op-ed on George Bush.
The two men ABC outed today were attempting to keep America safe, and succeeded.
ABC thinks outing Plame, who actually should have been the one going to jail for misappropriating government funds, was dirty politics. On the other hand, outing two men trying to keep America safe is perfectly okay?
This is nothing short of treason. But then it is the left so, for them, it's just Thursday.
WASHINGTON (AP) - "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.
It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.
And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.
Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review his progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.
This is an article well worth reading. It goes on to fact check 3 of the claims he made yesterday. Turns out he wasn't entirely on the up and up.
The thing that is most amazing about the article is it wasn't on Fox News. What are the libs going to whine about now? Any criticism put forth by Fox, no matter how well documented, is dismissed as a partisan attack. It's going to get harder and harder to explain away his ineptitude when the rest of the media starts catching up with Fox.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Specter Switches Parties; Says GOP Has Changed
The over riding question for the article is: What does Specter's switch say about the Republican Party? The inference is that Specter left because the party has changed.
This article, along with the rest of the far left media, is painting Specter as a loyal Republican who is discouraged by changes in the party. Some Dem leaders have gone as far as calling him a "prominent" Republican.
He voted 60% of the time with Democrats.
He spent most of the Bush administration attacking Bush.
He has been nearly as contemptuous of the military as any other Democrat.
Personally, I think calling him a moderate Democrat is a stretch. Specter, along with his fellow liberal "Republicans" Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins have not been standing firm against the so-called neocons and trying to preserve the traditions of the party, they have been an embarrassment.
No, the Republican Party did not leave Arlen Specter, Arlen Specter left the Republican Party because he was going to be beaten by a real Republican in the 2010 primary.
So the question is not what does this mean about the GOP, we're still here standing by our principles. The real question is, what does this say about the Democratic Party.
It is no small coincidence that Specter is being welcomed with open arms by the party of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel etc.
Bill Clinton wouldn't know a principle if it fell on him. His entire Presidency was marked by endless sleaze, governance by polls, and changing opinions based on the polls and how much trouble he had gotten into at the time.
Barack Obama, coming into the White House with a promise of "Change", has managed to put together one of the most corrupt cabinets ever. Few of his nominees have paid all of their taxes. One would be challenged to name a single nominee that didn't have to explain some indiscretion. From tax trouble, to bribery scandals, to grossly underestimating relationships with controversial figures, the terms "accounting mistake" "misspoken" and "reporting error" have become the new catch phrases of the Democratic Party.
Specter's fellow Congressional members Dodd, Frank, etc, etc have all been highly critical of Bush and the GOP while running their own little scams with our banking industry. In the mean time Pelosi is turning a blind eye to an endless series of scandals by her charges from the aforementioned Rangel and Frank on down the line.
With his lack of principles and say and do anything to get re-elected personality, I think Arlen Specter is finding himself among friends these days.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats sealed an agreement Monday night on a budget plan that would help President Obama overhaul the health care system but allows his signature tax cut for most workers to expire after next year.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., announced the agreement and key details in a statement.
Most importantly, the congressional budget plan would prevent Senate Republicans from delaying or blocking Obama's plan to vastly expand government-subsidized health care when it advances this fall.
The $3.5 trillion plan for the budget year starting Oct. 1 embraces several of Obama's key goals besides health care reform, including funds for domestic programs and clean energy, and a tax increase for individuals making more than $200,000 a year or couples making more than $250,000.
But the plan would allow Obama's signature $400 tax cut for most workers and $800 for couples to expire at the end of next year. Even after squeezing the defense and war budgets to levels that are probably unrealistic, the plan would cause a deficit of $523 billion in five years.
Can we all give a collective "I told you so"? Most of us were saying back in the campaign that he could not spend the money he wanted to spend and give the tax cut he promised.
Now keep in mind, this will be a tax increase. When you take away a tax cut you are, in effect, raising taxes.
The only problem now is my wife and I are going to have to adjust our budget when we lose that $13 a week. We had come to rely on that money. Something will have to go.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Normally a situation like this would be managed by the Health and Human Services Secretary but getting a HHS Secretary seated has been a bigger struggle for Obama then finding a Democrat that has paid their taxes.
First we had Tom Daschle who withdrew because he did not pay taxes, which brings up the question, just how bad of a tax cheat do you have to be to not be able to work in the Obama administration? With the standards of the administration so low, one has to assume he has never paid taxes and is counting his 10 cats as children.
Now we have Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas, attempting to be confirmed. At first she was delayed because of taxes. Luckily for her she only cheated the government out of several thousand dollars. This isn't even enough to get yourself attention in the Obama administration. You can even imagine the other secretaries laughing at her behind her back for her amateurish accounting, only a few thousand dollars, charming.
Now she is being held up because she "misrepresented" how much she is connected to a late term abortion doctor performing illegal abortions in Kansas. The doctor Sebelius supports is performing some of the latest late term abortions in the country. Bottom line is the man is a murderer and our soon to be HHS Secretary seems to think he is peachy.
The whole point of this is that we do not have a HHS Secretary currently. Obama is out golfing and can't take care of it. Therefore since things are quiet on the Canadian border, Napolitano isn't doing anything over at Homeland Security so she thought she would help out.
White House: Obama Updated Regularly, Despite Golf Outing
WASHINGTON -- President Obama went golfing and the Department of Health and Human Services is short a secretary, so other U.S. officials took the controls Sunday as the Obama administration ramps up efforts to find and isolate U.S. cases of swine flu.
During a White House briefing, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that HHS will issue a public health emergency warning that will free up resources to address the outbreak that has hit 20 Americans in five states.
Meanwhile, as Napolitano, Besser, presidential homeland security adviser John Brennan and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs addressed reporters, Obama golfed with Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Trade Representative Ron Kirk and White House aide Marvin Nicholson.
The White House permitted journalists no opportunity to video Obama golfing. Gibbs denied that the rare weekend White House briefing was designed to minimize attention that otherwise might have been paid to a presidential golf outing during a public health scare.
"I'm not sure I would draw a direct conclusion between the news today and the president's golf," Gibbs said. "The president has been updated regularly on this and will continue to do so as we will continue to regularly update you."
Interpretation: "This is nothing like when Obama dined on $100/pound steaks while people were freezing to death this winter."
To show she was on the job, Napolitano promptly held a news conference to announce that she wasn't going to do anything about the crisis.
US says not testing travelers from Mexico for flu
WASHINGTON, April 26 (Reuters) - The United States is not testing airplane travelers from Mexico for the swine flu virus that has heightened fears of a possible pandemic, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Sunday.
"Right now we don't think the facts warrant more active testing or screening of passengers coming in from Mexico," she said at a White House briefing
I personally would prefer the Health Secretary from Britain (they actually have one)
Swine flu: Every passenger arriving in Britain from Mexico screened
Every passenger arriving in Britain from Mexico is to be tested for signs of swine flu amid fears that the disease has spread across the world.
Two travellers were admitted to a hospital in Scotland when they complained of flu-like symptoms after returning from holiday in the country.
Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, said Britain was on "constant alert" after the previously unknown influenza spread from Mexico to America and cases were reported as far afield as New Zealand, France, Spain, Israel and Canada.
He said he had no doubt that there would be more cases of travellers coming into Britain with flu-like symptoms and promised that they will be examined "very, very quickly" by the NHS.
But, isn't he afraid of offending Mexicans?
This just in: While I am writing this Obama is giving a press conference. He's in a suit, must be done golfing, no wait, is that a golf cart off to the side?
Anyways, he is assuring us of two things.
-The government will respond to this accordingly depending on how the story goes. Interpretation: "We don't know what the Hell to do. I have a Homeland Security Secretary that's an idiot, the Mexican border is a sieve, and my golf cart went into the pond."
-He will promptly increase the federal funding of health care because the real problem here is that we are not spending enough money.
I'm feeling sick.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
As most people know Miss California Carrie Prejean was denied the Miss America crown because openly gay blogger Perez Hilton, in yet another stunning display of liberal tolerance, voted against her because she said she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman.
After voting against her he then proceeded to forever cement the gay stereotype by posting a hissy fit on his blog.
Turns out that Miss Prejean's grandmother Jeanette Coppola was not amused by Mr. Hilton's little sissy attack and released her own statement.
"I don't know why that gay guy Perez was even judging a contest with a bunch of girls. That doesn't make any sense. He should be judging a Chippendale's contest,"
No comment yet from Mr. Hilton on what it feels like to be smacked down by a little old lady.
I salute Ms. Coppola for showing she is tougher than most men on the left.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
This was the headline of an article discussing the recent Associated Press-GfK poll.
The authors went on to describe how 48% of "Americans" think the country is on the right track and 44% think it is on the wrong track. This question is often used as an indicator of how the country feels overall about both the situation in the US and how the President is doing their job.
The article explains that often we do not see a higher "right track" than "wrong track" number. They interpreted this to be an endorsement of Obama's policies to date.
There are a couple of things that are included in the poll that do not get quite the same fanfare but may be more relevant.
Of those who say the country is on the right track in the AP-GfK poll, 73 percent are Democrats, 17 percent are independents and 10 percent are Republicans.
So it turns out, it's not Americans that think Obama is doing a bang up job, it's Americans who are Democrats that are pleased.
This, 17 percent are independents, is very relevant though. Forget the Democrats and Republicans, these are partisan stances. Democrats are going to vote to keep a Democratic Congress for Obama and Republicans are going to vote against it. The 2010 election will be like most other elections in that the independents are going to go a long way in deciding the outcome.
Keep that in mind while reading these next two statistics. (emphasis mine)
_More than 90 percent of Americans consider the economy an important issue, the highest ever in AP polling.
_Nearly 80 percent believe that the rising federal debt will hurt future generations, and Obama is getting mixed reviews at best for his handling of the issue.
With a lot of independents and most Republicans concerned about the way the country is going, having the economy be the highest priority ever and concerns about national debt high may not be all good for the Democratic party.
Finally, looking at the last two statistics, they are high enough that a fairly large portion of Democrats are concerned about these issues also.
While the authors of this article appear to be happy about Obama's right tack/wrong track numbers, I think the administration should be looking at the rest of the poll more closely.
Allegations of ethics violations by a handful of Democrats in recent months reached something of a crescendo this week as two prominent members of Congress were accused of corruption.
California Rep. Jane Harman denied allegations that she offered to help seek reduced charges for two pro-Israel lobbyists suspected of espionage in exchange for help from a pro-Israel donor, also suspected Israeli agent, in lobbying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to give Harman a key chairmanship.
And California Sen. Dianne Feinstein denied that she devised legislation that helped her husband get a federal contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
But the latest cases, which involve Democrats, did not make the same splash that corruption allegations did a few years ago, when Republicans were on the receiving end of the finger-pointing.
Some Republican analysts attribute the difference to timing.
(for the record, the "GOP analysts" are a couple of former congressional aides)
So the reason the media is not reporting on the Democratic scandals is not because of a bias but because they are too busy?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job? She appears to be about as knowledgeable about border issues as a late-night radio call-in yahoo.
In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.
All the 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the United States directly from overseas. The notion that some arrived via Canada is a myth that briefly popped up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and was then quickly debunked.
Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."
Just what does that mean, exactly?
Just a few weeks ago, Ms. Napolitano equated Canada's border to Mexico's, suggesting they deserved the same treatment. Mexico is engulfed in a drug war that left more than 5,000 dead last year, and which is spawning a spillover kidnapping epidemic in Arizona. So many Mexicans enter the United States illegally that a multi-billion-dollar barrier has been built from Texas to California to keep them out.
In Canada, on the other hand, the main problem is congestion resulting from cross-border trade. Not quite the same thing, is it?
There were many here in the US that asked this question before she got the job. Too bad they weren't listened to.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
EXCLUSIVE: Senator's husband's firm cashes in on crisis
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Sources: Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Promising to Intervene for AIPAC
Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.
Harman was recorded saying she would "waddle into" the AIPAC case "if you think it'll make a difference," according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.
In exchange for Harman's help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.
Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, "This conversation doesn't exist."
Murtha's Defense Earmarks Draw Questions
Spring in Washington is "earmark season" - a busy time for Congressman John Murtha.
"That's my business," Murtha said. "I've been in it for 35 years."
As head of a powerful Defense committee, Murtha controls hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, reports CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. And he's not shy about directing money to those who give generously to his election campaigns.
CBS News has learned that this month, Murtha is steering new earmarks toward 10 companies that recently donated to his campaign.
Murtha wants $8 million for Argon ST, a defense contractor whose CEO gave Murtha the maximum allowed by law - $2,400 by an individual. He's directing a $5 million earmark toward Advanced Acoustic Concepts, which also gave the max - $5,000 for a political action committee - to his campaign. In all, 10 recent Murtha donors are slated to receive $31 million in Murtha earmarks for 2010.
Yep, it's a good time to be a FOD (Friend Of Democrats)
Mon Apr 20, 10:19 am ET
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court will consider whether prosecutors have to face a lawsuit from two men whose convictions for killing a retired police officer were set aside.
The justices said Monday they'll hear an appeal in the fall from former Pottawattamie County, Iowa, prosecutors.
They are being sued by Curtis W. McGhee Jr., and Terry Harrington, who were convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison in 1978 for the death of retired police officer John Schweer.
The men were released from prison after 25 years. Evidence showed police and prosecutors had failed to share evidence that pointed to another man as a possible suspect in Schweer's slaying. Some witnesses also recanted their testimony.
McGhee and Harrington filed lawsuits against the former prosecutors, including former County Attorney Dave Richter and his assistant Joseph Hrvol. They claimed authorities were eager to charge someone and that they were targeted because they are black. They also sued current County Attorney Matt Wilber after he suggested the right men had been convicted.
Richter and Hrvol argued that they were immune from lawsuits because they were acting within the scope of their job. Federal courts, however, rejected their motions to dismiss the lawsuits, saying the immunity did not extend to them.
The case is Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, 08-1065.
I have always been a fan of law and order. What do we do though when the law is not following the rules?
There is a bit of slippery slope here in that we cannot have prosecutors afraid to do their jobs.
When they intentionally prosecute a man, or men in this case, who they have information that may show their innocence what then? Obviously criminal cases are not clear cut but there are times when the evidence for their innocence outweighs the innocence of their guilt. Should they be allowed to ignore this, bury the evidence, and proceed with a miscarriage of justice?
In a civilized society we need to keep bad people off of the street so they cannot continue to harm others. In a just society the person locked away should be the person who commited the crime.
A victim deserves justice but these men lost 25 years of their lives to a prosecuter that may have broken the rules. They were locked in a cage for a quarter of a century for a crime they may not have committed. This is not justice.
Finally, these may have been bad men. Maybe they committed other crimes, or would have. Maybe the prosecutor ultimately saved us from them. Maybe they committed this crime. Doesn't fairness say they have a right to a fair trial to prove their innocence though?
As strong as I am on law and order, I would like to see the SCOTUS rule in the favor of the convicted men. Real justice demands that the prosecutors follow the same rules of society that they are charged with ensuring we do.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Obama Senior Adviser David Axelrod in response to this question:
Axelrod was asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" for his opinion on what the show's host described as "this spreading and very public disaffection with not only the government, but especially the Obama administration."
Now protesting the President's policies are unhealthy.
Barack Obama on the release of classified Department of Justice.
I guess the obvious question here is, does this statement apply to the tax code also?
Saturday, April 18, 2009
With that said, I find this article distressing for all college football fans.
Soon-to-Be-Jailed Michigan State Running Back Will Remain on Football Scholarship
Many athletes receive scholarships while they sit the bench. Now it looks like a college football player will get one while he sits behind bars.
Glenn Winston, 19, has been "suspended indefinitely" from the Michigan State football team following two misdemeanor assault convictions, but coach Mark Dantonio said the running back will remain on athletic scholarship while he serves a six-month jail sentence in the case, according to the Detroit News.
"By NCAA rules he's on scholarship," Dantonio was quoted as saying.
Winston was due at the Ingham County Jail Friday to start serving his time after pleading guilty last month to assaulting MSU hockey player A.J. Sturges in the fall, the paper reported.
Winston is expected to receive tutoring while in jail, according to the News.
With approval from his coach he could have his suspension lifted and be redshirted for his sophomore season upon completion of his sentence.
Where to start?
This man beat up a fellow athlete and the athletic department is shielding him.
My suspicion, without knowing the NCAA rules, is that the coach is being a little misleading about the scholarship rules. I believe that if he were kicked off the team, they would not have to honor the scholarship.
He is staying on scholarship and he is receiving tutoring. This all adds up to them letting him play once he gets out of jail.
Finally, my real issue is the notion that NCAA rules allow red-shirting in these circumstances.
For non-football fans, I've heard there is such a thing (weird), red-shirting is a practice in which a player sits out a year and gets the year of eligibility back. They only get 4 years of eligibility.
So the NCAA will let a player go to jail and then get that year of playing back?
Anyone still wonder where the NFL players that abuse and rape women, abuse drugs, and have a general "the rules don't apply to me" attitude come from?
Friday, April 17, 2009
MEXICO CITY -- There's nothing "on the schedule" when it comes to a possible meeting at the Summit of the Americas between President Obama and Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, but the president's ready tell Chavez the two nations should put aside "old arguments."
With the summit beginning Friday, Dan Restrepo, the president's top Western Hemisphere adviser on the National Security Council, told FOX News Obama might cross paths with Chavez.
"A chance encounter if it occurs," Restrepo said, in describing such a meeting, before launching into what sounded like Obama's pre-planned pitch. "Let's put the animosities behind us. Let's not have old arguments.
"Let's not have tired ideological arguments. Let's get down to figuring out how we can advance things that are in our national interest. Things that matter to the United States that should matter to Venezuela. Putting the arguments and ideologies of the past aside and working on pragmatic solutions to real problems that face our countries today," he said.
Obama has no known "animosities" or "tired ideological arguments" with Chavez (he vowed to meet him without preconditions during the campaign). Restropo suggested the burden of improved relations could be on Chavez.
This is touching. What preconditions could Obama possibly want to place on a renewed friendship with this nutty guy. It's not like Chavez was instrumental in manipulating the world oil markets last year leaving us with $4/gallon gas. He would never support terrorists that have killed people in Columbia for the last 4 decades. He certainly doesn't provide material support to drug lords.
This brings up one simple question. Are there any American-hating, terrorist supporting heads of state Obama does not plan to meet with?
From the Drudge Report
FOX RATINGS SURGE ON PROTEST COVERAGE
8-11 PM ET
CNN HEADLINE 909,000
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,980,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,239,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,947,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,740,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,401,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,185,000
COMEDY DAILY SHOW 1,777,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,499,000
COMEDY COLBERT 1,446,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,336,000
CNN KING 1,292,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,149,000
CNN COOPER 1,021,000
This is actually starting to be embarrassing.
CNN and MSNBC are literally becoming a joke. Looking at the ratings list above, there was a comedy show with higher ratings than both of them. There were two comedy shows with higher ratings than CNN.
Evidently viewers would rather watch professional comedians than the idiots at CNN and MSNBC
Cable Anchors, Guests Use Tea Parties as Platform for Frat House Humor
The point is that CNN has been sinking fast, MSNBC has been gaining viewers slooowly, the New York Times is failing along with a long list of other far left newspapers in the country.
Me, I'm perfectly content with these developments. I have no interest in seeing these organizations change or become more balanced, I want them to fail.
They exist for no other reason than to push their political agendas. We need to be rid of them and let them be replaced with organizations with at least a shred of integrity.
So turn off CNN and MSNBC. If your local paper is far left, cancel it.
I want these organizations to fail and I intend to use what little influence I have to see to it.
If the Tea Parties showed us anything yesterday, they showed us there is strength in numbers. Alone we are individual bloggers, together we are a movement.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
A social services accounting clerk wants compensation for missing his lunch break on April 3 during a horrific upstate New York immigration center massacre that left 13 dead plus the gunman.
James Kauchis, a government employee of the Broome County Department of Social Services, confirmed that he filed a formal complaint last week seeking the pay, according to the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin.
But he wouldn't discuss it with the newspaper.
"That's a matter between me, the administration and the union," Kauchis said.
The disgruntled accounting clerk was in his office in a nearby building when 41-year-old Jiverly Wong walked into the American Civic Association in Binghamton and opened fire with two handguns, killing 13 people and wounding four others before committing suicide.
The Department of Social Services was on lockdown for four hours to protect the 370 workers in the building, Michael Klein, director of the county's personnel department, told the paper.
Klein confirmed that Kauchis made the complaint seeking lunch-break pay.
Government officials expressed embarrassment and disappointment over the filing.
"A lot of people lost a lot more that day than just one hour," said Broome County Executive Barbara J. Fiala, adding that "99.9 percent of county employees stepped up to the plate."
Klein reportedly denied Kauchis' complaint because there was no violation of the union contract or of state labor laws.
During the four hours that social services employees were confined to their building, pizza and beverages were brought in by department bosses, commissioner Arthur Johnson told the newspaper.
This man has missed his calling, he appears to be better suited for the guy that makes the calls for collection agencies or the man who says no to life saving drugs at HMO's.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The top House Democrat overseeing the Department of Homeland Security is demanding that officials there explain how and why they wrote and released a controversial report identifying veterans as potential terrorist threats.
Rep. Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano that he was "dumbfounded" such a report would be issued.
"This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans -- including war veterans," Mr. Thompson said in the letter sent Tuesday.
"As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans -- whether a person's beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are 'extremist' or not," Mr. Thompson said.
The report "blurred the line," and Mr. Thompson said he is "disappointed and surprised that the department would allow this report to be disseminated" to law enforcement officials nationwide.
A person would have to be way past partisan to not admit that there are some scary people on the right of the political spectrum. There are of course just as many scary people on the left, maybe more. Reality is that most of the domestic terrorism perpetrated in the US over the last decade or so has been done by far left groups. From fire-bombing car dealerships and animal labs to burning down homes, the left has been busy. Again, this is not to say the right has been quiet.
The report released by the Department of Homeland Security by all accounts is full of supposition, unsubstantiated allegations, and theory. In short, it is about as substantial as the average blog.
I read the report (link for PDF version).
The first paragraphs sum up the report nicely. All emphasis mine.
(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.
— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first
African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
Then we continue.
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
So effectively, you are a criminal if you do not support the President or abortion, are concerned about losing your house, think that you have a right to bear arms or, more importantly, were in the military.
This report is not about extremism, it's about limiting free speech.
Finally, following the usual pattern for reports like this, the far left media is picking it up and reporting it as a significant finding without questioning the veracity of it. I toured the usual sites today, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, the headlines for it were along these lines "DHS report shows rise in right wing extremism". These headlines are scary. They would be scarier if there were even a shred of truth in them. The report shows nothing of the sort, it says it is possible.
This time may be different though, it may not work this time. We have Democratic politicians like Rep. Thompson above running for cover and we have a very unamused group of veterans groups pissed. We may get a twofer on this one, egg on the face of the administration and their PR wing, the far left media.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano is standing by the report. I believe that because of that, we need to throw out the report along with the Secretary. It is my belief that unless she retracts the report and apologizes, she needs to resign.
Anti-Spending 'Tea Parties' Mark Tax Day
ABC finally covered the events. No bias there.
Anybody else imagining that these people out protesting are working to take food out of the mouths of children and pregnant women?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
I always assumed that spokespeople for organizations were polished and well spoken. These are the quotes from their spokesman, Brian Kettenring, on the planned protests.
"This is the first we've heard of these so-called 'tea parties.' And, frankly, a bunch of small get-togethers by fringe conservative activists dedicated to simply saying 'no' is of little interest to us,"
"At this point, it would not surprise us to wake up tomorrow and see conservative media fingering ACORN's 500,000 member families as the principle cause of global climate change,"
The first quote. There has been talk of this for over a freakin month and it's his job to keep up with politics. Then we have the whole "fringe conservatives". To ACORN this evidently means anyone right of them since the Tea Parties are being attended by independents and Democrats along with Republicans.
As far as the second quote, what the Hell do you say about this? I thought to leftists, humans were the cause of global warming?
Quite frankly, if this is the smartest and most well spoken of the group, these people are more retarded than I thought.
I do have to give him one thing though. Considering that I browsed CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC's sites at the time of writing this and none of them were covering the Tea Parties either on their front page or politics page, maybe he really never has heard of it. Although all of the sites had room to cover the breaking news of the Obama's dog.
Source for quotes.
One can feel the undercurrent of fear rippling across the globe at this brazen display of machismo accompanied by his stern warning that they better stop it.
The pirates were so terrified it took them 3 days before they had captured their 4th ship since his smack down on Sunday. They were so concerned after his remarks on Monday that they have only taken 2 since then.
Now, before anyone gets offended, this is in no way an attack on the Navy. They did one Hell of a job rescuing Captain Phillips.
What is really needed here is letting the Navy do it's job and not micromanage it. This is not an international terrorists organization we are dealing with. It's a loosely related group of savages with rifles. We need to give the Navy the green light to clean them out and then Obama can concentrate on something important like house breaking his new dog.
Giving the pirates this much media attention and making Obama's victory over them so huge gives them far more credibility than they deserve.
To put it another way, this is the equivalent of terrorists taking a hostage in Baghdad and Obama overseeing an operation to free the hostage. Freeing the hostage would be a wonderful thing and Obama would deserve credit for a successful operation as he does with freeing Captain Phillips. It would not, however, be tantamount to single handedly defeating al-Qaeda.
My point is, let's see Obama actually accomplish something before we get too excited.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Interviews with Palin cited as "defining moment" in presidential campaign
Katie Couric is among the ten winners of the 2009 Walter Cronkite Awards for excellence in television political journalism for her "persistent and detailed" interviews with Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential campaign. Other winners include ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos (for national network program) and Hearst-Argyle Television (for station group).
The awards have been given biennially since 2000 and recipients are selected from a panel of eight judges chaired by Geneva Overholser, director of the USC Annenberg School of Journalism.
The judges recognized local broadcast stations KING-TV Seattle, which broadcast over 100 minutes of political coverage each week, and WGAL-Lancaster, Pa., which was recognized for its "surprisingly probing and revealing" interviews with Barack Obama and John McCain during the '08 election season.
Greg Fox, of WESH-Winter Park, Fla., won the award for individual achievement at a local station for helping viewers evaluate candidate's pledges in a "Truth Tests" series. It was Fox's second award.
News 8 Austin won its third local cable network award, this time for its ethnically diverse political reports and discussions with four families on key issues.
Other winners were Wisconsin Public Television, Now on PBS, and Jo Wan, of KTSF-San Francisco, who was recognized for her Mandarin-language reports on minority and female presidential candidates.
The awards will be presented to the winners at the University of Southern California campus on April 15.
No mention of Sean Hannity winning an award for his expose on the Rev Wright. Is anyone else surprised?
Source for article.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Karl Rove on Joe Biden's latest trip down fantasy lane.
The Vice President, known to be... how do I put this?... "inaccurate"... at times is now saying that on several occasions he spent long afternoons giving President George Bush a piece of his mind.
The only problem with his latest fantasy is that every person in the Bush White House from Karl Rove down to the woman who waters the plants has said that these sessions and criticisms never happened.
What was the damning evidence the Veep's spokesman have to support the claims?
Biden spokesman Jay Carney declined to specify the dates of his boss's purported Oval Office scoldings of Bush. Nor would he provide witnesses or notes to corroborate the episodes.
"The vice president stands by his remarks," Carney told FOX News without elaboration.
Good enough for me. I believe him.
For a good read on this incident and other Biden tall tales, go here.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
I won't even get started on the whole notion of a "Republican" voting for Obama.
The drug store chain Walgreen dropped the product after about a week without explanation. The creator, Joseph Pedott, appears to have meant well by it.
"I'm sick about it," Pedott, 76, said, disputing any suggestion that Chia Obama's Chia hair was mocking the Afro hairstyle.
"Obama had an Afro -- does that make him racist?" Pedott said. "So how the hell do you get racist out of it? And number one, you can give him a haircut."
Pedott said he is a Republican, but he voted for Obama and was just trying to do right by the new president.
"It's Americana," Pedott said. "I thought I would take the good name of Chia and support the good things that he's trying to do. ... That was a labor of love."
Pedott said he was so confident the Chia Obama was not offensive he even asked the Rev. Jesse Jackson to screen it when he ran into him recently at a Chicago eatery.
"He said, quote, 'I think this is a find product,' end quote -- I have three witnesses," Pedott said.
The point is, he really does not appear to have had any malicious intent here and even seems to be trying to honor the man. While I think the product is stupid, I don't think it is any more stupid than any of the other Chia pets. I certainly don't think it is racist.
So the question is, am I missing something here? Is this racist? Or is it what it appears to be, corporate suits who don't know the first thing about racism trying to decide what is and what isn't racism? What are your thoughts?
Source for article.
Source for picture.
Friday, April 10, 2009
While acknowledging that the recession makes the political battle more difficult, President Barack Obama plans to begin addressing America's immigration system this year, including looking for a path for illegal immigrants to become legal, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
Obama will frame the new effort — likely to rouse passions on all sides of the highly divisive issue — as "policy reform that controls immigration and makes it an orderly system," said the official, Cecilia Munoz, deputy assistant to the president and director of intergovernmental affairs in the White House.
Obama plans to speak publicly about the issue in May, administration officials said, and over the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration organizations, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall.
Some White House officials said immigration would not take precedence over the health care and energy proposals that Obama has identified as priorities. But the timetable is consistent with pledges that Obama made to Latino groups in last year's campaign.
He said then that comprehensive immigration legislation, including a plan to make legal status possible for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, would be a priority in his first year in office. Latino voters turned out strongly for Obama in the election.
I realize most of my readers are of the same mind as me in that they do not agree with this on a personal level. The question though is, is it a good idea politically?
Personally I think it's a grotesque idea. My main issue is that we are already losing enough jobs to outsourcing, now we're going to give the few jobs left in the US away? Then there is the issue of trust, I don't have any when it comes to Obama.
In broad outlines, officials said, the Obama administration favors legislation that would bring illegal immigrants into the legal system by recognizing that they violated the law, and imposing fines and other penalties to fit the offense. The legislation would seek to prevent future illegal immigration by strengthening border enforcement and cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, while creating a national system for verifying the legal immigration status of new workers.
He has already suspended all of these activities by the federal government. He has made no move to strengthen the border. He has suspended raids of companies. When one was held and illegals were rounded up, officials in the administration got angry and not only released the captured workers but gave them permits to work here. So we are supposed to believe he is going to crack down on employers and verify legal immigration status? Excuse me if I am skeptical.
This post is supposed to be about the political ramifications though. I believe politically it's a bad idea.
The only real arguments for doing it this year are ideologically and to keep a campaign promise.
If his rationale for doing it is ideological, then maybe the best thing to do is wait. Sometimes patience is a real virtue. He has 4 years, he doesn't have to do all he wants in the first year. It may be better to wait until the political climate is better.
Although it could be argued that he does not have 4 years. The way the fortunes of the Dems have been going in the last month or so, Obama may be realizing he has until 2010 to complete his agenda with a friendly Congress in place. Historically President's lose seats in their first off year election. That combined with the Democratic brand taking a hit recently and some high profile Senators in early trouble, he could have a rough time after next year. Remember, the GOP does not have to retake the Senate to cause Obama a lot of headaches. They just have to get enough votes to sustain a filibuster to block legislation.
If his reasoning for pushing it this year is to keep a campaign promise, why bother? He has already broken most of his other campaign promises without any political casualty. He has one thing Republican Presidents do not have, a free pass from the press. Democratic President's don't have to keep campaign promises.
Those are the arguments for pushing the legislation. What about arguments against?
There is one real simple one. In the words of our brilliant Vice President Joe Biden, it's a three letter word, J-O-B-S.
There is strong sentiment against illegal immigration in the country already. If his opponents are able to frame the issue in the context of scarce American jobs being taken, Obama could have a huge political price to pay.
This was summed up nicely by the following:
"It just doesn't seem rational that any political leader would say, let's give millions of foreign workers permanent access to U.S. jobs when we have millions of Americans looking for jobs," said Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, a group that favors reduced immigration. Beck predicted that Obama would face "an explosion" if he proceeded this year.
What are your thoughts on the political ramifications?
Source for article
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The family of a father and two sons allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant last year reportedly is suing the city of San Francisco, claiming its "sanctuary city" policy contributed to their deaths.
Anthony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, were returning from a picnic when they were gunned down on June 16, allegedly by Salvadoran national Edwin Ramos, 22.
The case prompted public outcry after it emerged that Ramos was convicted of two gang-related felonies when he was 17, but local officials did not contact federal agencies to determine his immigration status.
The Bologna family filed a lawsuit Tuesday alleging that the city's sanctuary policy shielding illegal immigrants from questions about their citizenship status — even those charged with a crime — was to blame, KCBS San Francisco reported.
"The city adopted and enforced a policy that was actually inconsistent with and prohibited by federal law," Bologna family attorney Michael Kelly was quoted as saying.
This is a lawsuit that could have significant implications. These sanctuary cities have been openly ignoring federal laws and providing a safe haven for criminals. If this lawsuit is successful, it may have a big effect on this is practice.
What are everybodies thoughts on the chances of this lawsuit being heard and successful?
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
This is one of my favorite songs. If it doesn't touch you, you may not have a heart. The Statler Brothers wrote this song as a tribute to war veterans. What it wound up being was a tribute to the ultimate sacrifice by a mother, her child.
What I like about this is it was nice to finally see the fallen troops and veterans of the Vietnam War get their due.
I was young when we pulled out. From what I remember though, the troops were not treated well. It is easy to think that the anti-war movement and the leftist media treat the troops in Iraq poorly. As bad as it can be, it pales in comparison to how the men and women of the Vietnam War were treated. Called killers (by a future candidate for President of the US, no less), spit on when returning home, and generally treated as a national embarrassment, it was roughly a decade after we pulled out of Vietnam before they really started getting some true recognition.
So enjoy the song and the well put together slide show. Most importantly, let's not forget what these brave men and women gave of themselves. Finally, remember those who have yet to come home.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Fox News Columnist Pays Big Price for Reviewing a Pirated Movie
By BROOKS BARNES
Roger Friedman, an entertainment columnist for FoxNews.com, discovered over the weekend just what Rupert Murdoch means by “zero tolerance” when it comes to movie piracy.
On Friday, the film studio 20th Century Fox — owned by the News Corporation, the media conglomerate ruled by Mr. Murdoch — became angry after reading Mr. Friedman’s latest column. (Movie bloggers had started opining about it late Thursday, alerting the studio.) The subject was “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” a big-budget movie that was leaked in unfinished form on the Web last week.
Mr. Friedman posted a minireview, adding, “It took really less than seconds to start playing it all right onto my computer.”
The film studio, which enlisted the F.B.I. last week to hunt the pirate, put out a statement calling Mr. Friedman’s column “reprehensible,” among other things. Then the News Corporation weighed in with its own statement, saying it asked had Fox News to remove the column from its Web site. (It did.)
Over the weekend, the Web site Deadline Hollywood Daily reported that Mr. Friedman had been dismissed. Sure enough, on Sunday came a revised statement from the News Corporation. “When we advised Fox News of the facts,” the statement said, “they promptly terminated Mr. Friedman.”
Interestingly, Fox News has been relatively silent. In a statement released on Sunday, the network said, “This is an internal matter that we aren’t prepared to discuss at this time.”
Efforts to reach Mr. Friedman were unsuccessful.
I am not defending Mr. Friedman, I believe he probably should have lost his job. I do suspect though that someone else as FoxNews.com was just as guilty for allowing the story to run.
What he did was run a review of the new X-men movie. There is speculation that this could cost 20th Century Fox millions on opening day.
What I do find amusing though is that this is the state of the media in the US. We have effectively reached a point in the American media in which there are no longer any standards. Reporters are held to no real guidelines for integrity. Reporters show biases with impunity and, let's say "stretch" the truth at times. How often do we see a reporter fired for any of these reasons?
Cost the home office millions though and your out of here.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Police officers accused of drunken driving. A female officer's alleged promiscuity and infidelity. A commander whose critics labeled his son a child molester.
Jeff Pataky said he uses negative complaints and anonymous tips to fuel his blogging crusade against Phoenix police. A headline on his Web site suggests rewards would be provided for "dirt" on police indiscretions.
Pataky, a former software sales and marketing executive who now focuses his energy shoveling content on www.badphoenixcops.com, said he believes his online criticism of the department - along with past criticisms of police investigations - led officers to serve a search warrant at his home last week.
Police officials said Wednesday that a Phoenix detective prompted the investigation after complaining about harassment, though they declined further comment.
Pataky said he felt the investigation was a response to a lawsuit he filed on Monday in U.S. District Court saying he was maliciously prosecuted by police in 2007 after his ex-wife accused him of harassment, a case later dropped. In his lawsuit he's asking for an unspecified amount for damages. City officials declined to comment on pending litigation.
Pataky's blog is known in law-enforcement circles for its off-color language that, according to the blogger, is aimed at Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris, Maricopa County Andrew Thomas and other public officials.
As usual we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions. Maybe the man searched is doing something wrong and the search is warranted. With that said, it is hard to see anything in the article that says this is nothing less than harassment.
We discussed this here on this blog a while back, what constitutes appropriate blogging? Does the man have an obligation to be truthful in his blogging? What are the limits on blogging?
Whatever the answers to these questions, searching a person's house and confiscating their equipment for writing an unfavorable, or even untruthful, blog is nothing short of police state tactics.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The government may require new faces in executive suites at banks requiring "exceptional assistance" in the future, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Sunday.
Critics of the Obama administration's move last weekend to force out the chairman of General Motors Corp., Rick Wagoner, as a condition for possible additional federal loans say that strong government intervention contrasts with measures placed on the financial industry in return for billions in infusions.
Geithner denied there was a double standard and put banks on notice that they may need to change leadership teams in exchange for accepting more money in the future.
"If, in the future, banks need exceptional assistance in order to get through this, then we'll make sure that assistance comes with conditions, not just to protect the taxpayer but to make sure this is the kind of restructuring necessary for them to emerge stronger," he told "Face the Nation" on CBS. "And where that requires a change of management of the board, we'll do that."
The treasury chief said that is what has happened at some big institutions that are getting large amounts of government aid. They include the mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were placed into conservatorship by the government last September, and insurer American International Group Inc., the recipient of more than $170 billion in help since last fall.
"We've already seen a substantial number of the largest banks in our country fail or be absorbed by other institutions, no longer existing at independent institutions. And where the government has acted, like in Fannie and Freddie or like in AIG, where we've had to do exceptional things to stabilize them, we have replaced the management and the board," Geithner said.
"And we've done that because we want to make sure that taxpayers' assistance is going to make these companies stronger, make sure there's accountability, make sure it comes with strong conditions. And we'll do that in the future if that is necessary," he added.
There have been circumstances here in Michigan where the state government has instilled overseers for school districts and at least one city (Flint) when their fiscal status is at a level in which they are in danger of collapse. I've always thought that the practice was a little extreme but probably necessary in the particular circumstances.
One thing that made it tolerable was that it was one governmental entity to another. When it is the federal government taking control of corporations, that is not nearly as comforting.
There is a strong argument in governmental oversight and even setting conditions for the bailout money they are throwing around. Firing CEO's and naming replacements, determining compensation, or selecting the boards of directors is going way beyond mere stipulations.
The thing that I find most alarming in this article is the ease at which the Obama administration is doing this. They have reached a comfort level in controlling businesses that is scary.
There has been much discussion on some news programs (okay, mostly on Fox), in online articles, and on the blogs of Obama steering us towards a European style socialism, we may have been reading him all wrong. The moves this administration have been making over the last few weeks are more reminiscent of a Venezuelan style government.
We may be looking back in the years ahead and realize how naive we were in the early months of the Obama Presidency.
For an excellent read on this very subject, check out this article by Stuart Varney of the WSJ.
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
"I wish to die and embrace martyrdom."
I would like to wish Mr. Mehsud success in his pursuit of death. In fact, I think we should try to help him.
Source of story here.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
I don't even know for certain if this is verbatim for the interview but it was worth a chuckle. Have a great Saturday.
The question that flummoxed the great orator
The Guardian, Friday 3 April 2009
Barack Obama, the World's Greatest Orator (™all news organisations), didn't exactly cover himself in glory when the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson asked him a question about who was to blame for the financial crisis. Normally word perfect, Obama ummed, ahed and waffled for the best part of two and a half minutes. Here, John Crace decodes what he was really thinking ...
Nick Robinson: "A question for you both, if I may. The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this crisis. France and Germany both blame Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right? And isn't the debate about that at the heart of the debate about what to do now?" Brown immediately swivels to leave Obama in pole position. There is a four-second delay before Obama starts speaking [THANKS FOR NOTHING, GORDY BABY. REMIND ME TO HANG YOU OUT TO DRY ONE DAY.] Barack Obama: "I, I, would say that, er ... pause [I HAVEN'T A CLUE] ... if you look at ... pause [WHO IS THIS NICK ROBINSON JERK?] ... the, the sources of this crisis ... pause [JUST KEEP GOING, BUDDY] ... the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . pause [I'M IN WAY TOO DEEP HERE] ... a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system ... pause, close eyes [THIS IS GOING TO GO DOWN LIKE A CROCK OF SHIT BACK HOME. HELP]. I think what is also true is that ... pause [I WANT NICK ROBINSON TO DISAPPEAR] ... here in Great Britain ... pause [SHIT, GORDY'S THE HOST, DON'T LAND HIM IN IT] ... here in continental Europe ... pause [DAMN IT, BLAME EVERYONE.] ... around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er ... pause [I'VE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT AGAIN] ... the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged ... pause [I'M REALLY WINGING IT NOW]. So at this point, I'm less interested in ... pause [YOU] ... identifying blame than fixing the problem. I think we've taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so, not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring banks are adequately capitalised, er, dealing with the enormous, er ... pause [WHY DIDN'T I QUIT WHILE I WAS AHEAD?] ... drop-off in demand and contraction that has taken place. More importantly, for the long term, making sure that we've got a set of, er, er, regulations that are up to the task, er, and that includes, er, a number that will be discussed at this summit. I think there's a lot of convergence between all the parties involved about the need, for example, to focus not on the legal form that a particular financial product takes or the institution it emerges from, but rather what's the risk involved, what's the function of this product and how do we regulate that adequately, much more effective coordination, er, between countries so we can, er, anticipate the risks that are involved there. Dealing with the, er, problem of derivatives markets, making sure we have set up systems, er, that can reduce some of the risks there. So, I actually think ... pause [FANTASTIC. I'VE LOST EVERYONE, INCLUDING MYSELF] ... there's enormous consensus that has emerged in terms of what we need to do now and, er ... pause [I'M OUTTA HERE. TIME FOR THE USUAL CLOSING BOLLOCKS] ... I'm a great believer in looking forwards than looking backwards.
Friday, April 3, 2009
I work with domestic violence on a fairly regular basis in the Emergency Room. I have seen women that have been kicked so hard in the shin their leg was broken. I've of course seen all of the usual injuries, black eyes, busted teeth, bruised ribs, etc.
I talk with women who have been sexually asaulted. One of the tough parts of this is convincing them it is not their fault. I want to be clear for anyone with cute comments about mini skirts, women going to bars, women being out late by themselves, save it. Sexual assault is never a woman's fault.
These women are broken. Not their bodies but their minds and their spirits. The trick is getting their spirits to heal. Broken bones heal. The real injury is emotional.
I have no answers here. I have no solutions. I will go back to work next Tuesday and do this all over again. I just saw this advertisement and wanted to share it. It's a good commercial.
The only real answer is to do what we are trying to do with our own children, teach them about this. Our boys have always been brought up to respect women. Our daughter is being brought up to respect herself.
From what I see in my work, a lack of self esteem in the woman is one of the main ingredients in abuse. This of course is not in anyway meant to blame the woman. The point is that men who like to beat women choose their mates well. They certainly don't want someone who is going to fight back or leave.
The second part of prevention is to pay attention to your children. One thing that helps abusive men is lack of support for the women. If the woman has a family that is active with her, they are too much trouble for an abuser.
We intend to keep involved with our daughter and let her know we are as near as a phone call. Any time, day or night. I can say with absolute clarity that Hell on Earth awaits any man who strikes my daughter.
In the title I said few things piss me off more than this. What is the thing that makes me madder? Child abuse. I deal with this also. Don't even get me started.
Finally, I have one more video. This is Red Jumpsuit Apparatus. While I like them, their music may be a little heavy for some but they do a lot for domestic violence. I think maybe one of them grew up in this atmosphere. This is a great anti-abuse song and video. (note, the embed was removed, probably for copyright protection, the link should work though, it's a good video)
Thursday, April 2, 2009
"The president's position throughout the campaign was that he would not raise income or payroll taxes on families making less than $250,000, and that's a promise he has kept," said White House spokesman Reid H. Cherlin. "In this case, he supported a public health measure that will extend health coverage to 4 million children who are currently uninsured."
Let's go back to the campaign for a clarification on this.
"I can make a firm pledge,"..."Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." Dover, N.H., Sept. 12.
"Listen now,"..."I will cut taxes—cut taxes—for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class." From his nomination speech at the DNC
"No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised,"..."whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax." Vice Presidential debate
We haven't even gotten to the increase in heating fuel taxes or gasoline taxes yet.
I am sitting here patiently waiting for the non-stop clips of Obama saying he won't raise "any tax" on the news. It'll be on any minute now.
When is a broken campaign promises not broken? When a Democratic President does (or doesn't do?) it.
Rest of story here.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Liberals Gone Wild
Order now and get the special internet bonus video of a behind the scenes look at preperations for the party
Only $9.95 + $4.95 S&H.
*Include an extra $2.99 for rush orders.