Tuesday night Open Mic for November 17, 2009

Open Mic is upon us once again. I have to say tha tI have liked the idea of open mic since we have started doing it regularly. It certainly gives me a slightly easier night for writing. But i am a bit disappointed in the fact that the original intent has not been nearly as realized as I had hoped. Certainly I want to foster discussion, and thus offer 4 short topics that can get some discussions going. However, I really thought that there would be more of folks offering topics of their own, as opposed to simply replying to mine. So don’t be afraid to post the things that you want to discuss as well as my topics. Or pull topics over from other days that you didn’t get to finish. That was the idea for open mic, a chance to tell me what we are going to discuss today, hitting the important things to you rather than me. None-the-less, we have some interesting topics this week. We have gay marriage, taxing the rich, and government agencies attempting to control the message.

 

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    AP POLL: Tax the rich to pay for health bill

    When it comes to paying for a health care overhaul, Americans see just one way to go: Tax the rich.

    That finding from a new Associated Press poll will be welcome news for House Democrats, who proposed doing just that in their sweeping remake of the U.S. medical system, which passed earlier this month and would extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.

    The poll, conducted by Stanford University with the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, found participants sour on other ways of paying for the health overhaul that is being considered in Congress, including taxing insurers on high-value coverage packages derided by President Barack Obama and Democrats as “Cadillac plans.”

    That approach is being weighed in the Senate. It is one of the few proposals in any congressional legislation that analysts say would help reduce the nation’s health expenditures, but it has come under fire from organized labor and has little support in the House.

    Read the rest of the article at WRAL.com: http://www.wral.com/business/story/6435948/

    To me this simply goes to the repeated conditioning of the American public. And to be honest I find it completely disgusting. There is no better way for me to put it. That a majority of Americans can think that it is morally OK to increase the amount of money “given to society” simply because someone has worked harder, gotten further ahead, and done better for themselves, speaks to the gradual decline of society.

    I know that for some of you I am preaching to the choir, and for others I am talking in a blasphemous tone. But the bottom line here is that this is sanctioned theft, pure and simple. The article explains that one of the options is a 5.4% increase in income taxes for those making $500k or more. 5.4%! That means that for someone at the bottom of this pay scale, health care for others will cost them an additional $27k a year (on top of the fact that due to our illogical progressive tax rates the wealthy are already paying far more than their fair share).

    There will come a point where we simply implode on ourselves, and rightly so. The wealthy in this country are made out to be villains. They are not villains. I look at my own situation and think to myself, “where were all you assholes when I was working 3 jobs to get ahead? Where were you when I was going back to school as a full time student while simultaneously working a full time job? All that hard work and late nights that I put entitles you to more of my money exactly why?”

    I cannot support this. I don’t care if a majority of Americans agree that stealing more money from the rich is acceptable or not. Because it goes against morality. The underlying issues I have with the left all revolve around this single premise: their belief that theft is OK if the cause is “just”.

    • I think of it as killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. I’m to the point of hoping it happens sooner rather than later. Its going to happen. So let’s just get it over with. It reminds me of being in Florida with an approaching hurricane. You know its coming and that it’s going to tear up alot of stuff. It’ll be scary and unpleasant, but if your still alive when its over, you go out there, clean up the mess and then get on with life.

      • Yes it does seem that way. But some small part of me is still praying that the health care madness will be squashed. If it is passed, then I am praying that it spells the beginning of the end for the Democrats in Congress. I despise both parties, but I see the left as far more dangerous to my everyday liberties.

    • Hmmm…USW….I think you do not like this approach. Imagine that…..penalizing the successful for…well….being successful.

      I am with you on this as my family falls into this category….but…you know that the more Congress comes up with ideas to tax…the more innovative we will be to not pay any more and shelter it. Progressive tax is stupid and robs incentive. Flat tax sounds better to me….everyone pays…..even the poor.

      Have a great day.

      D13

      • Flat tax of zero – everybody pays the same, too! And simpler to manage, and saves trees and time! Everybody wins!

        • Cool…I can go along with that…..then keep the peacemaker handy…it will be needed.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Federal Income Tax was not instituted until 1913. Prior to 1913, the federal government ran an ACTUAL surplus in both 1907 and 1912.

          Ask yourself this question:

          IF the government was obviously able to operate with a fiscal surplus in 1907 and 1912, WHY WAS IT NECESSARY TO INSTITUTE A FEDERAL INCOME TAX IN 1913?

          Here is a tantalizing hint… some other now-infamous organization also came into being in 1913….

          • Actually what kinds of federal taxes were there in 1907/1912 ? How/why was there a surplus? A link will do.. Thanks ;=}

          • v. Holland says:

            I need more than a hint-no tax-where does the money come to run the government-without them just printing non-money that is?

          • Federal Reserve

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Yes, the Federal Reserve came into being in the same year that the Federal income tax came into being on a permanent basis.

            This is not to say that there were NO taxes prior to 1913, there just was not a confiscatory personal income tax.

            The government also had ways of making money back then that they do not really resort to much now (tarrifs, highly one-sided “trade deals”, etc.)

            In addition, in 1912 and before, FEDERAL government spending on “social programs” was essentially $0.

            I will try to dig up some details of what taxes existed prior to 1913, what other means the government used to come up with money, and what expenditures were, but expenditures by the Federal government were absolutely MINISCULE by current standards.

            Also interesting to note that the Federal Reserve was brought into being to “Provide rational economic planning and a stable monetary policy”, and in the ~100 years since the Fed was created, the dollar has lost 95% of its value(!)

            Sounds like “stable monetary policy” to me!

            If you look at “inflation” from 1790-1912 and then compare it to “inflation” from 1913 to present, you may well throw up.

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    EPA Employees Silenced for Criticizing Cap and Trade

    Laurie Williams and husband Alan Zabel worked for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for more than 20 years, and they know more about climate change than most politicians. But when the couple released a video on the Internet expressing their concerns over the Obama administration’s plans to use cap-and-trade legislation to fight climate change, they were told to keep it to themselves.

    Williams and Zabel oppose cap and trade — a controversial government allowance program in which companies are issued emissions limits, or caps, which they can then trade — as a means to fight climate change.

    On their own time, Williams and Zabel made a video expressing these opinions.

    “Cap-and-trade with offsets provides a false sense of progress and puts money in the pockets of investors,” Zabel said in the video. “We think that these restrictions might not be constitutional,” he said.

    Their bosses in San Francisco approved the effort by Williams and Zabel to release the tape, but after an editorial they wrote appeared in the Washington Post, EPA Director Lisa Jackson ordered the pair to remove the video or face disciplinary action.

    Specifically, the administration’s chief environmental official did not want Williams or Zabel mentioning their four decades with the EPA — time spent studying cap and trade.

    Read the rest of the article from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/epa-employees-silenced-criticizing-cap-trade/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528FOXNews.com+-+Politics%2529

    Where to even begin. I would like to simply point out that some folks who have been working in the industry are giving us the facts that show our current paths are flawed and illogical. All the bleeding heart environmentalists who know exactly jack squat about the science are working on “solutions” that aren’t solutions.

    And when someone who actually has the training, education, and experience to speak against the current path, they are told to zip it. The fact that the EPA isn’t held over a flame for requesting that scientists shut op or support the government plan is baffling.

    As always, it is the government attempting to control the message. The only way to battle logic, reason, and facts is to ensure that those who have those three things on their side are silenced. We can’t have things like facts or logic getting in the way of the plans that big brother has for us.

    How long do you think it will be before these two patriots are vaporized and subsequently written out of the history so that they in essence never existed. The Ministry of Truth needs to get to work now. Bonus to all who get the reference.

    • 1984!

      • Bonus points for you Cyndi!

      • Bottom Line says:

        The rabbit hole runs deep on this subject. Deeper than most realize.

        1984 is just an exaggerated truth.

      • No question about it. I now have proof of the iron fist. we have in out little group of “rebels” as we are now called, a military person that still has 1.5 years to retirement that has been “silenced” by threat of losing his pension. We are getting Fox news involved…no one else will touch it.

        • D13:

          An honest question for you this morning Colonel.

          During the Clinton years this type of muzzling was common place in the agencies I worked with, primarily environment related.

          I am curious if you saw the same thing in the Military or defense related agencies.

          • It was BIG TIME in the Clinton administration and it is BIG TIME again, now. Officers in the field ranks (primarily 06 thru 010 are promoted upon the basis of their political standings. As a full Colonel (0-6), I was passed over three times for promotion to General (0-7) for three reasons even though I was more qualified militarily. Reason #1…I was enlisted before becoming an officer, Reason #2…. I was not a WEST POINT graduate. Did not have “the ring”…and reason #3 I was definitely not politically correct. As a matter of record, if you understnad officer promotions, we are graded on what is called OER (Officer Evaluation Report) These reports are very important. As a Lt. Colonel, it is written in my evaluation, and I quote, ” Lt. Colonel D13, exhibits candor and frankness to both subordinates and superiors alike”… this, in reality, is the kiss of death. That phrase alone told my superior officers that I am outspoken and will tell it like it is and pull no punches. This is not what they want in a general officer. I simply was not politically correct…however, I was VERY good in combat and combat related functions as a tactician. I had a unique ability to “see” things on the battlefield and map boards before they happened. Don’t know where I got the insight…it is natural. So, as a full Colonel and having been a commander in combat arms for 32 of my 40 years and commander everything from a squad to a Brigade…in combat…over four wars…I was passed over for a general position as an assistant division commander (maneuvers) for another Colonel that had NO combat experience, never commanded a combat team of any kind….because he was a yes man and he went to West Point. He spent his entire career in logistics and admin and never got his boots muddy….much less had holes punched in him by fast moving projectiles. I made no bones about my political leanings…I was not politically correct in my conversations…and I always, without fail, told the truth and what to expect. This was not acceptable…so…I am still a Colonel but I sleep nights.

            The Bush administration did not muzzle…Bush #1 did not muzzle and Reagan did not muzzle. There was a little during the Carter and Johnson administrations and BIG TIME with Nixon…..but I was a lowly staff sergeant at that time (Nixon). But as a staff sergeant in an A team with the 5th Special Forces…I had trouble keeping alive in Vietnam…so politically speaking….I did not give a shit at that time. Other people trying to poke me with bayonets and projectiles kept my attention. That and punching protesters back in the world in the nose.

            Long answer to your question…but the muzzles were on at times. It is particularly bad right now, I am told. The government cannot take my pension away now…but could while I was active.

            D13

            • Good Day D13

              I saw that in the Navy also. I had a LT that was amazing. He was prior enlisted who was not scared of anything or anyone. He didnt play political games on either side. He tried for years to make his next rank, but finally retired as a LT.

              I would always shake my head when I saw who made officer ranks. Same games played when it came to enlisted evaluation also. The guys with the perfect uniforms, who could kiss behind well, but didnt know anything about their jobs. They always manage to get the great evals. The guys in the pits who worked their butts off and were out spoken and less polished-not so much.

              Hope you have a great day!

            • Bottom Line says:

              They even use covert and subversive means to “muzzle”.

            • D13 and Ellen:

              Thanks for the response. I was not sure as I could only see the field I was engaged in. Looks like my suspicions are confirmed.

              The best to you both
              JAC

            • Good thing the government runs the military then D13! Would hate to have competent officers running things.

    • I have always believed that letting politicans or people who know nothing of the eviroment to decide how to fix the problem. I think people should be outraged over this situation with these two men.

    • I work in the pollution control industry, carbon capture does not exist. Cap and Trade is a horrible option that does nothing for the environment. I would be all for a bill that actually had real goals to reduce pollution.

      • Naten:

        Don’t the new PM standards pretty much eliminate most “real” pollutants?

        • JAC, just to be clear on what I am about to tell you. I am not a chemist. I work with equipment that reduces pollution. We sell this equipment to companies that need to adhere to the Clean Air Act. Companies can do many things to follow the Clean Air Act.

          Long story short, they “can” eliminate most real pollutants (carbon dioxide is not a pollutant), but they can still pollute to a degree. See long story below.

          Long Story:
          I checked Wikipedia for some of this information to make sure I will say it correctly. I will list the things I reference from wiki below.

          The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) lists six things as pollutants. They can all be controlled with current technology, included in this is PM like you asked.

          Places that pollute can do many things to reduce their pollution. One is build equipment that reduces that pollution. If you look up Air pollution on wiki, there is a section called “Control Devices” that goes into more detail.

          Also shown on the NAAQS wiki page, they are also allowed certain emissions levels of these six pollutants based on average emissions over a certain time period. I do not know if what is listed is up to date but some plants scale back production instead of building new pollution control equipment and can use these time periods to their full advantage. For example for power plants under 24 hour sample periods they can have higher production during times that electricity is used most and scale back for the middle of the night.

          Also, under the Clean Air Act of 1990, as it says on wiki, “The Acid Rain program, created under Title IV of the Act, authorizes emissions trading to reduce the overall cost of controlling emissions of sulfur dioxide.” (This does not include the current cap and trade bill that controls Carbon Dioxide)

          All of these loopholes can be fixed as you said “eliminate real pollutants”

          From Wiki:
          National Ambient Air Quality Standards- (NAAQS) standards established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under authority of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) that apply for outdoor air throughout the country.
          NAAQS requires the EPA to set standards on six criteria air contaminants:
          1. Ozone (O3)
          2. Particulate Matter
          3. Carbon monoxide (CO)
          4. Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
          5. Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
          6. Lead (Pb)

    • Would they qualify as whistle blowers?

      • Only if they were revealing violations of agency procedures or laws. Although the Dems have stretched the protection considerably when trying to rip the Republicans on this type of thing.

    • 6/29/2009
      EPA quashes report that is skeptical of global warming
      Slashdot has this interesting report:

      “CNET reports that less than two weeks before the EPA formally submitted its pro-carbon dioxide regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty ‘decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.’ In an e-mail message (pdf) to a staff researcher on March 17, the EPA official wrote: ‘The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.’ The employee was also ordered not to ‘have any direct communication’ with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic. In a statement, the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report’s author, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as ‘not a scientist.’ BTW, the official who chastised Carlin also found himself caught up in a 2005 brouhaha over mercury emissions after top EPA officials ordered the findings of a Harvard University study stripped from public records.”

      http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/06/epa-quashes-report-that-is-skeptical-of.html

      • And censorship must be that damn Bushes fault!

        http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/media-frenzy-over-global-warming/

        The 60 Minutes piece was the most hypocritical. The premise was that James Hansen, a top NASA scientist, claimed that the Bush administration had been trying to censor his work, and editing his and others scientific reports that indicated just how serious, and how serious a threat, is global warming. “There’s no doubt,” says Hansen, that “the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface.”

        When asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley if the Bush administration was “censoring what he can say to the public,” Hansen replied, “Or they’re censoring whether or not I can say it. I mean, I say what I believe if I’m allowed to say it.”

        How’s that for censorship? Going on 60 Minutes to complain you’re being muzzled. What a joke.

        Jay Ambrose, formerly editorial director of Scripps Howard in Washington, wrote a recent column pointing out that Hansen was never kept from saying anything publicly. But he cited examples of others, such as William Happer, the scientist fired as director of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy during the Clinton administration, for disagreeing publicly with Al Gore.

        The irony is that in making the case that the Bush administration has, in essence, been altering the information they disseminate to fit with their views, this is exactly what CBS did, by leaving out critical information that might have affected how the viewers would have felt about Hansen’s credibility, and the truth or ambiguity of the scientific claims.

        For example, according to an article by Marc Morano of CNS News, Hansen “publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president and received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by Kerry’s wife.” Furthermore, Hansen acknowledged that he contributed money to two Democratic presidential campaigns, and served as a consultant just this past February to former vice president and presidential candidate Al Gore, for his slide show presentations on global warming that he made around the country in recent months. Of course none of this was mentioned by Pelley.

  3. USWeapon Topic #3

    D.C. Board Won’t Allow Gay Marriage Ban Measure on Ballot

    A measure to let voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriages in D.C. cannot go on the ballot because it would violate a city human rights law, the Board of Elections and Ethics ruled Tuesday.

    The D.C. City Council is expected to approve gay marriage next month, but opponents wanted voters to weigh in.

    The elections board said allowing residents to vote on a ban would conflict with the city’s 1977 Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination.

    Errol R. Arthur, chairman of the two-member board, suggested as much at an October hearing. He said in a press release Tuesday that the “laws of the District of Columbia preclude us from allowing this initiative to move forward.”

    Similar ballot measures derailed same-sex marriage in Maine, where lawmakers passed a statute allowing gay couples to wed but voters repealed it, and California, where voters repealed court-sanctioned gay marriage.

    Read the rest of the article at Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/dc-board-wont-allow-gay-marriage-ban-measure-ballot/

    I know where you think that I am going to go with this. How dare the government get in the way of the people having a say as to what the path forward will be? The people run this country, not the politicians. And the people, therefore, have the right to have a ballot referendum that allows them to vote in order to have their voice heard. Power to the people!

    One problem, the people don’t have the right to have a say in this one. As many of you know I am a big proponent of gay rights. And I am a firm believer in the fact that GLBT foks are entitled to all the same rights that anyone else has. And that means that the “people” are not permitted to have a say in whether someone else’s rights are valid. They are rights, not privileges, which means you don’t get to vote to take them away.

    I know, marriage is a religious thing. The religious folks have a “right” to ensure that their sacred ceremony is not used for those “morally bankrupt” GLBT folks. Here is your problem, you gave up marriage as a religious or sacred right or ceremony the second you allowed government to control it, regulate it, or give away goodies associated with it. See how your allowing government in the front door blocked your exit through the back door. By associating marriage with government goodies, you made it a “right”, and now you don’t get to have a voice to determine whether you can violate someone’s “right”.

    So bravo to those who said no to the referendum. You don’t allow the citizens to vote to take away someone’s rights from them.

    • RWBoveroux says:

      So based on your logic, the only “rights” that can exist are the “rights” that are sanctioned by the government.

      I really could care less if a person decides to engage in intimate relations with another person of the same sex, or with a elephant, or with a electrical wall socket!! However, i am still going to stand up and tell them that ANY of those actions are harmful to themselves and to others. If they do not want to listen, then the repercussions are on them. I have done my responsibility to warn them.

    • USW

      I was happy to see this one. I am glad voters are not allowed to decide on what rights other Americans are allowed to have. It fine that they disagree with my life and I dont have any issue with protecting their religion views.

      But I suppose to have the same rights, ones that are not voted on.

    • “The religious folks have a “right” to ensure that their sacred ceremony is not used for those “morally bankrupt” GLBT folks. Here is your problem, you gave up marriage as a religious or sacred right or ceremony the second you allowed government to control it, regulate it, or give away goodies associated with it. See how your allowing government in the front door blocked your exit through the back door. By associating marriage with government goodies, you made it a “right”, and now you don’t get to have a voice to determine whether you can violate someone’s “right”.”

      I never gave them this right.

    • USW,

      “you gave up marriage as a religious or sacred right or ceremony the second you allowed government to control it, regulate it, or give away goodies associated with it.”

      The founders of our country were very religious, and the government they create was often used to enforce their religious views. This included hanging, banishment, etc. for persons practicing religion contrary to that the community approved. So the sacred right was given up before we had any
      large government. The colonies grew from a very ridged, religious based government that evolved into more tolerant religious based governments.

      Consider the Salem Witch Trials, this was local and regional GOVERNMENT acting. Nineteen of the accused, fourteen women and five men, were hanged. One man (Giles Corey) who refused to enter a plea was crushed to death under heavy stones in an attempt to force him to do so.

      Intollerance such as this, led to the seperation of church and state, but the combination of religion and government in America is how our country was founded. Earlier attempts to found colonies failed, as they were attempts to make quick profit. Only religious based colonies flourished
      in the New World.

      • America’s first legal code,(Laws Divine, Moral and Martiall) known as “Dales Code” after Thomas Dale, who had the job of enforcing them, in Jamestown, 1611. They had a distinctly Puritan tone, strict ENFORCEMENT of Sabbath, immodest dress forbidden and idleness punished.

        (just interesting, John Rolfe, fearing punishment for idleness, experimented with tobacco seeds until he produced the first sweet tasting Virgina tobacco. He also married the Indian princess, Pocahontas.)

        Two months out from England, Nov. 20, 1620, on the Mayflower,the colony’s leaders drew up a social compact. It created a body public to provide “just and equal laws” founded upon church teaching, the religious and secular governance of the colony to be in effect indistinguishable. This contract was based upon the original covenant between God and the Israelites.

        My point here, America was founded upon a religious
        government. Freedom of religion, separation of church and state came later, after the abuses suffered under using governments authority to enforce
        ones version of God’s laws.

        Boston, New York, etc., were also outgrowths of these colonies. So the governments roll in marriage
        in America dates back to our first form of government, and being a tradition, it has been difficult to fully separate the civil and religious aspects to date.

        My words, source from ” A History of the American People”, by Paul Johnson.

        A warning to any who might dare to challenge me on this issue,

        kinda full of myself, aren’t I?

    • And why did government get involved with marriage? It was another way to steal MONEY.

    • 1.Civil Unions-in my opinion is a Right and people who aren’t interested in a marriage, which has it’s own definition, should fight very hard to achieve rights equal to rights given with the marriage laws.

      2.Marriage-an institution with a definition, a tradition, and religious beliefs behind it that have been established for years. People who want to keep the original meaning of this word and the institution should fight as hard as they can to keep their traditions.

      Somewhere in this discussion we really have to acknowledge that for good or bad society does establish the societal norms and society thru majority vote decides what is and isn’t okay. Majority vote that denies people freedoms is bad and our society has steps that can be taken to try and stop this from happening but there is a difference between saying society has to give equal rights and saying society has to change their customs and give identical definitions.

      • Interesting thought….provocative.

      • V,

        If they want to keep their traditions, they need to remove government and the booty associated with marriage from the equation. So long as there is loot associated with marriage, they don’t have the right to deny that loot to anyone based on sexual preference.

        USW

        • v. Holland says:

          I disagree-the laws were written with a specific definition of what marriage is, they were passed based on that definition-you are trying to change the law based on a new definition. No one agreed to loot based on this new definition. So we need a new law that covers a new institution based on a different definition. If the old laws discriminate than they should be overturned but you can’t or shouldn’t be able to just change the law to suit new ideas without the majority voting on it or the supreme court throwing it out because it denies freedoms.

          • v. Holland says:

            I need to add this-I don’t believe that the old laws discriminate based on the definition of marriage-I think society has a right to keep their customs and I think people have the right to love and make a life time commitment to whoever they want and that they should have equal rights. I just don’t believe they have to take away long held societal rights to achieve theirs.

            • V.H.

              You must apply the STANDARD against your position.

              If a Right imposes on a Right of another person, then it is not a Right.

              All Rights must be equally held by all individually.

              A Society, may protect its customs within this constraint. If it doesn’t then it is based on tyranny. How nasty that gets is just a matter of time, not magnitude.

          • V

            I think that your primary mistake is that you are mingling the two things together. There is the traditional holy marriage, a union in the eyes of God, a spiritual commitment, a matching of souls.

            Then there is the government version of marriage. A legal contract that bestows certain privileges, tax breaks, powers, and status to a couple.

            If you want to keep tradition, get government out of the traditional version. So long as a government version exists, you have no right to deny that version to someone. This country is based on the premise of equality, which means equal access to the government version of marriage.

            I have no issue if you want to claim the word marriage as your own. But the only way that is acceptable is if a civil union is EXACTLY the same as marriage. To date, while there are similarities, civil unions are not the same as marriage. Therefore, GLBT folks are being discriminated against in terms of equal access to the government version of marriage.

            We have to be very careful not to mix the touchy feely traditional view of what marriage is to be confused with the contract laden government view of what marriage is. You can keep all the traditional stuff you want for yourself, but you have no right to deny GLBT folks the IDENTICAL legal rights that you have.

            • v. Holland says:

              My definition of legal marriage is Man and woman, I am not putting in Holy except to point out that it is a long held institution with a religious component to some people-but to all people the legal definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Gay unions do not met this requirement so a new law needs to be written -this has been attempted with Civil Unions and I agree completely with Civil Unions-I simply think that people who want gay unions should fight for their rights through making Civil Unions equal under the law not trying to rewrite an old law that was passed with a definitive definition of what it meant. It’s like they pass a law that 2 people can get married and someone changes the definition to say people can get married-by just changing the definition you have changed the law-so in reality no one has agreed to this new revised law.

              • V.H.

                Now I am not contradicting myself, just so you know up front.

                But your comments are DEAD ON CORRECT. That is if we want to support the rule of law and the “constitution” concept.

                After all, have we not been arguing that the document needs no interpretation? Is not our dislike for “interpretation” in reality a complaint against “changing definitions” without our consent?

                Now for the exception. In those states where the State’s Courts have ruled that state law or local statute are “unconstitutional”. This may or may not be a “changing of the definition” problem depending on specifics. It may be that because it was never challenged before there was no case law supporting the “norm” you describe. In this case, the overturning of a “societal norm” by the courts would be appropriate. Because the court never had a chance to validate whether such a norm or definition was appropriate in the first place.

                If the State Constitution were amended and then a later test of the marriage provisions brought against it which lose, this would also be appropriate. As the new “higher order law” must be met. It in effect changed the definition when it was passed by the people.

                In states where such precedent (man & woman only) existed in rulings I would say a shift in the Courts position, all other laws being equal, would be a change in definition without public input.

                Is this all making sense?

              • v. Holland says:

                Yes, I understand that there are exceptions based on whether or not the Constitutionality of a law has been established-I just know that Congress, writes laws and the Supreme Court doesn’t but alas nothing is ever simple.

              • v. Holland says:

                I have a question-even if the courts determined that the marriage laws were unconstitutional based on sex discrimination-does it necessarily follow that a law allowing Civil Unions for all be put in it’s place at the court level-or should the court throw out the right and Congress have to go thru the process of writing a new law? Or do they have to do that now? My point just because one law is seen as unconstitutional doesn’t necessarily mean a new law should be enacted.

              • V.H.

                If the current state law was deemed unconstitutional at the state level then I believe old law is reinstated if the new law was a revision, otherwise no law exists.

                One scenario is that for a short period there would be no law governing marriage by the Govt.

                If the Supreme Court rules a state law unconstitutional the same rules apply. The state will have no law in effect until a new one is written.

                Congress has no authority to pass a law requireing or denying certain state laws. Remember the defense of marriage act was just an expression of congression desire.

                Congress might have to act to address federal constitutional issues, only to restore the one man one woman criteria. Because most likely the court case would overturn this rule in those states which have it.

                So either the states drop the requirement or the Congress passes an Amendment making such laws legal. But the Amendment would require approval of 75 % of the state legislatures.

                The twist in all this is that quite often the litigation and thus court ruling only affects certain provisions of the law. The courts could strike down the one man one woman requirement but leave all prior govt authorities over marriage in place.

                This would simply jump us back in time to just before these laws started getting passed. I am guessing that is around 2000.

                A direct answer to your first question. If restrictions are deemed unconstitutional it does not require any new law be passed. Existing state laws would almost certainly apply, except for any descrimination. Thus, a marriage license could not be denied based on sexual orientation. The state would have no choice but to issue the license.

                The State’s alternative is to pass new laws conveying the same rights to all but use Civil Union permit/license in the title. That would let the churches and other established groups use the term Marriage for their ceremonies. Couples would probably have to get two documents at that point.

                But the horse will have left the barn for those who wish to stop the practice.

                There is some doubt in all this V.H. The Supreme Court has used “societal norms” in rulings before. The pornography laws are a classic example. So you never know how they might rule. They are not immune to politics so they may try to construct one of their famous “compromise rulings”. Which are usually so confusing they generate years of added litigation.

                I hope I have been of some help to you in all this.

                I personaly wish we were simply having this discussion in public instead of the courts and on talk media. Society tends to find solutions that are acceptable to the vast majority if govt does not interfere prematurly.

                The best to you and yours this evening.
                JAC

              • Thanks JAC, I’m obviously getting State and Federal mixed up but I know a lot more than I did.

    • USW:

      You have erred greatly. For you have just sown the seeds for the destruction of the Republican govenment you wish to resurrect.

      It is impossible under such principles for one law to prevent the citizens, who hold ultimate soveriegnty, from changing the terms of the law. The only thing the City could do legally is to allow the election and if passed, sue over a violation of the State and/or Federal Constitution.

      Given your logic, the answer to any attempted Amendment to fix our current situation could be dismissed as simply “in violation of the general welfare provision” .

      Now that is the principles at stake. I have not reviewed actual legal language of both the existing and proposed law. This is my CYA disclaimer if you couldn’t tell.

      Hope the travel willy’s have subsided.
      JAC

      • JAC,

        I am interested in understanding better where you think my flaw is. So let me further extrapolate on my position.

        There are societal norms. Marriage is one of them. However, those that held marriage as a sacred union made the mistake of allowing it to become a state sponsored event. They granted special privileges to those who got married. The granted the government the sole authority to regulate and control marriage. Once they did so, they changed the societal norm to law. In doing so, the law must provide equally for all. Since marraige is no longer a sacred insitution, but instead a government regulated status, then the people have no right to deny certain citizens that status. Does that make sense?

        • USW:

          That is not the point of my comment but let me answer your question with NO, if you are describing our current system. That being a Republican form of govt.

          “In doing so, the law must provide equally for all.”

          Under the current rules this is a FALSE statement. While some scholars argue that this is the true meaning of “general welfare” it is never been the law of the land and it certainly isn’t a societal value any longer. See your post on Tax the Rich and other such examples of discriminatory laws.

          Therefore your conclusion that “then the people have no right to deny certain citizens that status” is FALSE because it is predecated on your first FALSE assertion.

          The key point here is the functioning of a Democratic Republic. The citizens under such a govt have the right to change the rules of the govt at any time.

          Yes, that means they could decide to banish all left handed blue eyed people who live in New York. The Framers, in recognizing the tyranny of the majority problem set a higher threshold for “changing the rules”. It is 75% of the states.

          Now the same principle must apply to the local as the state and federal. The PEOPLE must have the right to change the laws that govern them. It is their right to do so. Within the confines of higher order law. Local < State < Federal.

          This is the crux of the dilemna identified by Black Flag, Kent and the other Anarchists. The minute you introduce Govt of any kind, you activate the right of those forming the govt, those who control the govt, to change the laws as they deem fit.

          An argument that no law can be passed which violates or revises a prior law is an argument for No Govt. or an argument for absolute tyranny. After all, who gets to make the first set of laws that can not be changed??????

          Now the reason I think the City Election Board is wrong is because both are "local laws". The citizen must be able to change the laws of any given level, consistent with the hierarchy of constraints imposed by higher laws. That is why the election should have gone forward and if the law passed it could be challenged as a violation of a higher order law.

          The only opening for rejection at a single level is the test of Constitution vs. ordinence or other such legislation. A State law can be found to violate a State Constitution. So if the proposed initiative is in fact a lower tier law within the City structure, then maybe it could be disallowed. But I have never heard of anyone denying the voters an initiative based on "their" determination of constitutionality. They usually publish their opinion and it is included in the opposing view point with the ballot initiative. If the intitiative passes it is quickly challenged and disposed of in the courts.

          The opponents to these laws should just let them pass and then test them against the Constitution's equal protection clause. I'm betting they would win.

  4. USWeapon Topic #4

    Want to Fight Climate Change? Hire Somebody

    With official U. S. unemployment at 10.2% and with Congressional debate on a climate bill sputtering, last week the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on how climate legislation might help fix the economy and create jobs. At the same time, President Obama announced he would hold a White House forum next month to gather new ideas for achieving the robust job creation that has so far eluded stimulus efforts, and opponents and supporters of cap-and-trade legislation both echoed the jobs theme, saying that in the end, any US climate bill must be a jobs bill.

    These are promising developments that may point the way to an effective climate policy. Because with them, the crucial enabling connection between creating jobs and fighting climate change has finally entered explicitly into our politics.

    I say “finally” because throughout most of 2009, even as the economy hemorrhaged some 3.8 million jobs, while they were framing proposals for climate change legislation, most members of Congress and their staffs were curiously reluctant to broach the obvious jobs connection. They expressed lots of concern over the impact of regulating carbon on energy producers, coal states and carbon emitters, but very little about its impact on jobs and workers in general. (President Obama’s 2010 budget proposal was a notable exception; it plowed carbon permit revenues back into a payroll tax credit to help working families, but unfortunately that provision didn’t pass Congress) .

    and further in the article (bolded mine)

    But double-digit unemployment crosses an undeniable perceptual threshold in the public’s mind. When we hit it, the political rhetoric around the climate bill shifted, and the jobs connection was finally made explicit. Acknowledged or not, it’s been clear for a long time that in order for climate legislation to pass, it must not exacerbate job loss, and that for it to make sense, it should take advantage of this once-a-century opportunity for retooling the economy to optimize job gain.

    Read the rest of the article at the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-drayton/want-to-fight-climate-cha_b_361336.html

    And so the climate crap takes yet another of its twists and turns, aimed specifically at swaying public opinon on a bad bill by manipulating the public’s perception or by distracting them with bogus bullshit that does nothing but negate discussion of the bill based on the merits of the bill.

    The bottom line: Cap and Trade is a bad bill. A very bad bill. It has not worked anywhere else it was tried. Many countries are now wishing they hadn’t spent the billions they did in initiating the wackiness that was the Kyoto protocol. The bill will increase the financial burden on every American. The bill will not affect the environment one single iota. And the majority of the American public is now beginning to understand this fact.

    So the only logical step is to confuse the issue. Turn it into a “jobs bill” instead of a crazy carbon cap scheme. Let’s not pretend that this type of tactic isn’t being used on every single piece of garbage legislation that the US Congress is churning out (and make no mistake, the Congress has churned out nothing but garbage for many, many years). Stimulus, Health Care, Cap and Trade, Patriot Act, whatever. The politicos spin whatever angle they think will sway a public that doesn’t seem to have the ability to differentiate whether the info is relevant or not.

    I don’t care if the cap and trade bill creates 4 million jobs, reversing all the job loss in the last year. A bad bill is a bad bill. Punishing 304 million with increased financial burden in order to create those jobs is not only unethical, it is futile.

    We need to be asking whether Cap and Trade is ethical, if it will be effective, if it is constitutionally sound. We need to be asking if it is the RIGHT thing to do. If we find that all other things are good, then we can ask about how it creates jobs. I couldn’t help but highlight the one sentence in there, “take advantage of this once-a-century opportunity.” It certainly seems as though the Democrats these days are constantly looking to capitalize on any opportunity or crisis that appears. They never seem to ask first whether the changes they are making are good changes. They simply must attempt to capitalize on every crisis or opportunity that they can in order to further their crooked agenda.

    • And how are other nations acting on climate change? Some with lofty plans to go green? When windmills won’t work, will they commit economic suicide
      or choose a lesser evil?

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110902195.html

      Britain seeks to expand nuclear energy
      10 new plants planned as nation looks for ways to cut emissions

      By Anthony Faiola
      Washington Post Foreign Service
      Tuesday, November 10, 2009

      LONDON — The British government unveiled plans Monday to launch one of the world’s most ambitious expansions of nuclear-power capacity, calling for the construction of 10 plants to help meet surging energy demands in the era of global warming.

      After years of resistance to construction of nuclear-power plants, the British plan underscored how nations around the world are scrambling to find ways to generate more energy while slashing the emissions that cause climate change. To do that, nations including the United States are considering more reliance on nuclear power, which, while generating radioactive waste, produces almost no carbon emissions.

      To keep the lights on in Britain while meeting strict goals to slash emissions, the government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown identified 10 sites in England and Wales for new nuclear plants, with the first expected to come online by 2018. Many of the plants are envisioned to replace aging plants that are set to be decommissioned in coming years and are a vestige of a period of accelerated nuclear construction from the 1950s to 1980s.

    • This is nothing but hype and propoganda.

      If anyone wants to really talk about green jobs then lets start with Oregon, the greenest of green.

      Here is a summary of their green jobs report issued this past summer.

      “Oregon had an estimated 51,402 green jobs in 2008, according to the new Oregon Employment Department report The Greening of Oregon’s Workforce: Jobs, Wages, and Training.

      The report, based on a survey of employers, found that green jobs accounted for three percent of Oregon’s private, state government, and local government employment. Green jobs were reported in all broad industry groups and were spread across 226 occupations.

      The survey defines a green job as one that provides a service or produces a product in:
      1. Increasing energy efficiency
      2. Producing renewable energy
      3. Preventing, reducing, or mitigating environmental degradation
      4. Cleaning up and restoring the natural environment
      5. Providing education, consulting, policy promotion, accreditation, trading and offsets, or similar services supporting categories 1-4

      The three industries with the most green jobs were construction, wholesale and retail trade, and administrative and waste services. Combined, these industries accounted for 47 percent of Oregon’s green jobs.

      The five occupations with the most green jobs were carpenters, farmworkers, truck drivers, hazardous materials removal workers, and landscaping and groundskeeping workers. Together these workers represented 27 percent of Oregon’s green jobs.

      The average wage for green jobs in 2008 was $22.61 per hour. On average, green jobs tended toward slightly higher wages than jobs across the entire economy. Occupations with higher minimum education requirements generally paid higher wages than occupations with little or no required education.

      Minimum education requirements for green jobs closely mirrored requirements for all jobs statewide. Nearly two-thirds of all green jobs require no more than a high school education, seven percent require some college, seven percent require an associate degree, 18 percent require a bachelor’s or graduate degree, and four percent required other education. But as is true in the rest of the economy, high-wage green jobs are more likely to require post-secondary education.
      Nearly one-third of green jobs required a special license or certificate. The most common special requirements were specific to occupations, such as an electrician’s license. Other common requirements were environmental cleanup or abatement certifications, equipment operator licenses and commercial driver’s licenses, and prior on-the-job experience.

      Employers project the number of green jobs will grow 14 percent between 2008 and 2010. Most growth will likely be in the farming, fishing, and forestry occupations, transportation and material moving occupations, and production occupations.”

      Oregon’s total unemployment has continued to rise following this report. So what do you think the odds are of a 14% growth in “farming, fishing, and forestry occupation” between now and the end of 2010.

      Here is how the greenies manipulate the information. The conclusion is: “But as is true in the rest of the economy, high-wage green jobs are more likely to require post-secondary education.”

      Fair enough, as the data shows. But then look at the overall makeup of green jobs. “seven percent require some college, seven percent require an associate degree, 18 percent require a bachelor’s or graduate degree, and four percent required other education.”

      By my calculator that is a total of 36% requiring some college all the way to higher degrees. That means that 64% DO NOT require secondary education, and thus do not require the higher wages commanded by such education. Or they command the wages and don’t need the education. Either way, the “political rhetoric” won’t match up with reality.

      Hope this gives you all something to chew on.

      JAC

  5. USWeapon Topic #5

    AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book ‘Fact Check’

    Sarah Palin is no normal politician, and at the Associated Press, apparently “Going Rogue” is no normal book.

    When the former Republican vice presidential candidate and former Alaska governor wrote her autobiography, the AP found a copy before its release date and assigned 11 people to fact check all 432 pages.

    The AP claims Palin misstated her record with regard to travel expenses and taxpayer-funded bailouts, using statements widely reported elsewhere. But it also speculated into Palin’s motives for writing “Going Rogue: An American Life,” stating as fact that the book “has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto.”

    and further in the article:

    The AP, an organization with over 4,000 employees and 49 Pulitzer Prizes earned for asking the hard questions, wouldn’t comment on their own reporting for this story.

    Reviewing books and holding public figures accountable is at the core of good journalism, but the treatment Palin’s book received appears to be something new for the AP. The organization did not review for accuracy recent books by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, then-Sen. Joe Biden, either book by Barack Obama released before he was president or autobiographies by Bill or Hillary Clinton. The AP did more traditional news stories on those books.

    The attraction to Palin doesn’t appear to be partisan, since AP didn’t fact-check recent political tomes by Republicans Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich.

    read the rest of the article from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/ap-turns-heads-devoting-reporters-palin-book-fact-check/

    You know I almost have to chuckle at this point at the absolute hysteria and fear that just shows itself in the liberal left at the mere mention of the name Sarah Palin. I know that Ray hates her for his own reasons. And I am prepared for his attempt to trivialize my arguments by simply claiming that I have some sort of physical desire for her. But the hatred is contagious in the left camps. I have seen more vitriol aimed Palin’s way over the last week leading up to her book release than I have seen since the campaign. And the only reason that I can come up with is that the left is completely petrified of this little hockey mom from Wasilla.

    It is almost comical to listen to them. They decry her as ignorant and unimportant, but they spend more time attempting to paint her as ignorant and more time making her important than I have seen them do for any political figure in recent memory. If she is unimportant then why is the AP assigning 11 people to fact check her? If she is so unimportant then why did every liberal news outlet spend so much time this week bashing her and attempting to belittle her?

    I can point out one reason…. she shatters the stereotype that the left attempts to paint the Republican party with. The left loves to paint the Republicans as the rich white guy party. They are bigoted against women, blacks, the poor, immigrants, you name it. And the Republicans embracing a female who didn’t attend an Ivy league school simply makes the left look like the dumbasses they are for making those claims in the first place. Everything about Palin shatters the stereotype that the left has created for Republicans. And that scares the living shit out of them.

    I have to say that I have defended Palin in the past, but I think I am going to do so with a little more vigor in the future. I don’t even think she is a great candidate, but I am quite tired of the liberal tactics that represent the dream of Saul Alinsky. When I see a person receiving far more scrutiny and far less fair treatment than any of the other liars, thieves, and radicals in the political spectrum, it quite honestly pisses me off.

    Because let me tell you, any party that attacks Palin the way they do while simultaneously accepting and embracing Nancy Pelosi is one that has lost touch with reality. She is a regular woman, and I know that is a scary thing for the political elite in America. Lord forbid we have someone in the national landscape that isn’t one of the “in crowd”. Given the “hands off” approach given to the ethical breaches of every single member of Congress, I am now formally logging my disgust with the media, the liberal elite, and anyone else who attacks this woman while ignoring the cesspool they are swimming in.

    • I’ll be impressed when the AP puts 11 fact checkers on Obama’s books. In the meantime, I’ll be sure to vote for the Republican candidate the Left smears most. 😉

      • But you have to admit it is fun watching the left pee their pants every time her name is mentioned. It is like a Pavlovian response at this point. Someone says “Palin” and the liberals get a nervous look on their face and begin spouting nonsense and attacking anything they can find. I am positive that if she were to donate all her belongings to the poor, the left would find a way to spin that as an evil act by a repugnant woman.

        • That woman terrifies me. It’s visceral at this point. The thought of her as POTUS fills me with a deep kind of dread that is usually reserved only for shows hosted by Ryan Seacrest.

          ::shudder::

          Adding, regardless of the fact that they went out of their way to fact check her, does it not bother anyone that she so blatantly lied about so much? How about the fact that she’s willing to lie in writing about things which are easily verified?

          If she is so unimportant then why did every liberal news outlet spend so much time this week bashing her and attempting to belittle her?

          I can point out one reason…. she shatters the stereotype that the left attempts to paint the Republican party with. The left loves to paint the Republicans as the rich white guy party.

          Perhaps that is also the case, but the real reason is that she is diametrically opposed to virtually everything we on the left stand for. She is the living, breathing physical manifestation of our fears of the right. She is a gun toting, bible thumping, hickish, abstinence only, young Earth, corrupt, cynical, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, pathological liar of a politician. And we know that she has the charisma and appeal (and yes, looks too) to win. Of course we hate/fear her.

          She is a regular woman

          No. She isn’t. Say what you will about her, I think she’s actually pretty sharp. But she’s cynical as hell and she’s playing the Republican base like a Stradivarius. She’s not June Cleaver. She’s the Glen Beck in high heals.

          any party that attacks Palin the way they do while simultaneously accepting and embracing Nancy Pelosi is one that has lost touch with reality. […] I am now formally logging my disgust with the media, the liberal elite, and anyone else who attacks this woman while ignoring the cesspool they are swimming in.

          I think I have made my distaste for Pelosi quite clear in the past. That said, while she is a raving lunatic, she is a raving lunatic on the left. Why should the left devote resources to attacking their own when we have plenty on the right. The “conservative media” (Fox) has 9,310 article on Pelosi according to my Google search. Compare this to CNN’s 8,770 articles on Palin. They’re both getting plenty of attention. (note, this doesn’t take into account whether each was the focus of the article or just mentioned, nor does it clarify whether the attention as positive, negative, or neutral, so take it for what it’s worth: just a measure of “media attention”). However, Fox news has 27,600 hits for Palin – more than 3 times as many as for the Speaker of the House – what does that tell you?

          Now, on the flip side, I hope Palin sticks around. It’s worth it for the Tina Fey sketches.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Dammit Mat – you beat me to the punch! Thank you sir! 🙂

          • Matt and Ray:

            A great job of making USW’s point in the most articulate way.

            I award you both 500 bonus points………..each.

            Here is the part I don’t get with you. Why are her views on abortion, gay marriage and the age of the earth imortant? She has never used her political position to try and force these beliefs on others through legislation. When running with McCain she stated she would not push for such legislation. Yet you continue to be freaked out by her moral standards.

            Seems to me its about as rational as those who opposed Mitt Romney JUST because he is Mormon.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Wow JAC – kinda of astonishing is your response given how much of the past year has been spent deconstructing and attacking virtually every underlying belief and philosophy of the left and how all those have ended up as programs and initiatives (Cap N Trade, Healthcare Reform). What gives my man? Seems to me there is every reason to be concerned about what a politician believes.

              • Ray:

                The NOT so subtle difference is those who have certain beliefs but their ROOT belief is that they should not impose their values on others, as opposed to your leftist ideologues who’s core belief is “there should be a law”.

                So you see, there is no conflict where you suppose it to be. I obviously have hard core rightest view of the world. Yet if I were elected to “represent” the people I would have to put my own desires aside. That is because honesty is a virtue stemming from the underlying principle of reason and truth.

                It is not the fascists belief of the progressives alone that I feared for so many years. It was their outright stated goal to reform this country in their image.

              • Two words, JAC: Terry Shivo.

              • And how is that a rebuttal to my statement?

                It in fact supports what I just said.

                Did you not hear the Leftwing Republicans stating their intent to impose their value system upon us by legislative and legal means?

                I do recall it was everywhere in the media at the time.

              • My point is that the right is also quite capable of abuse of power. When the right goes power mad, you wind up with things like Shivo. This was only possible because Bush was so adamantly in line with the religious right.

                You say Palin wouldn’t try to force her beliefs on us, but I think she would (just as everyone seeking high office would). Nobody seeks power to maintain the status quo or balance the sides. They seek power to do what they think is right or for power’s sake.

                She would try to do what she thinks is right and I think that would be disastrous on a number of fronts as listed above.

              • Matt:

                The Right has never and can never abuse power. For the Right abhores govt power.

                You need to pay more attention my young friend.

                Stop chewing on the cover and look inside the book.

              • But the cover tastes so delicious…

                I know that, in theory, the right abhors the govt. But in practice…

                Your vision of the Right would never try anything like that. But the people who run for office are not doing it to scale back perceived abuses of government. They are doing it to substitute beliefs.

                Or do you somehow believe that Mrs. Palin is different from every other politician?

              • Matt:

                you said “You say Palin wouldn’t try to force her beliefs on us, but I think she would (just as everyone seeking high office would). Nobody seeks power to maintain the status quo or balance the sides. They seek power to do what they think is right or for power’s sake.”

                I agree with the last part. The conundrum here is that those who wish to reduce the abuse would in fact be doing what they think is right which is opposite of the Statists.

                I think your assumption of Palin’s future actions are misplaced. Not in the outcome but in the motivation. I do not see a person who would unilaterally impose her views upon us.

                But she is a politician, and under our system that requires forming alliances and coalitions in order to get elected. The pressure from the left would be tremendous. I expect we would see her “support” all types of behaviorial legislation, knowing full well it would never pass. Sound familiar?

                Matt, sometimes we have to look past some issues if others are more important. There is absolutely no chance of a Gay Marriage Amendment, or an Abortion Amendment passing in this day and age.

                Our biggest problem is our financial affairs and its effect on our economy and future liberty. Any candidate that can show me they have a clear grasp of that issue and the needed solutions is going to get a pass from me on issues that are in reality non-starters.

                That by the way, was why I wrote Mitt Romney in as my vote for Pres. It was his stance on the upcoming housing bubble and associated derviative meltdown. Would his idea have worked? Don’t know. But I do know he was the only one talking about it 1 and a half years before it happened.

                But all we heard about in the media was MORMON, MORMON.

              • Matt:

                I do think that Palin is different than most other politicians. Right now, today.

                Tomorrow? Fat chance. It would take a very special person of tremendous strength and conviction to avoid the Potomac Fever.

                You have not been following the discussion, or choose to ignore my defintions when discussing my assertions. Black Flag is on the FAR RIGHT. I stand just left of him but still on the RIGHT.

                USW is standing right of center with one leg stretched way over to the left side. But he is getting a cramp so soon he will fall back to the right side, because NOBODY can occupy the center.

                The value that determines your position on the scale is not your religeous views but your desire to support the govt’s use of force on its citizens.

                Palin has done nothing yet, that I am aware of, to cause me fear in this regard. But then we go back to my first comment here. Can she stand against the hurricane?

                The coldest wind blows from Right to Left on most days. It is that wind she must stand against.

                She may need to gain a little more weight to keep from being blown across the line against her will.

                You know why everyone in Wyoming is over 6 foot tall? The winds blow the smaller ones away.

              • Matt:

                Young Mathius I think I owe you an apology.

                I just re-read your post and hidden within the words was I think your understanding of MY definition of right and left.

                Applause for Matt. Next time don’t use it as a caveat mixed with the “yeah but”.

                And absolutely, there are those who wish to use govt to impose their “moral values” upon us all. They are all “leftists” regardless of what animal they ride.

            • Thank you for the points. Can you tell me what the exchange rate is to gold?

              Sex ed: She has repeatedly pushed for abstinence only education (note that her teenage daughter got pregnant despite this education) in schools. This is not irrelevant. The person perhaps most influence by her, her daughter, still had sex. This is an untenable education policy but she supports it anyway despite volumes of evidence and personal experience to the contrary. This is not a personality trait I look for in my leaders.

              Abortion: Though she has (and I applaud this) not pushed for a ban on abortions (other than late term, but we’ll let that go for now), she would not work to defend them as a right of the mother either. I do not wish merely that my leaders not try to eliminate this right, but that they actively defend it. All-in-all, I think this counts against her much less than some of her other stuff. However, I have no confidence that President Palin would appoint judges who share my views.

              Gay Marriage: While campaigning for election as Governor of Alaska in 2006, Palin declared that she supported the 1998 Alaska constitutional amendment that proposed adding “…a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman” to the Alaskan constitution.

              Drug Policy: Palin is opposed to efforts to decriminalize marijuana (we’ll just leave this one alone…)

              2nd Amendment: She believes the Second Amendment precludes the constitutionality of any regulation of handgun possession. Any. She has stated that she is against a ban on semi-automatic rifles. I like gun control.

              Young Earth: There are reams of science available against this theory. Yet she rejects them and chooses her faith over science. Insofar as she keeps it to herself, I am ok with it, but there is a troubling personality trait behind this. As with my earlier complaint, I do not want my leaders to be the types of people to choose ideology over science. If she will do it here, where else might she do it?

              Stem Cells: She believes embryonic stem cell research causes the destruction of life, this research is inconsistent with her pro-life position and she does not support it. Again, ideology over science.

              And then there’s this: she’s a liar. It’s been demonstrated time and again. And she seems to have no regard for the fact that she’s been caught repeatedly – she just keeps going. She also blames others for her failures and mistakes. She blamed the McCain campaign for her $150,000 shopping spree. And she does not mind being absolutely ruthless – recall “palling around with terrorists.”

              • Oh Matt, so she’s a liar……

                Then you must really be disgusted with this….

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                25 seconds of that clip, he paused to listen to the adoration (applause). So…it really equates to 1 lie every 17 seconds (1:21 of talking).

              • I’ve seen that before..

                Transparency: I actually know a guy working on his transparency website (Ozymandius – he posted here a couple of times). He says that they have some big goals. We’ll see how this shapes up. He didn’t promise that this would happen overnight. So far these aren’t lies, but they are taking a while.

                Brandeis: He misquoted. I see no evidence that this is lie rather than a misattribution or whatever – it’s pretty innocuous. “Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant.” Who cares if she said it or not, it stands on its own.

                That said, I expect a certain amount of dishonest from politicians (even the ones I like). Obama has certainly lied and will certainly do so again. I challenge you to find one major politician who hasn’t. However, Mrs. Palin takes it further. Perhaps this is a judgment on my part. What say you to the rest of my criticism?

              • Matt:

                I do not know the exchange rate because it is changing every second.

                Sex Education: It was and remains my understanding that she pushed for abstinence as an additional approach taught in schools, not the “exclusive” method. It is after all the ONLY FOOL PROOF method of birth control. That is a REALITY you can not escape. Seems to me that if our schools are for educating and not indoctrinating then REALITY should be included in the curriculum. Whether few will listen and follow is not relevant to the discussion of “teaching” factual information.

                Quite frankly I see the continued attacks on Mrs. Palin over her daughters pregnancy as nothing more than an attempt to “blame the parent for the childs behavior”. Yet every parent knows we can buy em books and buy books, but they may just eat the covers.

                Why would we use “most people ignore reality” as a justification for not teaching reality?

                Abortion: Your argument lacks logical connection to the role of an elected official. If you take no action to overturn a law protecting a right, then you are “protecting that right”. It seems to me that what you really want is a cheerleader. That is what seems to excite most modern progressives. They seek a carismatic advocate.

                Gay Marriage: I agree that govt should not impede upon the right. But you are hypocritical in your argument. You support govt intervention and imposition on my other rights so what makes this one so special. Your dislike for Palin on this issue is based on contradiction.

                If you support the concepts of govt imposition, positive rights, and social contract then how can you oppose the citizens right to amend their contract as they see fit? This is simply one of the logical conclusions for the value system you hold.

                Young earth, flat earth, upside down earth: To the point I was trying to make. Did she attempt as an elected official to force this teaching into public schools? I heard her make a comment to the effect that we don’t know what a 1000 years means in God’s time. So 7000 years could mean 7 billion or trillion in todays time. While I would share your concern about evidence of thinking, the real question should be whether her faith (religon) is actually impairing her critical thinking skills needed to solve problems.

                As I said, to use your criteria is the same justification used to oppose Romney. “I can’t vote for a man who is so impaired mentally that he belongs to a cult”. Yes, that was a true quote.

                Embryonic Stem Cells: Actually science supports her view that an “embryo” is a human. Again, you want govt intervention on some issues but not others? Is it not a valid ethical discussion to have as to whether allowing the use of embryos might somehow increase the pressure for more abortions or the creation of embryos solely for the purpose of stem cell research? We somehow started discovering other stem cell sources without using embryos. Oh and gee whiz, seems the science has caught up to where the ideologues said it would.

                It is a cop out in my view Matt when we use arguments like “putting ideology over science” to hush debate over very serious and relevant ethical issues in our society.

                You infer that these positions are fringe. They are shared by about half the population. You may disagree for your own reasons, but Palin’s views should not be dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic. Not saying you did, but that was the point of USW’s post.

                Now Matt, while I respect your right to opposing Palin over these issues, despite your flawed logic, do you really think it deserves the level of vitriol we have and continue to see?

              • I’m only going to address your last point, because I don’t think we’ll get anywhere on the others.

                do you really think it deserves the level of vitriol we have and continue to see? Absolutely not. She terrifies me as a potential President, but I don’t hate her. I just think she’s on the wrong side of a lot of issues.

              • And thus….the horse race begins. HOwever, Matt…she stands no chance. She will not pull the independent. I know, for I am one and she does not have my vote…..but it is entertaining to see the hype….especially a woman from the right…writing what will be a best seller.

              • Forgot to add…no I will not buy her book. When she quit as governor and did not finish her term, I did not find her reasons valid. But, validity means nothing anyway,,,,,any more.

      • Cyndi,

        My first thought as well including Hillary. Did they fact check either of their books? Seems they only want to report the negative stories about conservatives. A liberal lying, even if they are currently in a high office, is not newsworthy.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      When the subject of this woman comes up – I love to lean on Matt Taibbi:

      “Sarah Palin is a symbol of everything that is wrong with the modern United States. As a representative of our political system, she’s a new low in reptilian villainy, the ultimate cynical masterwork of puppeteers like Karl Rove. But more than that, she is a horrifying symbol of how little we ask for in return for the total surrender of our political power. Not only is Sarah Palin a fraud, she’s the tawdriest, most half-assed fraud imaginable, 20 floors below the lowest common denominator, a character too dumb even for daytime TV — and this country is going to eat her up, cheering her every step of the way. All because most Americans no longer have the energy to do anything but lie back and allow ourselves to be jacked off by the calculating thieves who run this grasping consumer paradise we call a nation.”

      and

      “Right-wingers of the Bush-Rove ilk have had a tough time finding a human face to put on their failed, inhuman, mean-as-hell policies. But it was hard not to recognize the genius of wedding that faltering brand of institutionalized greed to the image of the suburban-American supermom. It’s the perfect cover, for there is almost nothing in the world meaner than this species of provincial tyrant.

      Palin herself burned this political symbiosis into the pages of history with her seminal crack about the “difference between a hockey morn and a pit bull: lipstick,” blurring once and for all the lines between meanness on the grand political scale as understood by the Roves and Bushes of the world, and meanness of the small-town variety as understood by pretty much anyone who has ever sat around in his ranch-house den dreaming of a fourth plasma-screen TV or an extra set of KC HiLites for his truck, while some ghetto family a few miles away shares a husk of government cheese.”

      More?

      “So, sure, Barack Obama might be every bit as much a slick piece of imageering as Sarah Palin. The difference is in what the image represents. The Obama image represents tolerance, intelligence, education, patience with the notion of compromise and negotiation, and a willingness to stare ugly facts right in the face, all qualities we’re actually going to need in government if we’re going to get out of this huge mess we’re in.

      Here’s what Sarah Palin represents: being a fat f’ing pig who pins “Country First” buttons on his man titties and chants “U-S-A! U-S-A!” at the top of his lungs while his kids live off credit cards and Saudis buy up all the mortgages in Kansas.

      The truly disgusting thing about Sarah Palin isn’t that she’s totally unqualified, or a religious zealot, or married to a secessionist, or unable to educate her own daughter about sex, or a fake conservative who raised taxes and horked up earmark millions every chance she got. No, the most disgusting thing about her is what she says about us: that you can ram us in the ass for eight solid years, and we’ll not only thank you for your trouble, we’ll sign you up for eight more years, if only you promise to stroke us in the right spot for a few hours around election time.

      Democracy doesn’t require a whole lot of work of its citizens, but it requires some: It requires taking a good look outside once in a while, and considering the bad news and what it might mean, and making the occasional tough choice, and soberly taking stock of what your real interests are.

      This is a very different thing from shopping, which involves passively letting sitcoms melt your brain all day long and then jumping straight into the TV screen to buy a Southern Style Chicken Sandwich because the slob singing “I’m Lovin’ It!” during the commercial break looks just like you. The joy of being a consumer is that it doesn’t require thought, responsibility, self-awareness or shame: All you have to do is obey the first urge that gurgles up from your stomach. And then obey the next. And the next. And the next.

      And when it comes time to vote, all you have to do is put your Country First — just like that lady on TV who reminds you of your cousin. U-S-A, baby. U-S-A! U-S-A!”

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        And so my point being – this woman is packaged and fed to the masses much the same way as any other politician – but with the added danger that she is packaged to make you feel like you are her/she is you – and she is not. Appealing to the innate narcissism in people is creative, but still very dangerous.

        I could care less how many fact checkers AP assigns to her book. Last I heard only one AP person was actually doing any fact checking – so the number “11” is even more dubious.

        And to echo Mat – Sarah is that mind melting sitcom – it is mere comedy now to watch her take petty shots and looking backwards – and this is the new face of the GOP?

        Yikes!

      • Ray:

        You know, 5 minutes ago I would not consider supporting her run for higher office. But after reading all that CRAP you have convinced me to reconsider.

        In fact I may travel over to Billings this week for her book signing. Just so I can give her a big fat check for her new PAC.

        She may have alot of flaws, but none compare to the garbage you just posted. If that represents the thinking of the “mainstream” left in this country then it is time for some serious cleansing.

        • The insiders that I know (who are real insiders) predict she has a 30% chance of winning the Presidency in 2012.

          • Watch that jump when they find out I AM supporting her.

            Nothing I would like to do more than make the Lefty Fasciolist’s nightmare come true. Just to watch their heads explode.

            I do recall that her chances today are higher than Mr. Obama’s were at the same distance from his running (three years).

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              And JAC – you can at least lay claim to being able to say you support a proven liar. You see – us evildoers from the left get that added benefit of the radical left-wing folks like Media Matters, FactCheck, Politifact and Huff to do the heavy lifting for our lazy asses in vetting the truth.

              • Demonstrating that a politician lies is like suddenly discovering that the Sun shines.

                Since people still see to vote for them, lying doesn’t appear to be an issue.

              • No kidding.

                But you have to admit the vitriol against this woman while letting the rest skate is quite hilarious to watch.

                That is if it wasn’t costing us so dearly.

                Hope your day is filled with good thoughts my pirate friend.

                JAC

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          So what’s the crap JAC?

          To tell a story – a co-worker of my wife was goo goo eyed way back when Sarah was announced as the running mate. She loved that she felt she could ‘connect’ to her – you know – her being the Supermom, down-to-Earth type, so and so forth – hell – the both had the jet black hair and the Kawasaki 704’s. At the time – I was still undecided somewhat in the race – but all I asked of her was to step aside from this ridiculous notion of supporting a candidate because they have been packaged like no other and you can ‘relate’ to them – dig deeper and look at who they really are.

          The ignorant masses chanting “Sarah! Sarah” are no different than the morons that voted for Obama because they have similar skin color/tone.

          Under Taibbi’s frat boy writing are, what I believe, some accurate depictions of Americana – he makes me laugh but also makes me think.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          And sir – that writing merely uses many of the same arguments you yourself have espoused here (esp that of packaging and message manipulation) – but by you denying those when applied to a conservative versus a liberal merely cause me to question your true motives. There is only one side to your mouth – apply the same test regardless of the person – and ignore the histrionics.

          • That writing Ray does not use any of the arguments I have been making. It is in fact a prime example of the manipulation you reference. Furthermore, it stands as a testament to the nature of any discussion put forth by the left. Attack, call names, insult, etc etc…..

            This is not the first time you have accused me of hidden motives and double speak. Which tells me you never heard anything. I mean trully heard it.

            So it is time for a test. Who’s on the left Ray?

          • US’s point is clearly affirmed with all of your and Mathius’ “fears”. Your scared, just admit it…she scares the livin’ crap out of all liberals. That fear alone makes me want to see her as the next POTUS…sure couldn’t be much worse than it is now.

            • Famous last words..

              • v. Holland says:

                I’m not disagreeing with Terry I just thought this was funny :

                I was watching a program the other night and someone said” things couldn’t be any worse-the other guy said “that shows a lack of imagination”

              • Indeed. The robot revolution approaches.

              • We…errr..They have a plan.

              • Didn’t say it couldn’t be worse…just not much worse.

              • Mathius and all,

                With all due respect, your disfavor with Palin is well noted. It is also well noted that politics corrupts. That being said could the discussion then turn to WHO? Exactly who and why would you suggest as a nominee.

              • Someone, anyone, who doesn’t want the job. I humbly submit that we should forcibly draft GA Rowe. I would take VP, but should be disqualified on the grounds that I would want the job.

                Ah, catch 22…

      • From the desk of Mrs. Weapon,
        I love that Ray spent half a page going on and on why she isn’t this and she can’t do that. You know she isn’t running for an office right? What are you so afraid of? I have to agree with my husband…. I think Ray is secretly in love with Sarah.

        I don’t know if anyone watched her on Oprah yesterday but she was AWESOME! She took a true stand on why she wrote the book and was not afraid to attack the Republican machine. Right now she is not running for any political office…. she is just a woman with a voice. Why does this make everyone have such strong reaction to that voice? Because she has the power to influence. Yesterday Oprah asked her what she would be doing in 2012. Her answer…one of her kids would be starting school and she was excited to see him in a new environment. She also said having a title (as an elected official) lessens her ability to get things done. The title constrains you but the voice sets you free. I don’t know about you guys but Sarah represents what we want to see…a woman who doesn’t care what people think and wants to do the right thing.

        After being in Alaska last summer, I understood the mentality of Sarah so much more. Once there, you realize it would be quite challenging to fight the “man” because the “man” is everywhere…. from the old, desolate lumber towns now converted into stops for the cruise ships, or the true lumberjacks who no longer have jobs because of the Clinton administration banned of types of logging, and the little bit of fishing still allowed that isn’t sanctioned by the government. People stay in Alaska or move to Alaska to get away from the rat race. I admire anyone who would want to leave this beautiful place to fight to make the US better. It is easy to sit back in your log cabin and ignore everyone and everything around you. This is one of the few places humans have not totally destroyed (and don’t give me your global warming no more ice caps speech. I was there…the glaciers are still there…don’t worry.)

        The hate of Sarah comes down to this…. she is a beautiful woman who isn’t afraid to be beautiful. She is also not afraid to challenge topics she disagrees with. Men that have such a strong hate have the dislike for the same reason they hated the Prom Queen…. she doesn’t want to date you! She has the ears of many women, and men, and can do whatever she wants and people will listen. Is she ready for the Presidency? I don’t know but people had no problem electing the “Savior” when he had little experience. The difference between Sarah and Obama…she isn’t tied to the machine. She gives the machine the middle finger and says, “I am going to do it my way”. And for those who still cannot let go of the “I can see Russia” comment…give it up. You obviously didn’t listen to the entire interview with Katie. If you really think she meant it, you have a lot more to worry about than her chance of being our first woman President. Do your research people…stop letting the NBCs and CNN’s of the world influence you.

        And for the comment about Bristol having a baby at such a young age? Honestly, there is nothing to do up there except have sex…I would probably be pregnant at 17 too!

        • Ahhhhh….Mrs USW. You had me until the last sentence. (By the way, I recognize it as a joke).

          Most men,,,,right and left,,,,do not like to see independent women, I think. Personally, I love them but have to admit, I am not a Palin fan nor voter for her. It is interesting to see that she apparently scares people and I do not know the reason why?

          I feel that she is picked on very much like Hillary Clinton. Because she is female and has the audacity to speak up. I was not a Hillary fan either, although I did vote for her in the demo primary….yes, I was one of those that voted democrat to pick the lesser of evils in the primary. however, my point is that she is pretty. Heaven forbid….a pretty face. no one gives her credit or rising to the power of governor and then fighting the ingrained REPUBLICAN establishment and winning. The “good old boy” system. That was cool. She lost me when she quit as governor. I voted for McCain but not because of Sarah Palin….my opinion of Obama was less than that of McCain and I am a veteran. I wish we would have had someone more conservative. However, I am not a far right winger. I do not agree with Palin an several issues.

          It has been stated on here that she likes guns…so do I. But they further stated that she did not vote against assault weapons….neither would I. I could give a rip less about who has a legal assault weapon. I question why they would have it but I would never question the right to own it. Sorta like all Muslims are not terrorists….assault weapons do not kill. People kill. I have never seen an assault weapon fire itself. But this is ideology and it is something that is used by the left to degrade her but they do not use it to the same vitriol as they would with a male. To disagree with her is great….but this attack is ludicrous and is nothing more than I expect from those that fear this pretty face female….as if that is a virus or something.

          Her ideology is no different than most conservatives on the far right but because she is a cute female, with a family, and a pregnant daughter (that has no relevance here whatsoever)…that seems to be more important than 32 czars taking away rights that belong to Congress and a POTUS that clearly does not have the interest of the US at heart.

          It is a nice distraction tho….and interesting that because she is pretty and female and has written a book (that I will not buy) that will be a best seller….that seems to piss people off and for the life if me…I do not know the why. She is no threat and will not get the nomination….but it is fun to watch..

          USW and I share some same ideology and warrior mentality….tell him hello and the two of you keep each other happy.

          D13

        • Mrs. Weapon,

          A nice post, I have been waiting to see how Ray/Matt respond.
          (wasn’t holding my breath) I see again and again their refusal to hold Obama or Hilary to the standard they judge Palin by, and if logic is not used in determining what a person/candidate stands for, they must be using “feelings”
          or “belief” to judge.

          Ray & Matt believe.

          Sorry, no video

          I wasn’t worried
          I walked into the room
          I saw the serpent’s shadow
          Against the silver moon

          They said as long as you believe
          You’ll be alright
          And I wasn’t worried
          ‘Till I saw one bite
          You could touch, you could feel
          You could smell them all through the night
          But as long as you believe, you’re gonna be alright
          Or you’ll be running, running for your life

          But I didn’t worry, when I caught the spell
          I saw the eyes, saw the teeth, beads of sweat
          Think I’d gone to hell

          They said as long as you believe
          A snake won’t bite
          Or you’ll be running, running for your life

          But I’ve gotta tell you
          Power over snakes
          Sure makes me feel so different
          From a cane break

          And just as long as you believe
          A snake won’t bite, yeah
          Taking up serpents can take your life
          They stuck my hand down in there without a bite
          Just as long as you believe, boy
          You’ll be alright
          I should be running, running for my life

          Yeeeeh uh
          Oh I didn’t tell you
          About the one that got bit
          On the face, on the arms
          Between the legs, on the back of the neck
          Uh
          You see, he didn’t believe
          The boy didn’t believe
          I said he didn’t believe
          He didn’t believe

          And just as long as you believe, a snake won’t bite
          Uh
          So I didn’t worry ’cause the snake won’t bite
          The snake won’t bite
          The snake won’t bite

          Salvation on Sand hill, Sammy Hagar

        • Mrs. USW,

          Good response to Mrs. Palin. I find it actually comical how there is so much attention being given to someone on a “book tour”. The media has provided Palin with some of the greatest free advertising I’ve ever seen. I still don’t see what she did so wrong to be as hated as she by the “lefty’s”.

          I don’t see her as a viable Presidential candidate at this time. She went from Alaskan politics to the national stage, a huge jump, and was in over her head. She certainly didn’t get much help from the McCain campaign, which was very poorly run at best (I’m being nice here).

          Why do so many Libs dislike her? They cannot see her as a threat, can they?

          If she does run in 2012, she needs her current publicist to run things, because he just fooled all the Libs to help her sell her book!!! Who’s the dumb ones now?

          Hope your all healed up and feeling better.

          G!

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Ah – Mrs. Weapon – glad to engage you this evening on this idiocy….

          “I love that Ray spent half a page going on and on why she isn’t this and she can’t do that. You know she isn’t running for an office right? What are you so afraid of? I have to agree with my husband…. I think Ray is secretly in love with Sarah.”

          Half a page? I reposted a bunch of Matt Taibbi writings – cuz I think he captured well what has turned into a sick play/comedy on the state of affairs. What am I afraid of? I am more and more afraid everyday of an electorate full of dopes that don’t give two shits about substance – that was Taibbi’s point in case you missed it. I am afraid for people that have been tricked into thinking Sarah is one of them – no she isn’t. She is another politician, as crooked as the rest – Dick Cheney with shaved legs, a mini skirt and enough gosh-darn-shucks-iness to impress far too many people that are too goddamn lazy to avoid the smoke and mirrors. And no – I am not in love with her Mrs. Weapon – I prefer blondes.

          “I don’t know if anyone watched her on Oprah yesterday but she was AWESOME! She took a true stand on why she wrote the book and was not afraid to attack the Republican machine. Right now she is not running for any political office…. she is just a woman with a voice. Why does this make everyone have such strong reaction to that voice? Because she has the power to influence. Yesterday Oprah asked her what she would be doing in 2012. Her answer…one of her kids would be starting school and she was excited to see him in a new environment. She also said having a title (as an elected official) lessens her ability to get things done. The title constrains you but the voice sets you free. I don’t know about you guys but Sarah represents what we want to see…a woman who doesn’t care what people think and wants to do the right thing.”

          Ok Mrs. Weapon – not sure if you realized you said this – but you did say out loud that you watch the Oprah Winfrey show (gasp). Sorry – but anymore I try and steer clear of bullshit programming. So – before you get too damn giddy and drugged on Sarah – maybe she will and maybe she will not run in 2012. Her actions now are not going to give her any more street cred than the next hate merchant. The left is too smart for that and will simply dump her ass in the same trash heap as Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Laura Ingraham – hell, maybe it will be funny to see which of these a-holes can say more outrageous stupid lies. Is that what you’re looking forward to? As much as I am more and more detesting the quality of elected officials – the more I cannot comprehend the phenomena of her. I suppose Sarah can devolve into writing more comic bookish shit like Glenn Beck puts out nowadays – and she’ll have a loyal following buying her nonsense – but sooner or later, if her voice is just another attractive carping windbag, the volume will be turned down on her.

          “After being in Alaska last summer, I understood the mentality of Sarah so much more. Once there, you realize it would be quite challenging to fight the “man” because the “man” is everywhere…. from the old, desolate lumber towns now converted into stops for the cruise ships, or the true lumberjacks who no longer have jobs because of the Clinton administration banned of types of logging, and the little bit of fishing still allowed that isn’t sanctioned by the government. People stay in Alaska or move to Alaska to get away from the rat race. I admire anyone who would want to leave this beautiful place to fight to make the US better. It is easy to sit back in your log cabin and ignore everyone and everything around you. This is one of the few places humans have not totally destroyed (and don’t give me your global warming no more ice caps speech. I was there…the glaciers are still there…don’t worry.)”

          Mrs. Weapon – emotional are ya? Not sure if I should shed a tear or stand up and shout! I have never been to Alaska – but before you wax poetic like some right leaning Jack Kerouac I suggest you find the clue that you lost somewhere on this. Every State has issues much the same as Alaska. I’m sure I can look forward to some expose you will write on the impact of “Clinton-era Environmental Policies and Their Impact on Small Logging Communities in Rural Alaska” – but for some reason I doubt that is what you spent your vacation doing. I suppose you visited the hockey arena in rural Wasila – you know – the pet project for Sarah that nearly bankrupt the town and will have those people paying out the nose for years to come. Hell – since your husband is a hockey fan (to some extent) that’d be far more interesting than the lumberjack story or global warming b.s. you are so eager to call me out on.

          “The hate of Sarah comes down to this…. she is a beautiful woman who isn’t afraid to be beautiful. She is also not afraid to challenge topics she disagrees with. Men that have such a strong hate have the dislike for the same reason they hated the Prom Queen…. she doesn’t want to date you! She has the ears of many women, and men, and can do whatever she wants and people will listen. Is she ready for the Presidency? I don’t know but people had no problem electing the “Savior” when he had little experience. The difference between Sarah and Obama…she isn’t tied to the machine. She gives the machine the middle finger and says, “I am going to do it my way”. And for those who still cannot let go of the “I can see Russia” comment…give it up. You obviously didn’t listen to the entire interview with Katie. If you really think she meant it, you have a lot more to worry about than her chance of being our first woman President. Do your research people…stop letting the NBCs and CNN’s of the world influence you.”

          Mrs. Weapon – here is a big old wink-of-an-eye and an “okey dokey I gotcha!”

          She is a beautiful woman who isn’t afraid to be beautiful – huh? And you whine about idol worship? (http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/2700000/Doonesbury-Sarah-Palin-Doll-debate-2701437-778-270.jpg)

          Be careful on assuming she isn’t connected to any machine. Sarah is not on an island. Her pockets will be filled by enough conservative/right wingnut interests to keep her afloat (like a turd) for a while. I was willing to wipe the slate clean and see what she’d come back to the table – come back and show us there is some electrical activity happening between her ears – apparently I will be disappointed in my endeavor.

          So thanks for the attack Mrs. Weapon – you came up very weak and short – so back at ya!

          • Mrs. Weapon says:

            From the Desk of Mrs. Weapon,
            Thank you all for letting me engage in your conversation. I was a little nervous to post as I admit, I am not as studied in the political arena as all of you. What I am is a citizen. This gives me the right in this beautiful country to have my views and not be forced to have any facts to back them up:) Just kidding. But seriously, I do appreciate you guys not totally attacking everything I said. I asked for an explanation as to why Ray may not love Sarah the way I do…so in that, I deserved the response I received. Now it is my turn…oh the beauty of this country! It also helps that I am the wife of the mastermind behind “Stand Up for America”. I guess I am politically connected too!

            “I love that Ray spent half a page going on and on why she isn’t this and she can’t do that. You know she isn’t running for an office right? What are you so afraid of? I have to agree with my husband…. I think Ray is secretly in love with Sarah.”

            ————————————————–
            “Half a page? I reposted a bunch of Matt Taibbi writings…”

            You are correct Ray. The majority of your comments were a reposting of Matt’s comments. I do apologize (although I still see thru the attraction you really have for Sarah!)

            ——————————————————————-
            “I am afraid for people that have been tricked into thinking Sarah is one of them – no she isn’t. She is another politician, as crooked as the rest – Dick Cheney with shaved legs, a mini skirt and enough gosh-darn-shucks-iness to impress far too many people that are too goddamn lazy to avoid the smoke and mirrors.”
            ——————————————————————-

            Why is it so hard to believe that maybe she isn’t part of the system? Are we all so bitter and jaded that we refuse to believe that everyone is not a snake? It is stated everywhere how much the Republican Party cannot stand her because she refuses to have them run her career. Weapon will say this is part of my ideological belief that there still are good people out there. Call me what you like, but I must keep this belief to wake up everyday and face the world. We women (and I speak for most but not all) still think some have not been corrupted by the system and are willing to stand up and speak for others who cannot. I think (and so do quite a few people based on her book sales already) Sarah is one of these people. She pushed the system in Alaska, and was successful. I am only one chapter into her book and already I can see someone who really is just a mother trying to make a difference. And before you start calling her names, she has never once changed her stance on her core beliefs. Even as a member of Right to Life (RTL), she disregarded the GOP telling her to back off and not publicize this. I personally, have different beliefs, but I respect the fact that she stands true to what she believes.

            ———————————————————–
            “And no – I am not in love with her Mrs. Weapon – I prefer blondes.”
            ————————————————————

            Weapon does as well. He was quite shocked when I went back to my natural hair color (brown, dark brown). But even he is getting use to it. He tells people, “I married a blonde”, but still is head over heels in love with me.
            ——————————————————————
            “Ok Mrs. Weapon – not sure if you realized you said this – but you did say out loud that you watch the Oprah Winfrey show (gasp).”
            ——————————————————————

            Yes I do watch Oprah from time to time. She carries some heavy influence on a large majority of women in this country. I like to stay up to date with what my “people” are hearing.

            ——————————————————————
            “Mrs. Weapon – emotional are ya? Not sure if I should shed a tear or stand up and shout! “
            ——————————————————————

            Heck yeah I am emotional! That is what makes me who I am and I never would want to be any different. Seeing the glaciers in Alaska and bald eagles carrying salmon in their beaks flying over is quite an emotional experience. I am glad I am moved by beauty in nature. Should we not be amazed by what God (sorry Black Flag) created in this country?

            ——————————————————————
            “I suppose you visited the hockey arena in rural Wasilla – you know – the pet project for Sarah that nearly bankrupt the town and will have those people paying out the nose for years to come. Hell – since your husband is a hockey fan (to some extent) that’d be far more interesting than the lumberjack story or global warming b.s. You are so eager to call me out on.”
            ——————————————————————

            I was not calling you out in any way regarding the Global Warming BS. To be honest, I am not really aware of your stance on Global Warming. It is horrible to say, but I have not read the blog everyday for the last year. It has only been recently that I have had the time to sit down and read all the comments. My feeling on Global Warming is my belief. This was not about you. Again, I apologize if you feel I was attacking you. This was not my intention. It seems I need to do a better job of evaluating my responses to ensure people do not feel I am attacking them. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

            First and foremost, Palin came into office in 98. Wasilla was $372,755 in debt when Palin came into office. When she left they only owed $67,468. The net worth of Wasilla was $4,972,690 when she left office to become governor in 2002. You can find this information at the City of Wasilla’s website. http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136

            The Sports Complex, which included indoor basketball courts, Soccer field, running tracks and yes, a hockey rink was passed by the voters via referendum by a vote of 306 to 286. The error in the transaction occurred within the negotiation of the land with the Nature Conservancy and securing the land for the negotiated price of $126,000. The city did not secure the land correctly but began clearing roads, installing utilities, and made preparations to build. At this same time a land developer, Gary Lundren also made a deal with the Nature Conservancy for a larger track of land, which included the same land provided to the City of Wasilla. At the end, an arbitrator ordered the city to pay $836,378 for the land, a much higher price than the negotiated $126,000. This was an error, which occurred within her administration, not just with Sarah.

            ——————————————————————
            “Mrs. Weapon – here is a big old wink-of-an-eye and an “okey dokey I gotcha!”
            She is a beautiful woman who isn’t afraid to be beautiful – huh? And you whine about idol worship? “
            ——————————————————————

            My issue with Idol worship only occurs when the man viewed as the idol is breaking commitments he made. What happened to “When I am President, meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public? No more secrecy. That is the commitment I make to you as President” I want Obama to succeed…why would I want anything different? Remember, I am the emotional, ideological wife of a realist. This is a difficult task but I really do want what is best. Realistically, I know the government cannot tell us everything. I don’t expect them too. But I do expect them to focus on the now, and stop trying to blame Bush for everything. Get over it…he is in Texas riding his horses and could give garbage what people think or say about him. That administration is over. Lets stop talking about it and move on to the now.

            ——————————————————————
            “Be careful on assuming she isn’t connected to any machine. Sarah is not on an island. Her pockets will be filled by enough conservative/right wingnut interests to keep her afloat (like a turd) for a while. I was willing to wipe the slate clean and see what she’d come back to the table – come back and show us there is some electrical activity happening between her ears – apparently I will be disappointed in my endeavor.”
            ——————————————————————

            Here you go: From the National Institute of State Politics (Followthemoney.org): In Sarah’s statewide career, $1.2m of the total $1.3 million raised came from individuals. The other $1m came from 8 organizations…that is IT! That’s not surprising because the state, which has some of the strictest campaign finance laws in the country, bans direct contributions from corporations. State and local Republican parties in 2006 gave Palin $75,183. As a portion of the total that’s not much. By contrast, party organizations gave Frank Murkowski $222,258 in 2002 (prior Governor). Lawyers and lobbyists in 2006 gave Palin $34,283, compared to $100,514 for Murkowski in 2002. The numbers speak for themselves. If she is part of a machine, they are not funding her.

            Honestly, I don’t want her to run for President, or any other elected office. I would rather see her do something where she is not exposed to the Liberal machine and their disgust for her. Remember, the woman you are attacking is a Mom and a Wife. I know that doesn’t mean much these days but it should. She has never put her career before her children. She has a strong network in her family who work together to help each other out. Maybe instead of attacking her, we should commend her for all she has been able to do.

            —————————————————————–
            “So thanks for the attack Mrs. Weapon – you came up very weak and short – so back at ya!”
            —————————————————————–
            Ray, my post was in no way an attack and I apologize if that what the impression I gave you. All I was simply doing is asking a question. So back to my original question Ray, and besides what the media has told you…. what is your issue with Sarah? She has said she has not intention at this time to run for the Presidency in 2012. What effect does she have on your life that has created such hatred? This is just a question, not an attack, a trashing of your thoughts, or anything else…I am just curious.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “So, sure, Barack Obama might be every bit as much a slick piece of imageering as Sarah Palin. The difference is in what the image represents. The Obama image represents tolerance, intelligence, education, patience with the notion of compromise and negotiation, and a willingness to stare ugly facts right in the face, all qualities we’re actually going to need in government if we’re going to get out of this huge mess we’re in.”

        That may be what Obama’s IMAGE is supposed to represent.

        What OBAMA HIMSELF actually represents is a total hatred of what he claims as his own country, and a desire to re-make it in his own image. In short, he is a megalomaniac with very little knowledge of economics or history.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Total hatred is a bit extreme – and unfounded Peter.

          But

          His ‘image’ as stated is what many people voted on and bought into.

          I know USW despises Matt Taibbi (not sure why) – but his pen has become harsh on POTUS now as well.

      • Ray quotes, so assuming you agree….

        “So, sure, Barack Obama might be every bit as much a slick piece of imageering as Sarah Palin. The difference is in what the image represents. The Obama image represents tolerance, intelligence, education, patience with the notion of compromise and negotiation, and a willingness to stare ugly facts right in the face, all qualities we’re actually going to need in government if we’re going to get out of this huge mess we’re in.”

        “Obama image represents tolerance, intelligence, education, patience with the notion of compromise and negotiation…….”

        You, Ray, need to pull your head out of wherever it’s been stuck, buy a good pair of glasses, clean out your ears and take a good look and listen around you. You’ve been schmucked!

        I’m buying Palin’s book today – don’t know if she is ready for Presidency in 2012, but do get a good chuckle out of the left’s reaction to her.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Kathy – the story from Taibbi was pre-election – I apologize for not including that as context – I thought it was obvious based on verb tense but that apparently did not occur to you. My bad.

      • Ray….first, I am not a Palin supporter. So, let’s get this out of the way. I, also, do not understand the attention given to her. Why? She is not a serious candidate and she will not get the nomination in 2012. It seems to me, that the more attention she gets the more people will want to know why. Having said this….and knowing full well your feelings on her….

        Ray quotes: ““Sarah Palin is a symbol of everything that is wrong with the modern United States. As a representative of our political system, she’s a new low in reptilian villainy, the ultimate cynical masterwork of puppeteers like Karl Rove. But more than that, she is a horrifying symbol of how little we ask for in return for the total surrender of our political power. Not only is Sarah Palin a fraud, she’s the tawdriest, most half-assed fraud imaginable, 20 floors below the lowest common denominator, a character too dumb even for daytime TV — and this country is going to eat her up, cheering her every step of the way. All because most Americans no longer have the energy to do anything but lie back and allow ourselves to be jacked off by the calculating thieves who run this grasping consumer paradise we call a nation.”

        D13 says: In response to this definition, it fits Barrack Obama and his ilk perfectly. I could not describe it any better….except, this administration is far worse….in my opinion.

        Ray agrees: Palin herself burned this political symbiosis into the pages of history with her seminal crack about the “difference between a hockey morn and a pit bull: lipstick,” blurring once and for all the lines between meanness on the grand political scale as understood by the Roves and Bushes of the world, and meanness of the small-town variety as understood by pretty much anyone who has ever sat around in his ranch-house den dreaming of a fourth plasma-screen TV or an extra set of KC HiLites for his truck, while some ghetto family a few miles away shares a husk of government cheese.”

        D13 says: A great example of class envy, here, Ray. I know you did not say it but you apparently agree with it. I, personally, have no problem with a 4th Plasma TV while some Ghetto family, on the government teat, shares a husk of government cheese. This is liberal diatribe and a product of liberal environment that robs the individual of personal achievement and incentive.

        Ray further quotes: “The Obama image represents tolerance, intelligence, education, patience with the notion of compromise and negotiation, and a willingness to stare ugly facts right in the face, all qualities we’re actually going to need in government if we’re going to get out of this huge mess we’re in.”

        D13 says: This is not only laughable but 14 carat plated bullshit and it is proving to be more cronyism than the Bush administration ever thought and I did not like the Bush administration either.

        Ray continues to quote: “The truly disgusting thing about Sarah Palin isn’t that she’s totally unqualified, or a religious zealot, or married to a secessionist, or unable to educate her own daughter about sex, or a fake conservative who raised taxes and horked up earmark millions every chance she got. No, the most disgusting thing about her is what she says about us: that you can ram us in the ass for eight solid years, and we’ll not only thank you for your trouble, we’ll sign you up for eight more years, if only you promise to stroke us in the right spot for a few hours around election time.”

        D13 says: Hmmmmmmm…sorta like what we have now. More earmarks, cronyism, payoffs, etc. that makes Enron look romper room (I know, I said that before) but Enron seems to be the hallmark of what the left leaning claim was so intolerable but it pales to nothing when compared to Fannie Mae…Freddie Mac…GM…union buyoffs, earmarks that surpass anything that was done in the Bush administration, national health ripoff in favor of their constituents…..etc. You know the list better than I.

        My point, Ray, is there is no difference in the political rantings of the left or right concerning the quality of candidates or the current POTUS. Obama is more dangerous than 10 Sarah Palins. Nancy Pelosi, etal….is more dangerous than 20 Sarah Palins. You, above all, should know this and see this. There is nothing different with this administration than the last except higher spending and more debt. It is a travesty. It is a shame.

        Sarah Palin will not get the nomination and she will not hold a cabinet post. The left and the media is making her a super star and for what? She is not a threat to anyone, much less the democrats. She is only a threat to herself. She is not the face of any Republican Party as the Republican Party has no face. It is like the Democratic Party….a shameless, irresponsible, citizens be damned political party. Neither can throw stones.

        The irony of it all….it will continue. However, I feel, that this administration will get us to ruin faster and I feel that it is the design to do that. I do not think that Obama has this country at heart at all and I believe that. Until he eliminates his own cronyism, uses his Veto and stands up to the Democratic mantra and does put country first and quit his “I am the Holy One” mantra on his world “Beatles” tour, quits apologizing for the United States, and really gets behind a true economic policy….he will get exactly nothing from me except disdain.

        But, I am a lowly retired Colonel, with no brain…however, I do have one thing he nor the rest of our politicians have……integrity. I do have that. And no matter what policies are passed and what they do….INTEGRITY cannot be taken…just lost.

        D13

        Ps. Forgot to ask… how are you? Hope you are doing well.

        • D13:

          I absolutely must throw the B.S. flag squarely upon your chest.

          “But, I am a lowly retired Colonel, with no brain…”

          Integrity is part of man’s most precious possession….his HONOR.

          And of course you just disqualified yourself from running for political office. Way to go!!!

          Dear Colonel, you are so close to Nirvana if only you would get the right vs. left thing straight. I know old habits are hard to break but we need to use the same language if we are to recruit more to the cause. Our job is to bring sense and clarity to the confusion created by decades of propoganda.

          Statists of all kinds on the left.

          Liberty on the right.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          The story was pre-election – just remember that first off.

          Why is Sarah a story? Because the media needs a story. The need something to fill the airspace and the webspace and the newspapers. She is a good story – polarizing enough to continue to circus atmosphere that is politics.

          As far the rest of your post – would be like arguing which pile of dogshit smells worse – the one you step in or the one you run over with the lawn tractor.

          As I have said before – its bums me that the right cannot produce someone with more *whatever* than Sarah Palin. It really disappoints me because there is no one to really and honestly keep the other side honest.

          • Now…that…I understood. Nice analogy. Rather run over it in the tractor though…..too hard to get out of the “tread” on the teenie bopper shoes.

            And, you are correct that it is a story. I thought that was really where you were coming from.

            Have a great one, my friend.

      • Ray,

        Your first mistake is relying on a horrible, vitriolic, partisan, nonsense rant from Taibbi as a means of rational response.

        I will get to the rest of your nonsense later.

        USW

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Taibbi wrote, what I have called many times, a frat-boyish piece that under the covers has several kernels of truth to it. It has and still makes me laugh to read it.

          There is no mistake in using. And as you pointed out so well – there is a universe of well supported reasons to oppose this caricature known as Sarah Palin.

          I love the fact that Mrs. Weapon is so dubious of Palin running for office – yet she carefully chose her book tour stops. Funny.

    • CMI’s 2008 study, “How the TV Networks Have Portrayed Sarah Palin as Dunce or Demon” as evidence.

      O’Reilly stated:

      A study last year by the Culture and Media Institute, a conservative group, examined network news coverage of Mrs. Palin from September 29th to October 12th as she campaigned. It was 69 stories about the governor. 37 of them were negative, 30 neutral, just two, two positive. Twenty-one of the stories portrayed Sarah Palin as unintelligent or unqualified. Eight stories used clips from ‘Saturday Night Live’ to ridicule her. ABC News was hardest on Mrs. Palin, closely followed by NBC.

      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/11/18/fnc-s-o-reilly-cites-cmi-palin-study

      • On the three broadcast networks combined, evaluations of Obama were 68% positive and 32% negative, compared to the only 36% positive and 64% negative evaluations of his GOP opponent John McCain.

        In fact, Obama received the most favorable coverage CMPA has ever recorded for any presidential candidate since we began tracking election news coverage in 1988. The totals were very similar–within a few percentage points–at all three networks. (These figures exclude comments on the candidates’ prospects in the campaign horse race, which obviously favored Obama.)

        Meanwhile, Fox’s Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn’t fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both–and most balanced overall.

        http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/11/17/leftist-blood-curdling-scream-alert-cmpa-reports-fox-fair-balanced

  6. Topic #1 It ain’t “Americans”, it’s the politicians.

    Topic #2 Again, it’s the politicians who want cap & trade and the employees silenced.

    Topic #3 Are you seeing a pattern here? The politicians don’t care about what the people want, they only care about themselves.

    Topic #4 Climate change? Gimme a break! The climate is always in a state of change and anyone with half a brain knows that! However, there is one climate that needs to be changed and that is the political climate in washington D.C.

    And that folks, is just my not-so-humble opinion!

  7. Since it is open mic tonight I will give you all something to rant and rave about.

    News flash: G.A. Rowe and PapaDawg are one and the same. Only because while on the road and using this laptop it won’t let me log on as anyone else but PapaDawg. I just ain’t a puter literate as I should be. I can fix most of the hardware on these things, but that is as far as it goes cause otherwise I am just another casual user . . .

    Just my not-so-humble opinion. 😉

  8. GooD Morning! That I’d pass along a funny. Wonder if our Texas friends will chuckle, LOL.

    It’s a slow day in a little East Texas town. The sun is

    beating down, and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit…..

    On this particular day a rich tourist from back east is driving through town. He stops at the motel and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.

    As soon as the man walks upstairs, the owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.

    The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.

    The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel.

    The guy at the Farmer’s Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her “services” on credit.

    The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel owner.

    The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect anything.

    At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, picks up the $100 bill, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town.

    No one produced anything. No one earned anything.

    However, the whole town is now out of debt and now looks to the future with a lot more optimism.

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States Government is conducting business today.

    ——————————————————————————–

    I’ll be following along today, debate nice!

    G!

    • This Texas boy says….shoot the yankee, pocket the hundred, sell his car, and apply for stimulus money. Isn’t that the way it is done in Washington DC?

  9. November 18, 2009 at 1:12 am

    I am just feeling so deprived. Why can’t we keep up with all the other fasciolist countries. There should be a law to fix this injustice.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33999914/ns/business-us_business/

    • I think we have gotten all the light, fluffy political discussion out of the way. Time to get to the serious issues.

      http://www.loweringthebar.net/2009/09/british-government-considers-mandating-plastic-pints.html

      British Government Considers Mandating Plastic Pint Glasses

      Trying to control stabbings by banning knives that have a point on the end was bad enough. But this is really going too far.

      The BBC reported recently that the British Home Office is seeking a new design for pint glasses that it hopes may reduce the number of incidents in which people attack each other with pint glasses. According to official statistics, 5,500 people are attacked with glasses and bottles every year in England and Wales. (Probably more in Scotland, though maybe they just use swords.) This public safety emergency has spurred the government into action, seeking a design that can’t be used as a weapon.

      Assault With a Frothy Weapon

      Designers say they are considering two basic approaches: (1) plastic, or (2) something else. First, glasses could be made from plastic, or could be coated with it so that the glass would not shatter into sharp pieces if broken. Second, “[w]e could do something more radical,” said one designer, “by looking at the whole shape and substance of the pint – we could come up with something that is completely different [from] glass.” Seems a lot like the first approach, and it wasn’t clear what he had in mind. But he continued: “Remember that years ago people used to drink out of pewter tankards. It could be quite a significant paradigm shift.” That’s a great idea – I’d much rather be clubbed to death with a pewter tankard.

      • LOI……how about the report today that the British government is considering adding snsors to the garbage bins and assigning a quota to the amount of trash on a per capita family basis. Then fining the family that produces more trash than mandated by government edict.

        Holy crap, batman…….please, some of you from across the pond…tell me this is not true.

        • Have not seen that one, just think though, a couple hundred years ago, a revolution was fought over tea.. Messing with a man’s beer (shudder)no wonder they took the guns first.

          Its clear that the UK has become the ultimate nanny state.

          Such a shame.

        • California today just passed a law limiting the amount of power a big screen TV can use. You don’t have to go across the pond for weird laws.

  10. November 18, 2009 at 1:07 am

    As I tried to explain before, whether a circus develops with the KSM trial will depend on the judge and lawyers. Thankfully they have precence to deal with the sensitive stuff. And yes, national secrets were still maintained.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34001021/ns/us_news-security/

  11. Repost from the other day from a discussion Black Flag and I were having. I didn’t see a response on this (other than from JAC saying he didn’t understand what we’re talking about), but that is probably due to the fact that I didn’t post it until 11 o’clock. I feel this is a pretty good summary, but feel free to reference the initial discussion in case I misstated or misunderstood anything (https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/im-a-travelin-man/#comment-45196 ).

    Sigh… I’m getting too old for this..

    Mathius: Are you not knowingly stealing their right?

    Flag: I and anyone can imagine all sorts of “knowing” and “assumptions” and “claims”.

    Flag: I work with real things, not imagination things.

    [also…]

    Flag: But as long as the claimant is unknown even after reasonable attempts to discover, the property become ‘free’.

    Mathius: In this case, you have a “reasonable” assumption that the owner of this right (to jail break to phone) is Apple.

    Flag: Apple is not the owner, or they would have demanded the device back. They did not, therefore, reasonably, they are not the owner (or refused to enforce their ownership, and gave it up voluntarily).

    Apple is not the owner of the device, nor does anyone claim that they are. Apple is the owner of the right to jail break the device. There is a distinction. They have no right to demand the device back but, as with the sale of a house without mineral rights, you can do anything else to it you wish, including hitting it with a hammer.

    Mathius: You do not have reasonable reason to believe that was forfeited.

    Flag: I do so. They did not claim it.

    They do not know you have violated their rights. Call them up and ask. See what they say. See Item F below.

    Flag: I do not know what agreement was made ‘upstream’ of me. I was not there.

    That is disingenuous. There is only one provider of iPhones and that is Apple. They sell retail through their stores and online. In order to purchase, you much contract with AT&T and you much agree to the terms of service, or they will not sell to you. Period. This is common knowledge, and you are not stupid. You know this. And you knew this when you bought your phone. You may not know what agreements were made upstream, but you can make a reasonable supposition. And you have opted not to make a phone call to verify. You cannot hide behind willful ignorance. [adding to the repost: don’t you have an obligation to err on the side of caution when possibly violating another’s rights? I could swear I’ve seen you make that case elsewhere..]

    Flag: US courts have already stated that you can do what ever you want on your phone because you own it. The best Apple has done is this:
    Section 2(c) of the Apple iPhone Software License Agreement19 provides that: [blah blah blah]

    We are not talking about legality here. This was a discussion about morality as it pertains to your worldview. That they (may have) no legal recourse is irrelevant. What is important here is that we figure out how you came to be in possession of a right which belonged to someone else (Apple) without their ever explicitly forfeiting or selling it.

    So I think we should take a step back and look at some of your reasoning here.

    Item A. Property rights are absolute.
    Item B. Aspects of property ownership may be separated. That is, you can own a phone, and someone else can own the right to jail break it.
    Item C. If you accept a contract, you are morally bound to follow the terms of that contract.
    Item D. If you misplace your phone and cannot find it, another actor may claim it as their own if they can’t find you after a “reasonable” effort and amount of time.
    Item E. Having so acquired a devise, which is known to be sold only and exclusively with limited use rights, the acquiring actor may then sell the entirety of the device and use rights to a third party.
    Item F. Because the owner of the use rights was not apprised of item E, nor of the intent of the third party to exercise rights which it owns, they forfeit those rights due to failure to demand a cessation of the violation of those rights.
    Item G. Because, in item E, the third party did not agree to limited use – despite the fact that this is a known limitation on all legally sold devices – the third party is not bound by this limitation.
    Item H. Because the US courts will not bind the third party to adherence to the right forfeited under item F, such action is verified as acceptable.

    Items A-D, I will accept here.

    Item E. If you misplace your belongings, it is due to your actions that they have been lost to you. If you drop a coin on the sidewalk, someone else can pick it up. No problem. However, if your property is lost through no fault of your own, you do not forfeit ownership. If, for example, I drive you[r] car, then abandon it somewhere, you still own it – if you later see someone else driving it, you have every right to demand its return. If I abandon my own car, someone else can claim it, and I would have a harder time making a case for its return. In this [case], Apple has allowed you to own the device. The use right is inherent to the software, and insofar as it physically exists, travels with the phone. Now, your actions can lose your ownership rights, but your actions cannot lose someone else’s rights just as my actions cannot forfeit your car ownership rights. Your losing of the phone can reasonably be said to justify and exchange of ownership for the portion you own, but not of the portion you do not own. That must stay with Apple unless, by their own actions, they lose it. You are saying, in effect, that someone else can give away your rights. In that case, I hereby give Buck The Wala ownership of your house. I will take your bunker for myself.

    Item F. You do not forfeit rights simply by failure to exercise them when you unaware that they are being violated. If you owned a house in Montana, but did not visit for a year, could I move in and claim ownership on the grounds that you did not tell me to leave in a “reasonable amount of time”? Of course not. So how do you make the claim that, because Apple has not contacted you to demand you stop violating their rights, that they have no such rights?

    Item G. It is true that you did not agree to the terms, but you cannot buy something you know the other person does not have and expect it to be binding on the actual owner. I will happily sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. I do not own it, and you know that, but that does not seem to matter. If you give me money for it, apparently, under this logic it becomes your property.

    Item H. While I accept the authority of the US judicial system for legal matters, you[, I believe,] do not. In any event, we are discussing your moral views. US law has no bearing on this issue and I find it interesting that you would bother deputizing it. Further, just because something is legal does not make it moral. It is legal to tax you, but you do not consider that ethical. How then can you claim that it is moral for you to claim this right because the law says so?

    It is really very simple. Apple had the right. You have no reason to believe they gave it up. Now you claim the right. Something seems inconsistent here.

    Flag: Since I have not copied, nor decompiled, nor reverse engineered, nor disassembled, nor attempted to derive the source code, nor attempted to create a derivative work….etc.,
…you have been wholly disarmed and stand naked in the battlefield.

    I hate to break it to you, but that’s just a hallucination you seem to be having. It is probably related in some way to the katana sticking out of your chest or concussion you sustained from one of my 9-pounders.

    .

    .

    .

    Would anyone else care to weigh in? Flag and I could go at this until Judgment Day, and we’d probably be lucky if we could agree that the sky is blue.

    I feel I have made my case pretty well, and obviously, so does Mr. Flag. I think I’ve demolished his case, and obviously, Mr. Flag feels he has demolished mine. One of us is sorely mistaken. I’d like to know from a third party which is the case.

    • Bad boy, you didn’t post my reply.

    • Matt:

      My lack of understanding had nothing to do with the time of day you posted your question.

      I simply have no first hand knowledge of the licensing, permiting or what have you surrounding these devices.

      I take great offense at your quick dismissal of my humor regarding my lack of tech saavy. You didn’t even have the decency to answer my question: Is a I pod similar to a P pod? I feel just so …………….. depressed.

      I need a day of Sick Leave to recover. There should be some kind of law.

      By the way, on the surface I would have given you the victory on style points. But because I don’t know the actual details I refrained from passing judgment. It could be that you two were having separate arguments.

      Hope your day goes well.

      JAC

      • I thought the time of posting had more to due with a lack of response from Flag, but he said above that he did reply and I just missed it, so go figure…

        An iPod is similar, but not exactly like, a pPod. In fact, a pPod is 7 letters higher.

        Have a good one..

        • Matt, If you have one I pod and two P pod’s does that mean that I pod has two P’s in a pod or did I PP in the pod?

          Just checking your sense of humor . . .

          • Kristian Stout says:

            You guys have waaaaaayyyyy too much time on your hands…lol

            • Actually, I have no time at all on my hands.

              But.. that’s mostly because I spend it all on here.

              Must.. prove.. BF… wrong… must.. convince… logic.. logic.. reason.. JAC.. must.. convince.. prove.. Peter.. Liberalism… What the hell is a pPod?!… pirates.. Fraking Pirates!.. GAAA!

              ::Insert aneurysm here::

              • Good Sir Mathius,

                You have nothing to fear.

                Us Pirates (myself and the Spaniard, Peter) and the Cowboy (JAC) will always stay our hand well before the blow of death!

                As the Joker in Dark Knight to the Bat-man “you’re just too much fun to kill!”

                You are an honorable and worthy foe. *Inside joke* I’ve had to use my “right hand” with the sword more than a couple of times with you.

                I truly hope any victory of mine is not due to your exhaustion – but by honorable battle of reason.

                I will not claim victory if won by merely the clock.

                As USWep and I will agree;
                “A good friend is often a worthy foe”

              • I’m not left handed either.

              • I feel like adding a favorite quote of mine:

                Good conversation is like good coffee. And just as difficult to sleep after.

                Until our blades meet again, good luck, and good night.

  12. Mathius

    Sigh… I’m getting too old for this..

    Mathius: Are you not knowingly stealing their right?

    Flag: I and anyone can imagine all sorts of “knowing” and “assumptions” and “claims”.

    Flag: I work with real things, not imagination things.

    [also…]

    Flag: But as long as the claimant is unknown even after reasonable attempts to discover, the property become ‘free’.

    Mathius: In this case, you have a “reasonable” assumption that the owner of this right (to jail break to phone) is Apple.

    Flag: Apple is not the owner, or they would have demanded the device back. They did not, therefore, reasonably, they are not the owner (or refused to enforce their ownership, and gave it up voluntarily).

    Apple is not the owner of the device, nor does anyone claim that they are.

    Good. As they are not the owner, like you are not the owner, they have no right to tell me what to do with my property – as that right is a right of ownership.

    Now that you’ve agree to this – most of the rest of your post is merely pixie dust.

    Apple is the owner of the right to jail break the device.

    No, they are not. It is not their device, as you have admitted above. Either I am the owner or I am not. Since I am the owner, they are not.

    The do not own the Jail Break. They did not do it. Someone else did.

    There is a distinction. They have no right to demand the device back but, as with the sale of a house without mineral rights, you can do anything else to it you wish, including hitting it with a hammer.

    You are confused about the differences. Mineral are absolutely separated from the use of the surface. My phone cannot be separated from itself. There can be one person on the surface and another mining the minerals – at the same time.

    There can only be one person acting on the phone at one time.

    What action I do to the phone is mine to do, not yours to do, and equally, not Apple’s to do.

    Mathius: You do not have reasonable reason to believe that was forfeited.

    Flag: I do so. They did not claim it.

    They do not know you have violated their rights. Call them up and ask. See what they say. See Item F below.

    I have not violated their rights. Again, you are confused about a right. My actions do not impose upon them. As you noted, they are ignorant of my action. If you are ignorant of my actions (that is, they have no effect on you) I have a right to do such action.

    If you cannot tell whether I have done an action or not done an action – then the action I do is wholly in my right

    Flag: I do not know what agreement was made ‘upstream’ of me. I was not there.

    That is disingenuous. There is only one provider of iPhones and that is Apple. They sell retail through their stores and online. In order to purchase, you much contract with AT&T and you much agree to the terms of service, or they will not sell to you.

    No, I do not need a contract with AT&T – I have no such animal at all. I did not buy it from Apple, nor did I buy from AT&T, nor am I contracted to AT&T. The phone works just fine on my current carrier – and any carrier that supports a GSM network.

    Why you want to bring in unrelated third parties to a transaction they are not at involved in is a bit of a strawman. Your argument is that to sell you my car, I need the permission of Dodge. But I do not, and neither do you – and here, I do not need a thing from Apple or AT&T, so they are not here in this transaction.

    Period. This is common knowledge, and you are not stupid.

    You know Dodge makes the Magnum. So what?

    I own the car, not Dodge. It matters not one wit what Dodge believes, wants, or anything about the car – since the action undertaken has absolutely no involvement with them

    If you want to take it in for warranty work then the become involved and it is their choice whether to honor the warranty or not.

    Same here. I purchased the phone with the full knowledge there was no warranty. So Apple is complete out of the picture.

    You know this. And you knew this when you bought your phone.

    I know the manufacturer, as I know the manufacturer of my car. So what? I still own both the phone and the car, they do not.

    You may not know what agreements were made upstream, but you can make a reasonable supposition. And you have opted not to make a phone call to verify. You cannot hide behind willful ignorance.

    1st, I am not party to any agreement that I did not agree to nor sign. Don’t care what YOU may have agreed to, that your business.

    You cannot compel me to accept an agreement you sign. You are the signatory, not me. You have no action to me to force me to accept an agreement you made with others.

    Flag: US courts have already stated that you can do what ever you want on your phone because you own it. The best Apple has done is this:
    Section 2(c) of the Apple iPhone Software License Agreement19 provides that: [blah blah blah]

    We are not talking about legality here. This was a discussion about morality as it pertains to your worldview. That they (may have) no legal recourse is irrelevant. What is important here is that we figure out how you came to be in possession of a right which belonged to someone else (Apple) without their ever explicitly forfeiting or selling it.

    They did sell it, with the phone.

    So I think we should take a step back and look at some of your reasoning here.

    Item A. Property rights are absolute.

    Yes, and if you sell your property the property is not yours any more.

    I think we’ll need to discuss what is property and what is not – I think you’re confused on this point, but it is just a guess of mine.

    Item B. Aspects of property ownership may be separated. That is, you can own a phone, and someone else can own the right to jail break it.

    No, that is not correct. Where you can separate minerals from surface on land – because they are physical and real, you cannot separate the phone from the phone

    Item C. If you accept a contract, you are morally bound to follow the terms of that contract.

    I have not accepted any contract.

    In fact, it was sold with the expressed statement;
    no warranty, no guarantees, no return.

    Item D. If you misplace your phone and cannot find it, another actor may claim it as their own if they can’t find you after a “reasonable” effort and amount of time.

    It wasn’t misplaced.

    It was lost (or stolen).

    Item E. Having so acquired a devise, which is known to be sold only and exclusively with limited use rights, the acquiring actor may then sell the entirety of the device and use rights to a third party.

    I do not know what deal the previous owner has had, nor do I care.

    As I said before regarding CCards, anyone can change what ever deal they want. This may have occurred. I know I’ve done so with Microsoft, as an example. Why do not believe this could be done here too?

    Item F. Because the owner of the use rights was not apprised of item E, nor of the intent of the third party to exercise rights which it owns, they forfeit those rights due to failure to demand a cessation of the violation of those rights.

    Apple has had plenty of opportunity to test this clause.

    The person who actually created the Jail Break is well known by name and address.
    I believe he has made himself ‘glow in the dark’ purposely for Apple to bring an action.

    Apple has not acted on him at all – even though this is the most clearest opportunity to exercise such a position.

    But, they have not. Ergo, they are aware such a ‘right’ probably does not exist for them to exercise.

    Item G. Because, in item E, the third party did not agree to limited use – despite the fact that this is a known limitation on all legally sold devices – the third party is not bound by this limitation.

    I did not agree, and right there ends your complaint. I own the phone. Since it was not a condition of the sale to me, I have no limitation upon me.

    If you have any complaint at all (in the world by the rainbow, way, way up high in the sky) it will have to be against the person who sold the phone, not me. If they failed to abide by the contract they signed, then you can try to sue them.

    Item H. Because the US courts will not bind the third party to adherence to the right forfeited under item F, such action is verified as acceptable.

    The courts have reviewed the matter at other times of similar issues.

    They have found in this and previous cases that ownership is sacrosanct.

    You either are or are not the owner.

    Ownership determines rights of action on a good. Apple does not own the product. The courts therefore have a very closed mind about post hoc claims of rights on products sold with ownership transferred – and this is their opinion to original purchase.

    They are even more closed minded about “used” sales – for the very reason I described above, that one person cannot bind a third party to an agreement, whether it is Apple or the original purchaser.

    Apple certainly could make it a condition of sale that there cannot be any resale of their product, and that any lost or recovered stolen phones are required to be returned to Apple.

    Your credit card company makes this very clear, both in contract and on the back of your physical card. Apple did not do this.

    Items A-D, I will accept here.

    Item E. If you misplace your belongings, it is due to your actions that they have been lost to you. If you drop a coin on the sidewalk, someone else can pick it up. No problem. However, if your property is lost through no fault of your own, you do not forfeit ownership.

    I agree. However, time is a factor. Eventually, ‘abandon all hope’ and the property becomes free.

    If, for example, I drive you car, then abandon it somewhere, you still own it – if you later see someone else driving it, you have every right to demand its return.

    I agree.

    If I abandon my own car, someone else can claim it, and I would have a harder time making a case for its return.

    Actually, not at all.

    A Volkswagen van, stolen in 1976 was purchased by a fellow who restored it to perfect condition, and then sold to as a collector’s item to a fellow in Germany. While awaiting to be placed in a container, the port police ran the serial number and found it stolen. They seized the vehicle, and returned it to the rightful owner – the insurance company – who might put it up for auction.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/california.stolen.vw/index.html

    If the original owner was found, their claim would still exist and be valid.

    In this, Apple has allowed you to own the device. \

    They have not ‘allowed’ any such thing.

    They sold the phone. They hold no other right to ‘disallow’ or ‘allow’ anything!

    The use right is inherent to the software, and insofar as it physically exists, travels with the phone.

    You cannot make a contract with the phone. You can only make a contract with a person. Whatever deal was made between Apple and the original owner was theirs to make.

    It still does not bind me to it.

    Now, your actions can lose your ownership rights, but your actions cannot lose someone else’s rights just as my actions cannot forfeit your car ownership rights.

    Your losing of the phone can reasonably be said to justify and exchange of ownership for the portion you own, but not
    of the portion you do not own. That must stay with Apple unless, by their own actions, they lose it.

    Their action was to not defend their claim to the originator of Jail Break. They probably found it impossible to demonstrate ownership, or damages. (No harm, no foul)

    You are saying, in effect, that someone else can give away your rights. In that case, I hereby give Buck The Wala ownership of your house. I will take your bunker for myself.

    Nope, that is exactly my point. You cannot bind me to your agreement with Buck.

    Further, Apple has specifically stated – as presented to you in their own words – that Jail Break is not a problem at all. They are concerned about reverse engineering the software.

    Item F. You do not forfeit rights simply by failure to exercise them when you unaware that they are being violated.

    Apple is aware. They know everything about Jail Break and have not exercised any action at all – for the above reasons I’ve given already, IMO.

    If you owned a house in Montana, but did not visit for a year, could I move in and claim ownership on the grounds that you did not tell me to leave in a “reasonable amount of time”? Of course not. So how do you make the claim that, because Apple has not contacted you to demand you stop violating their rights, that they have no such rights?

    Because they have no rights that have been violated. You have yet to demonstrate what ‘right’ has been.

    I even helped you on the bizarre notion that perhaps there was some sort of carry-through agreement. I posted exactly Apple’s statement. Even they say you’re smokin’ weed.

    Item G. It is true that you did not agree to the terms, but you cannot buy something you know the other person does not have and expect it to be binding on the actual owner. I will happily sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. I do not own it, and you know that, but that does not seem to matter. If you give me money for it, apparently, under this logic it becomes your property.

    Good point here. If there exists such a ownership, then let Apple defend it.

    They have not, even with more than plenty opportunity. Therefore, I doubt they see such ownership, or it is so tenuous, they see no value in enforcing anything.

    Item H. While I accept the authority of the US judicial system for legal matters, you do not.

    In some civil matters where they are not in a conflict of interest (unlike in criminal court), they are pretty reasonable. They do try to use some logic sometimes. It is when they are in a conflict of interest that they tend to go bizarre.

    So I use them when their rulings and thinking makes sense to me too. I ignore them when they are bizarre. What do you do?

    In any event, we are discussing your moral views. US law has no bearing on this issue and I find it interesting that you would bother deputizing it.

    Why not?

    Good reasoning and logic, no matter who it comes from –even from you- always gets a hearing from me.

    Further, just because something is legal does not make it moral. It is legal to tax you, but you do not consider that ethical.

    I call tax evil.

    Ethics have nothing to do with this taxation. This is not a matter of using foul language in public. Taxation is a threat – to the death if necessary – to take my money.

    How then can you claim that it is moral for you to claim this right because the law says so?

    I claim the right because it is my right – immoral or not.

    Matt, rights do not carry a label of moral or immoral. They are a right or they are not.

    You have a right to tattoo your body with gross and indecent pictures. That is probably immoral in many people’s eyes, but it is your right.

    The challenge you have with many of your arguments even beyond this one is that you believe morals and rights are essentially the same thing.

    Because of this confusion, you believe what should be moral should be exercised has a greater right, even if it destroys real rights – such as care for the poor, you’re willing to steal money from others.

    Because you have moral=right=’Rights’ confusion, you have no problem destroying the fabric of society to enforce what you believe is ‘morally right’.

    I think I have found a core misunderstanding of yours. We will need to flesh this out some more!! 🙂

    It is really very simple. Apple had the right. You have no reason to believe they gave it up. Now you claim the right. Something seems inconsistent here.

    Prove they have the right. I have even helped you by posting the exact wording. You keep claiming it, but yet, it remains undiscovered.

    Flag: Since I have not copied, nor decompiled, nor reverse engineered, nor disassembled, nor attempted to derive the source code, nor attempted to create a derivative work….etc.,
…you have been wholly disarmed and stand naked in the battlefield.

    I hate to break it to you, but that’s just a hallucination you seem to be having. It is probably related in some way to the katana sticking out of your chest or concussion you sustained from one of my 9-pounders.

    Nice try avoiding Apple’s own words.

    Your katana is made out of wet noodles, and what you thought was gunpowder for your cannons was actually black pepper.

    • OK.. that’s pretty lengthy. I’ll work on a reply…

    • 3,018 words. We’re now up to a 10 page paper. Let’s try to go back to basics. It seems to me that you do not recognize the right of apple to jail break (prevent jail breaking of) a phone. Rather, it seems, you recognize this only as an artifact of the contract. As such, the restriction is on the purchaser that they must get approval, but apple doesn’t actually “own” anything. Do I have that about right?

      In your view, this is the difference between Dodge owning the “right” to modify your car and them owning your engine block. Because the engine block is physical. If you then sold the car to a third party who know (accept that they knew) that the engine was not yours to sell, you would agree that they could not violate the rights of Dodge with regards to that block (ie they couldn’t destroy or modify it, etc), correct?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Dodge has no right to modify any part of your car once you have purchased it from them. It is YOUR car, and the engine is part of the car.

        In order to claim a “right” to modify the engine, Dodge would have to get the buyer to sign a contract stating that even though the buyer owned the car, Dodge had the ability at any time to call in that car for engine modification.

        If you did not wish to agree to this, you would not sign the contract, and then Dodge could either refuse to sell you a car, or sell you one in spite of the fact that you did not sign such a contract, in which case they would not be able to modify the engine without your permission.

        • Exactly. The analogy here is that Apple sells the phone, but reserves the right to modify the software – specifically to jail break it. They required this as a condition of sale. So, even though they can’t require you to bring the phone in for modification, they can prevent you from modifying it.

          The question here is this: Is their control over the modification of the engine (software) a right reserved to Apple or simply a restriction placed on the buyer.

          I would say it is their right. If they created it, they built it, and they marketed it. They own every aspect and every right to the device. If they then choose to contract with you and sell you most of those rights, they can freely choose to separate out certain rights for themselves in the sale.

          Likewise, I could sell you my house, but reserve the use of a parking space as a condition of sale. If you then sell the house, I maintain the right to use that space, whether you (fraudulently) neglected to mention it in resale or not, and regardless of whether the new owner agreed to it.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Matt, let’s say that you sold your house, but in the contract, you reserved a parking space for yourself there in perpetuity (or for as long as you live, or whatever). The buyer of the house would have to agree to that stipulation (or you would have no sale).

            Further, if the buyer then sold the house to someone else, he would have to include that stipulation in the contract when HE sold the house as well. Since HE agreed to the stipulation that you have a reserved parking space there for as long as you live, it would be his responsiblity to include that in any sales contract when he sold HIS house to another buyer.

            In effect, you could probably sue him if he did NOT include that stipulation in a contract of sale to a new owner, because he agreed to it when he purchased the house from you.

            His agreement to your stipulation would make it more difficult (though not impossible) for him to sell the house to future buyers.

            • The buyer of the house would have to agree to that stipulation (or you would have no sale). Agreed. But this is what happened with iPhones. The original buyer agreed to the terms

              Further, if the buyer then sold the house to someone else, he would have to include that stipulation in the contract when HE sold the house as well. Agreed. But this did not happen in Flag’s case. The phone was lost or stolen. It was then acquired by a third party and sold to Flag. So let us say that the owner died and his children did not know about the parking space, and so, did not include it in the sale.

              In effect, you could probably sue him if he did NOT include that stipulation in a contract of sale to a new owner, because he agreed to it when he purchased the house from you.Actually, I’m pretty sure it’s the opposite. I keep the parking spot as per my contract, and the new owners can sue the previous owners for not disclosing it. Why should I lose my right to park because of someone else’s mistake?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                You have no right to park there absent an agreed-to contract, because it is no longer your property.

                Therefore, if the property is sold by the owner who AGREED to your stipulation, and he fails to include that stipulation in the contract with the new buyer, the only recourse you have is against HIM, because he is the only one who singed a contract granting you a parking space on something that is NO LONGER YOUR PROPERTY.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Further, the only way you would retain your right to park there absent a NEW contract with the new buyer would be if the original buyer allowed you to retain ownership of the sub-part of the property that represented your parking spot.

                In that case, the parking spot would still be your property, regardless of the passing of ownership of the surrounding property.

                Of course, this arrangement would also make it difficult for the person who purchased the property from you to make a future sale, because he would have to point out to prospective buyers, “oh, by the way, I don’t actually own that 8×10′ piece of property right there… that is still owned by some guy named Mathius, so if you want that piece of property you will have to negotiate independently with him!”

              • the only way you would retain your right to park there[…] Do you not hear yourself? The only way I can retain my right? Since when do you require me to actively work to keep my rights. How is the onus not on someone else to take them from me? I lose my right by default because of someone else’s action?

                The new buyer in this story knew about my right to park there. Maybe I came up and told him. But because you didn’t make it a part of the sale, he can (again, morally, not legally) claim that I no longer have that right?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                You retained your right to park there either (A) because you still own the property representing the parking space, or (B) you negotiated with the new property owner.

                As per usual, you are confused.

                In the case where you negotiated the ability to park there with the new owner, you actually have no RIGHT to park there. The new owner has GRANTED you HIS right to park there by contract.

                If in your original sales agreement you negotiated that you RETAIN OWNERSHIP of the land representing the parking space, then YES, you actually HAVE THE RIGHT to park there.

                Of course, if you do not own any of the property that would allow you to ACCESS the parking space that you owned, the new owner would be within HIS rights to not allow you to cross HIS property in order to access your parking spot….

                The main thing is, don’t let yourself get confused.

                If you sold ALL of the property, you have NO RIGHTS regarding that property whatsoever, other than rights GRANTED TO YOU by the new owner.

              • What is the distinction between the land itself and the use of the land? Why must I own a physical thing in order to have rights? Why can’t I have right attached to a non-physical thing without the thing itself?

                The owner of the property is not granting me anything. I withheld that right for myself when I sold it to him. He can’t grant me what he doesn’t have and he surely can’t sell it to a third party.

          • Matt:

            The problem stems from your use of “rights”. You should know by now that some of us here view “rights” as per the truist meaning. Thus a thing, such as a company, has no rights. Rights are those things applied to individuals. Also true rights denote action as opposed to inaction. If I have a right I have the ability to do something. Apple in this case has no right to take any action other than enforce the restrictions on the owner’s right to do what he/she wants with his/her property.

            The confusion comes from legal statemens like “all rights reserved”. What is meant is that all legal title or claims on use are reserved, not actual rights.

            Therefore, I would say Apple is placing a restriction on the initial buyer of the phone, if said buyer signed the contract. He/she agreed to abide to the terms, which includes a “restriction” on his/her ability to change the software. If there is any right involved, it would be considered as Apple retained its right to take action against the buyer if the buyer violates the contract.

            • Thus a thing, such as a company, has no rights I don’t necessarily agree, but in this case, the rights would be held by the owners of the company, ie the stockholders by means of the board, which acts through the CEO. Thus Steve Jobs, effectively, holds the right to modify your phone.

              If I have a right I have the ability to do something. Apple in this case has no right to take any action other than enforce the restrictions on the owner’s right to do what he/she wants with his/her property. Agreed. Apple has the right to enforce this restriction. It is their right. They have no other rights.

              If there is any right involved, it would be considered as Apple retained its right to take action against the buyer if the buyer violates the contract. But the buyer did not violate the terms. The buyer sold the phone. But he does not have the right we just discussed above because of the agreed upon restriction. So he cannot sell it restriction free. Now, if the new buyer does not know about the restriction, he can buy it and, morally, the only offense is that of the seller. But, because the new buyer is aware of this restriction, he cannot claim this right. He knows that it is still reserved, no?

              Can I sell you a bridge that I do not own? If you know that I do not own it, can I sell it to you anyway? Would you claim the right to ownership after you paid me?

              Another analogy is Kosher law. A Jew may not eat pork (personally, I love bacon way to much to adhere to this). If a Jew is given pork, but does not know that it pork, the Jew has committed no violation. But, if the Jew knows that it is pork, and he eats it, he is now in violation. . . . In claiming apple’s rights through ignorance, you are not being immoral. But if you know that they have retained rights and claim them anyway, can that be moral?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius,

                If I randomly buy a phone from you for $200, and you do not DISCLOSE any restrictions upon my further actions with that phone, you cannot assume that I KNOW of any such restrictions.

                Not all EULAs are created equal, and they most certainly do not all read the same. Some products do not even have an EULA associated with them.

                Assuming that a secondary buyer KNOWS of restrictions which a contract has placed upon YOU as the primary buyer is a very dangerous assumption.

              • you cannot assume that I KNOW of any such restrictions. We are taking this as a given. Flag has acknowledge that he knew about the terms and conditions in advance of his purchase.

                So the question stands. Knowing in advance that I do not have the right to modify the software, can you ethically buy that right from me anyway?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Ok… lets take it as a given that I know for certain that YOU signed a contract with Apple stating that you agree not to modify their software, yet when you sell me the phone, you require no such agreement from me.

                Since you did not ask me to agree to those terms, my knowledge that YOU agreed to those terms is irrelevant.

                Apple still would have a very difficult time coming after ME for modifying the software, because I never agreed to a contract stating that I could not do so.

                Now, you may want to argue that my decision to modivfy the software was “unethical” because I knew that YOU had signed such an agreement, and therefore knew that by modifying the software I would be getting YOU in trouble… but I still have no obligation to abide by an agreement which you signed, unless I agreed to it as well.

                So the moral of the story is be careful. If you agree to a contract stating you cannot modify the software on a phone, and then decide to sell the phone to someone else, you better MAKE SURE you get them to sign the same agreement!

              • So you agree that the action of modifying the code (jail breaking) is immoral in this situation, if only on the grounds that you are knowingly causing me to violate a contact?

              • Matt:

                Your conclusion in P #1 is in conflict with P #2.

                We agree on P#2, which eliminates P#1 as a valid conclusion.
                Steve Jobs only has the right to take action against the cosigner of the contract (buyer) for breach of contract.

                P #3: Whoa down there city slicker. Yours sliding all over the place.

                Your bridge example violates your conclusion of P#2. Your stated fact was that you owned the phone/bridge. If you do then the “rights” retained are as we agreed, and nothing more.

                And because of this the buyer could sell the phone without restrictions, depending on …………..

                For the seller to impose restriction on any or all future buyers the seller must include a provision in the contract that requires the seller to include the same contractual language and restrictions on said property. Warning however, there is case law which may limit the time such restriction can forced into future contracts.

                Now if buyer 1 sells to buyer 2 and does not include the restrictions in any contract, Apple may take action against buyer 1.

                Whether buyer 2 knew of restrictions placed on buyer 1 is irrelevant. The obligation to transfer the restrictions lies with buyer 1 as does the legal liability for breach of contract.

                I see no moral dilemna in your problem. I see only matters of contract law and at the most, ethical standards if they exist. But I know of no ethical standard which requires one person to adhere to restrictions on another person without agreeing to those restrictions personally.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Further, if Dodge claimed, “You own the car itself, but we claim ownership of the engine, even after you buy the car from us.” you would be pretty stupid to agree to buy a vehicle from them under those conditions.

        • Nonetheless, those are essentially the terms of the sale. Apple said, you get the phone, we keep the software. You may use our software (engine) but you may not modify it.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Those are the terms of the sale to the primary buyer, yes. If the primary buyer then re-sells the phone, the contract does not automatically pass to the secondary buyer unless the secondary buyer sees the contract and agrees to it.

            Where the moral waters get a bit muddy is if you buy a phone which you are reasonably certain was stolen from the rightful owner, and you do indeed know that the original seller places restrictions on software modification, but you INTENTIONALLY buy a phone which you believe to be stolen, with the intent of modifying the software.

            The moral problem there isn’t that you are violating a contract (since you never signed one)… the moral problem there is that you knowingly purchased a piece of property from someone you strongly suspected did not actually have the right to sell to you.

            • EXACTLY! 15 points to you, Pete!

              So, what’s the answer?

              Black flag bought a phone he knew had restrictions for the express purposes of saving some money and avoiding those restrictions. Yes, legally he may be in the clear, but has he committed a moral violation?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                I am not in a position to determine that.

                I cannot know the details of the situation absent BF telling me the details.

                IF BF strongly suspected that he was buying a stolen phone but he bought it anyway, then yes, I would consider that a “moral violation”.

                However, if BF believed that the seller did indeed have rightful ownership of the piece of property being offered for sale, and it was offered to him without any contractual restrictions, then I see no problem with the transaction.

                This is very important for you to realize Mathius:

                Even if I have a reasonable expectation that YOU signed a contract when you purchased an item, I have no obligation to agree to said contract as a secondary buyer, unless YOU require it under your terms of sale to me!

                My knowledge of the fact that you signed a contract is irrelevant. Most likely I am unaware of the SPECIFICS of a contract which you signed, even if I am aware that you signed one.

                If you wish me, as a secondary buyer, to KNOW and AGREE TO the terms of a contractual agreement which you signed when YOU purchased an item, you had better show me the contract and get me to sign on to it as part of your terms of sale, or I cannot be held legally responsible for breaching it.

              • But he’s already stipulated most of this.

                -The phone was lost or stolen.
                -He knew that a contract was signed
                -He knew that contract prohibited jail breaking

                We’re not discussing legality. I keep saying that. I do not believe he is in violation of any laws. But rather, morality.

              • Matt:

                WRONG conclusion. Once again you are mixing concepts to support a conclusion. Contradiction in terms means contradiction with reality in your answer.

                Peter said: “the moral problem there is that you knowingly purchased a piece of property from someone you strongly suspected did not actually have the right to sell to you.”

                Matt said: “Black flag bought a phone he knew had restrictions for the express purposes of saving some money and avoiding those restrictions. Yes, legally he may be in the clear, but has he committed a moral violation?”

                Buyer 1 had the right to sell the phone to BF. BF did not purchase a phone that he knew was not actually owned by Buyer 1.

                BF purchased a phone with knowledge that buyer 1 was under contractual obligation to the seller. He managed to get the phone without buyer 1 imposing said restriction on him. Congratulations BF, slick deal.

                But alas, BF has now assumed some risk, no matter how slight. The big Apple goes after buyer 1 and gets the court to give BF two choices. Return the phone to buyer 1 or execute a contract with buyer 1 that transfers the obligations as per the terms buyer 1 agreed to transfer. BF now gets to take action against buyer 1 for his original cost and any damages he incurred.

                This all assumes the “transfer of restriction upon sale” was part of the original contract.

                Still no moral obligation. These are legal issues, not issues of morality. As I said, you can try to squeeze in ethics or maybe personal values but not morality.

                In fact, would it not be immoral for BF to accept restrictions upon the use of his property if he did not have to?

                It would certainly be immoral to impose those upon him without his consent so why should it be immoral for him to avoid having them imposed upon him without his consent?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Mathius,

          Let us say for example that YOU purchase a phone from Apple, and you sign a contract agreeing to the stipulation that you may not modify “their” software.

          You then sell that phone to me, but all you do is say, “give me $200 and I will sell you the phone.” I sign NOTHING.

          I then proceed to modify the software on the phone.

          Who can Apple hold legally responsible for breach of contract here? (Hint: YOU were the only one that signed the contract stating YOU would not modify the software….)

          • Absolutely true. I breached the legal contract. But we are not discussing legalities here. I am merely trying to figure out if it is moral for you to edit the software. To that end, we have to realize that you know (we will take this as granted, because it is common knowledge, and Flag has already tacitly stipulated it) that I had this restriction.

            So you bought for $200 a phone that you knew had limited rights. You knew I did not have the right to modify the software. How can you then claim that I sold it to you? Morally speaking.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Morally speaking, you must assume that I have NO KNOWLEDGE of what was in a contract that YOU signed!

              I never saw it, I never signed it. Morally, it is YOUR responsibility to assure that I know what was in the contract that you signed and that I agree to the terms of said contract as well if you don’t want to get in trouble for breach of contract.

              I have NO moral obligation to find out what Apple THINKS its “rights” are if you simply randomly sell me a phone.

              • I am not assuming anything. Flag has admitted knowledge of the terms that the original signer almost certainly signed.

                I have NO moral obligation to find out what Apple THINKS its “rights” are if you simply randomly sell me a phone. If you have strong reason to believe that you are violating someone’s rights, you have no obligation to verify? You can hide behind willful ignorance?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Willful ignorance would assume that I not only had a resonable expectation that you signed a contract, but also that I had specific knowledge of what was in said contract.

                Assuming that I know the details of a contract you signed is foolish.

                Even if I went to the Apple website, and read their specific contract, if you wish to PROTECT YOURSELF, you had better make SURE you include that contract and my agreement with it in your terms of sale of your phone to me as a secondary buyer of the phone.

                Let’s say for the sake of argument that I actually KNOW SPECIFICALLY what is in Apple’s contract with you as the primary buyer of their phone, and then you offer to sell it to me, but you either forget to get me to sign the contract, or you merely ASSUME that I am going to follow the contract, even though I did not sign it.

                I then go on and modify the phone, even though I KNOW it violates the contract that YOU signed.

                That would be immoral, because I would KNOWINGLY be putting you in breach of your contract with Apple; however, legally it would still be your responsibility.

                What you seem to be arguing is that BF knows precisely what is in a standard Apple cell-phone contract, and purposely went out and obtained one which he knew ahead of time was in violation of Apple’s standard contract, in order to save himself a few bucks.

                Even if this really is demonstrably the case, how do we weigh it morally?

                I do not know if you and BF have had the “intellectual property” debate before or not, but he has a very clear position on any issue of “intellectual property” (mainly that there is no such thing).

                So, from his own internal morals, he would view this as probably being perfectly ok.

                You probably hold the viewpoint that intellectual property does in fact exist, so from your moral standpoint, such a decision would be immoral.

                However, I do not have enough evidence right now to know exactly what BF knew or didn’t know regarding the transaction, or what his specific intentions were.

                If you haven’t had the “intellectual property” debate with BF yet, I suggest you try it. I am still not completely sure that I agree with him on THAT subject, but as far as I can tell his arguments are consistent 🙂

              • That would be immoral, because I would KNOWINGLY be putting you in breach of your contract with Apple Fine. But it is immoral.

                What you seem to be arguing is that BF knows precisely what is in a standard Apple cell-phone contract, and purposely went out and obtained one which he knew ahead of time was in violation of Apple’s standard contract, in order to save himself a few bucks. We know this because he stipulated it. But it’s also in the phone. If you go to setting, general, about, legal, you will find all terms under which the software may be used. He has stated that he did so to save a few bucks and free himself from constraints in order to jail break the phone.

                I have had the intellectual property debate. I was.. interesting. I don’t agree, but fortunately my argument doesn’t depend on it. He is immoral on the grounds that he is knowingly violating my contract and putting me at risk – your statement.

                If we accept that IP exists, which he doesn’t, then he is also immoral on the grounds that he is using their property in a way they do not permit. Either way, he is morally obligated to stop, agree?

      • I was going to reply to the first set, then saw a whole explosion.

        I love when I sling fire cracker into the middle, come back a day later, and find a full-on war in progress! The power – the glory – of fire crackers!

        A real reply shortly…

        • I spoke to my office lawyer. He agrees that legally a distinction is drawn between the enforcement of use restrictions on a cell phone and that of say, a right to park on someone’s property. However, the right would be attached as a lien against the property. As such, he said, it is useful to think of it as, not so much a detached right, but fractional ownership. That is, it is best to imagine that Apple still owns 5% of your phone. That 5% corresponds to the bits of the physical memory in the device which stores the software (like selling you a car, but not the engine). Apple owns these and, as such, you may not edit them. Given that, loss and subsequent sale of the phone should not change the MORAL (not legal) fact that the 5% is known to be owned by someone else – it is stated if you look in the settings, about, general, legal. They have written their name on this part of the phone and said, “we own this – do not touch.” Thus you are editing someone else’s physical property.

          Does that help?

          • Interesting theory, however, Apple does not own 5% of my phone. They own exactly 0%.

            • It’s just another way to think about it. Basically they have a lien against your phone, and you cannot get rid of it just because you unknowingly (although you admit to know) bought it from someone who didn’t make you agree.

              • The logic does not hold.

                A party cannot sell a piece of property that is encumbered with a lien.

                Thus, Apple could not sell the phone in the first place, if there was a lien on it.

                Since it was, indeed, sold – by the party who you claim retains the lien – is a contradiction.

                Thus, it was not sold, or there was no lien.

                Since the product was sold, and Apple agrees it was sold (as they accepted money), there can be no lien on the property.

              • Lawyer fact check says that an item can be sold with a lien provided that the lien holder consents.

              • And the buyer consents.

              • Hmmm….

                Actually, the lien holder can no longer hold a claim to the property, then.

                His claim must transfer to the ‘ex’ owner (if at all).

                The new owner is not bound by the lien.

    • Do you guys need a referee?

  13. From the:

    Why you do not want to invite Government into a marriage file….

    Billionaire’s divorce could be lucrative for U.S.

    The ruling allows the federal government and Cendant to attach liens to recover almost $3.3 billion to which the court says they are “entitled”

    They strip the wife of assets, and seize them for themselves – what nice guys!

    Matt, you failed as a friend to Buck by allowing him to risk such travesty! Shame on you!

    • Maybe, but he’s on a honeymoon on a tropical island right now and we’re not.

      • Remember to ask him one day how much he remembered his honeymoon while he watches his ex and the government walk away with his fortune.

        • Thanks for the Cynicism BF!! Yes marriage is a difficult proposition, but it is something that can and does survive if BOTH parties are committed to it 100%. Anyone who advocates for a 50% 50 % marriage is advocating for a failed marriage.

          I remember a quote that I heard from someone who had been married for over 50 years. He had been asked what the secret of his success was. He said “divorce was never an option. Murder yes, but divorce, no.”

          Something to think about!!

      • His last days in paradise.

  14. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    “Here is your problem, you gave up marriage as a religious or sacred right or ceremony the second you allowed government to control it, regulate it, or give away goodies associated with it. See how your allowing government in the front door blocked your exit through the back door. By associating marriage with government goodies, you made it a “right”, and now you don’t get to have a voice to determine whether you can violate someone’s “right”.”

    USW,

    You are slipping. You know very well that the government cannot create rights, it can only repress them. The way you worded this paragraph confuses this issue mightily, even though you put “right” in quotes.

    We all have a right to associate with who we wish to associate with, and to NOT associate with people we do not wish to associate with. Marriage is fundamentally part of that right.

    You may choose who to be intimate with and associate with on (potentially) a lifetime arrangement. The government should have no say in this whatsoever. If people don’t like your choice of who you pick for a potential lifetime intimate association, they are free to choose to not associate with you.

    As usual, putting government into the equation at all just muddies the waters for everyone. But the main point is, government cannot make rights, and it cannot even make “rights”. All it can do is make rules which attempt to restrict rights.

    So, basically, either government should not be in the marriage business at all (something I have advocated for quite some time now), or people should stop mixing religion and government and should realize that a government attempting to limit freedom of association on ANY basis is a tyranny.

  15. rwboveroux says:

    Is the sun now rising in the West now? Does rain now fall up? Has the law of gravity been revoked?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-warns-double-dip-recession/

    Or is he just being the hypocritical bum that he is?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Obama may be finally starting to realize that there is absolutely nothing he can do to prevent the economy from truly tanking.

      Perhaps this sort of admission makes him think that people will still support him when it does truly go from the toilet (where we now are) to the sewer (where we are rapidly headed).

      Unfortunately, Obama and his ilk have absolutely NO IDEA how to get the economy from the sewer to the waste-water treatment plant…. and almost no one on the other side of the aisle does either, certainly no one with any real influence at this point….

      As JAC occasionally likes to say, “We are SO screwed!”

    • I watched that this morning,

      “Obama warned the United States’ climbing national debt could drag the country into a “double-dip recession,” though he said he’s still considering additional tax incentives for businesses to reverse the rising unemployment rate.

      “There may be some tax provisions that can encourage businesses to hire sooner rather than sitting on the sidelines. So we’re taking a look at those,” Obama told Fox News’ Major Garrett.

      “I think it is important, though, to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.”

      Does this mean he will veto healthcare or cap & trade because of their impact on the economy? (not a serious question)

  16. Gold pushed through 1150….

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Looks like $1150 is providing a bit of a psychological barrier so far, but I don’t think it will provide one for long.

      Gold now seems to be reflecting a rejection of all fiat currencies as opposed to simply a rejection of the dollar. It seems to be a reflection that there is very little confidence right now in the so-called monitary policy of any government at this time.

    • a comment from zerohedge —

      The bullion banks (Goldman, JPM, HSBC) are massively short gold/silver. ALL shorts are DROWNING, at present. We are very close to a MASSIVE and PANIC short-covering spike in both metals. Next week is Options Expiration and there is MASSIVE Calls at $1200.

      December is the main month for gold/silver deliveries. Watch for options to roll over to contracts that stand for PHYSICAL delivery in December. Too bad there is nowhere near the metals required to satisfy physical delivery. —-

      You’ve talked about this before and I thought of you when I read it. I will be out for the next few hours, but will check when I get back in.
      Look for a COMEX default and CLOSURE!

      The bullion banks and options writers are desperately attempting to get a selloff in both metals, but to no avail. They have been trying for several days.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        There will be no big selloff in metals at this point, for two reasons. One is the obvious reason that you stated – people realize that the physical gold does not actually exist to satisfy all outstanding contracts. If all buyers demand physical gold, the banks are screwed.

        The second reason is related to the first. There is no confidence in fiat money right now, in part because it lacks sufficient backing by physical goods such as gold.

        These 2 related reasons are going to hasten the collapse of the current financial system, and the best bet to have any shot at preserving any of your own wealth will be to own PHYSICAL gold.

        One additional warning: Get your valuables OUT of “safe-deposit” boxes that are located in banks! These are NOT safe! They WILL find a way to seize your wealth if the banks start to go under! If you own gold and silver and have them in a box at the bank, get ’em outta there!

      • Is that the smell of blood I detect?

        • JAC. how did you know I gave blood today? Don’t do that creepy omniscient thing — it weirds me out.

          and speaking of being weirded out — off off topic — a while back, you were writing about something in the air – was ‘quickenin’ the word you used? Anyway, that phenomena was articulately covered over in American Thinker —

          http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/obamas_mind_game.html

          I’d like to see your thoughts on the writer’s take on it — please & thank you c

      • And on top of all of that

        …there is a rather credible rumor that many of the bricks transferred from London to Hong Kong (as demanded a couple of months ago) are made out of tungsten and not pure gold.

        …developing…..

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Just for fun, speculate:

          Was this a bait-and-switch because London lacked the physical gold to transfer to Hong Kong?

          If that is the case and they transferred tungsten-alloy bricks to Hong Kong instead…

          Let’s just say “China will be VERY unhappy” is going to look like the understatement of the next millenium…

          A move like that could either precipitate world financial collapse, world war III, or both….

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          It is also possible that London DID if fact posess plenty of actual gold to satisfy the demand, but actively CHOSE to send tungsten-alloy bars to Hong Kong instead of the pure gold which was actually available (probably because London would have put a significant dent in it’s physical gold holdings in order to actually satisfy the demand).

          Even if this scenario is the case, it is equally bad. Foreign investment in Great Britain could drop to near zero overnight if it is found that they participated in ANY sort of fraud on this matter, and that would just be the tip of the iceberg as far as consequences….

          • Or, equally likely is that someone sold England tungsten bars disguised as gold.

            So, who sold it to them, and them to them, and them to them?????

            I sure hope Ft. Knox doesn’t show up on any of the bills of lading.

            Yes Peter

            WE ARE SOOOOOOOOOO SCREWED!!!!

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              JAC,

              The ability to test gold for % purity has been around for centuries, so if someone sold tungsten-alloy to anyone disguised as gold in anything even remotely resembling “modern times” the fraud SHOULD have been easily detected. Hell, really people have know this since ancient times.

              If you know the volume of a gold bar, and you know the density of gold, you know how much water will be displaced by that gold. Any alloy containing tungsten isn’t going to have the same density as pure gold, so it won’t displace the proper amount of water. That would just be ONE simple test to detect the fraud.

              If alloyed gold made it into a vault somewhere, either someone was not doing their job properly, or they INTENTIONALLY let the impure gold pass for the real thing….

              Any way you slice it, if this story is true, it is gonna be BAD.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Looks like a fecal specimen about to share the same time and space with a rotating wind machine.

              • You have a way with words!

              • Link to a story about the tungsten bars

                http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article14996.html

              • Here’s another one who says its a hoax. Not sure what to believe anymore…

                http://www.rapidtrends.com/2009/11/14/why-gold-bugs-are-considered-nuts/

              • Cyndi,

                One way or another it is a hoax! 🙂

                Either the gold isn’t real or the story isn’t real….

                …the root cause is the mystery that all central banks wholly resist any audit of their reserves.

                I get a monthly gold report which details all the large reserves in the world.

                The notes always say “…as reported by …” – that is no one actually looked.

              • Is that how you heard of the tungsten bars? I agree the problem is with the banks not actually looking. My Lib boyfriend found article above. I sent the story you linked to and he countered with the link above. Barry thinks Obama has saved the day and that everything is fine. People just make stuff up to cause problems. He won’t take it seriously unless the MSM says it. He dismissed it out right. I realize that some folks get off on starting hoaxes and one should always be aware of the possibility of it. I can see where starting a rumor like this one could have some good benefits to someone who is positioned to profit from it. Do you think this is the case?

              • Cyndi,

                I think your boyfriend lives dangerously if his belief system is rooted to the proclamations of Main Stream Media.

                These are the things that I know are true.

                (1) No central bank has been audited for at least 200 years.

                (2) Central banks have ‘leased’ amounts of gold to Bullion banks. Some of these leases are huge, others not so.

                (3) Bullion banks sold the gold, and invested the proceeds into long term T-bills and the stock market.

                (4) The price they sold for averaged ~$450/oz.

                (5) They do not have the cash capital to buy back the gold.

                (6) The Central banks still register to the Gold Council their holdings as if they held the physical ore instead of the IOU they actually have in hand.

                What will happen? I don’t know.

                What will be the action of the Bullion banks? I don’t know

                What will be the consequence if the Central banks have lost all their gold? I don’t know.

                But I can speculate.

  17. Judy Sabatini says:

    Morning All

    Has anybody here seen the new Lexus LFA? It suppose to come out in DEC. of 2010. It has a 552-hp 4.5-liter V-10 with six-speed automated sequwential gearbox.

    Only 20 a month will be produced.
    Price tag is $375,000

    It’s top sped is 202 mph. It goes from zero-to-62mph in 3.7 seconds, making it one of the fastest production cars in the world.

    Thought maybe some of you would like to see it.

    Hoope you day is going good for you all.

    ‘Judy

    http://www.lexus.com/LFA/

  18. Carryover from yesterday…..

    D13 said: “As far as ego is concerned….oh, yes…it is directly aimed at the ladies. Not designer anything….not a product. Just a way of reducing the look of aging by 81% and reducing cellulite by almost 91% (90.9). Believe it…women will drive 100 miles for a hair dresser….more for younger looks…and indefinitely for no cellulite..well, little….have not gotten rid of it 100%…not yet. No surgery…no invasive procedure…not subject to FDA….just a procedure and combination of products already FDA approved. THAT is where ego comes in.”

    OK – did some searching and don’t know if I found your information or not. Did find a product/procedure being done using techniques and products that are also used on the battlefields for injuries. Possibility given your background???

    Have some questions. Will you look fake? (think Pelosi, Joan Rivers) You mentioned several procedures – forever? Group rates? Some HS friends and I get together annually and I’m planning 2010’s – Ft. Worth would work!
    So, how do the women of SUF get in on this?

    • I am interested as well. Have a family member who would schedule a treatment right now. She/I would also be interested in business opportunity.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      A woman decides to have a facelift for her 50th birthday. So she spends $15,000 and feels pretty good about the results. On her way home, she stops at a news-stand to buy a newspaper..Before leaving, she says to the clerk, ‘I hope you don’t mind my asking, but how old do you think I am

      ‘About 32,’ is the reply.’

      ‘Nope! I’m exactly 50,’ the woman says happily.

      A little while later she goes into McDonald’s and asks the counter girl the very same question.

      The girl replies, ‘I’d guess about 29.’

      The woman replies with a big smile, ‘Nope, I’m 50.’

      Now she’s feeling really good about herself. She stops in a drug store on her way down the street.
      She goes up to the counter to get some mints and asks the clerk this burning question.

      The clerk responds, ‘Oh, I’d say 30.’

      Again she proudly responds, ‘I’m 50, but thank you!’

      While waiting for the bus to go home, she asks an old man waiting next to her the same question.

      He replies, ‘ Lady, I’m 78 and my eyesight is going. Although, when I was young there was a sure-fire way to tell how old a woman was. It sounds very forward, but it requires you to let me put my hands under your bra. Then, and only then can I tell you EXACTLY how old you are.’

      They wait in silence on the empty street until her curiosity gets the best of her.

      She finally blurts out, ‘What the hell, go ahead.’

      He slips both of his hands under her blouse and begins to feel around very slowly and carefully. He bounces and weighs each breast, and he gently tweaks each nipple until they are sticking out like chapel hat pegs. He then pushes her breasts together and rubs his face against them.

      After a couple of minutes of this, she says, ‘Okay, okay….How old am I?’

      He completes one last squeeze of her breasts, removes his hands, and says, ‘Madam, you are 50.’

      Stunned and amazed, the woman says, ‘That was incredible, how could you be so accurate?’

      The old man said, ‘I was behind you in McDonalds.’

  19. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I wanted to clear something up from above, because it was getting a bit squishy:

    Scenario A:

    You sell your property to a buyer, but you negotiate to have a parking spot there “in perpetuity” and that was included in the sale contract.

    In this case, who has the “right” to park in that parking spot? YOU (the original property owner) do. WHY do you have that right? Because the CURRENT OWNER of the property has GRANTED YOU HIS RIGHT by contract.

    Scenario B:

    You sell your property to a buyer, but as part of the sale agreement, the buyer allows you to retain ownership of a piece of the land which you will use as a parking spot. Who has a right to park there? YOU, because you ARE THE CURRENT OWNER of the parking spot (therefore as the owner of that property, you can do whatever you want there).

    Now, the rub comes in if you don’t own any of the propety which allows you ACCESS to your parking spot. If you forgot that, you might have to negotiate with the new property owner to allow you to access your parking spot 🙂

    • People – people must I explain this again. You do not own land you own rights to land. Different rights to land are bought and sold every day. Also rights to land are not transferred by a sales contract; they are conveyed by an instrument known as a deed. If I retain the right to park on property I have sold that right is forever attached to me and my heirs regardless of how many times that property is sold. It makes no difference whether it is included in subsequent deeds between other owners; my right to park is attached to the chain of title. I or my heirs can even sell that right if we so desire to another owner.

  20. I’ve read a few of Robin’s articles. (A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a psychotherapist and a recovering liberal in Berkeley.) This one is another interesting read.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/obamas_mind_game.html

  21. Judy Sabatini says:

    MOM here. Hope all my boys are playing nice today, and nobody is fighting with each other.

    • v. Holland says:

      Now Mom-you can’t just assume that the girls are playing nice. 🙂

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        You’re right, and I hope my girls are playing nice and not fighting either.

        How you doing V? Hope all is well with you today.

        • v. Holland says:

          Doing good-just busy-not participating much today just trying to read everything-Hope you are doing good!

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Doing pretty good actually. Yesterday was my birthday, and today is my youngest son’s birthday, so we went out to dinner last night to celebrate both. But oldest son was sick, so he couldn’t make it.

            • v. Holland says:

              Happy Belated Birthday to you and Happy Birthday to your baby! Feel like I should send a card but am not computer savvy enough to do so.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Thanks V, but my baby is 24 today. Don’t worry about sending a card, no biggie, just another day to me. I quit having birthday’s after yesterday. I absolutely refuse to get any older.

  22. Judy Sabatini says:

    A friend sent this to me and I thought I’d put it up to share with all of you.

    A lesson that should be taught in all schools . . And colleges

    Back in September of 2005, on the first day of school, Martha Cothren, a social studies school teacher at Robinson High School in Little Rock , did something not to be forgotten. On the first day of school, with the permission of the school superintendent, the principal and the building supervisor, she removed all of the desks out of her classroom.

    When the first period kids entered the room they discovered that there were no desks.
    ‘Ms. Cothren, where’re our desks?’

    She replied, ‘You can’t have a desk until you tell me how you earn the right to sit at a desk.’

    They thought, ‘Well, maybe it’s our grades.’

    ‘No,’ she said.

    ‘Maybe it’s our behavior.’

    She told them, ‘No, it’s not even your behavior.’

    And so, they came and went, the first period, second period, third period. Still no desks in the classroom.

    By early afternoon television news crews had started gathering in Ms.Cothren’s classroom to report about this crazy teacher who had taken all the desks out of her room.

    The final period of the day came and as the puzzled students found seats on the floor of the deskless classroom, Martha Cothren said, ‘Throughout the day no one has been able to tell me just what he/she has done to earn the right to sit at the desks that are ordinarily found in this classroom. Now I am going to tell you.’

    At this point, Martha Cothren went over to the door of her classroom and opened it.

    Twenty-seven (27) U.S. Veterans, all in uniforms, walked into that classroom, each one carrying a school desk. The Vets began placing the school desks in rows, and then they would walk over and stand alongside the wall. By the time the last soldier had set the final desk in place those kids started to understand, perhaps for the first time in their lives, just how the right to sit at those desks had been earned.

    Martha said, ‘You didn’t earn the right to sit at these desks. These heroes did it for you. They placed the desks here for you. Now, it’s up to you to sit in them. It is your responsibility to learn, to be good students, to be good citizens. They paid the price so that you could have the freedom to get an education. Don’t ever forget it.’

    By the way, this is a true story.

    Please consider passing this along so others won’t forget that the freedoms we have in this great country were earned by U. S. Veterans.

  23. The Employee Meeting:

    I would like to start by thanking you for attending this meeting, though it’s not like you had much of a choice. After all, attendance was mandatory. I’m also glad many of you accepted my invitation to your family members to be here as well. I have a few remarks to make to all of you, and then we’ll retire to the ballroom for a great lunch and some employee awards.
    I felt that this meeting was important enough to close all 12 of our tire and automotive shops today so that you could be here. To reassure you, everybody is being paid for the day — except me. Since our stores are closed we’re making no money. That economic loss is mine to sustain. Carrington Automotive has 157 full time employees and around 30 additional part-timers All of you are here. I thank you for that.

    When you walked into this auditorium you were handed a rather thick 78-page document Many of you have already taken a peek. You were probably surprised to see that it’s my personal tax return for 2008. Those of you who are adept at reading these tax returns will see that last year my taxable income was $534,000.00. Now I’m sure this seems rather high to many of you. So … let’s talk about this tax return.

    Carrington Automotive Enterprises is what we call a Sub-S – a Subchapter S corporation. The name comes from a particular part of our tax code.. Sub-S status means that the income from all 12 of our stores is reported on my personal tax return. Businesses that report their income on the owner’s personal tax return are referred to as “small businesses.” So, you see now that this $534,000 is really the total taxable income – the total combined profit from all 12 of our stores. That works out to an average of a bit over $44,000 per store.

    Why did I feel it important for you to see my actual 2008 tax return? Well, there’s a lot of rhetoric being thrown around today about taxes, small businesses and rich people. To the people in charge in Washington right now I’m a wealthy American making over a half-million dollars a year. Most Americans would agree: I’m just another rich guy; after all … I had over a half-million in income last year, right? In this room we know that the reality is that I’m a small business owner who runs 12 retail establishments and employs 187 people. ! Now here’s something that shouldn’t surprise you, but it will: Just under 100 percent … Make that 99.7 percent of all employers in this country are small businesses, just like ours.

    Every one of these businesses reports their income on a personal income tax return. You need to understand that small businesses like our s are responsible for about 80 percent of all private sector jobs in this country, and about 70 percent of all jobs that have been created over the past year. You also need to know that when you hear some politician talking about rich people who earn over $200,000 or $500,000 a year, they’re talking about the people who create the jobs.

    The people who are now running the show in Washington have been talking for months about raising taxes on wealthy Americans I already know that in two years my federal income taxes are going to go up by about 4.5 percent. That happens when Obama and the Democrats allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. When my taxes climb by 4.5 percent the Democrats will be on television saying that this really isn’t a tax increase They’ll explain that the Bush tax cuts have expired .. Nothing more. Here at Carrington we’ll know that almost 5% has been taken right off of our bottom line. And that means it will be coming off your bottom line.

    Numbers are boring, I know … But let’s talk a bit more about that $534,000. That’s the money that was left last year from company revenues after I paid all of the salaries and expenses of running this business. Now I could have kept every penny of that for myself, but that would have left us with nothing to grow our business, to attract new customers and to hire new employees. You’re aware that we’ve been talking about opening new stores in Virginia Beach and Newport News . To do that I will have to buy or lease property, construct a building and purchase inventory. I also have to hire additional people to work in those stores. These people wouldn’t immediately be earning their pay. So, where do you think the money for all o! f this comes from? Right out of our profits .. Right out of that $534,000. I need to advertise to bring Customers in, especially in these tough times. Where do you think that money comes from? Oh sure, I can count it as an expense when I file my next income tax return . But for right now that comes from either current revenues or last year’s profits. Revenues right now aren’t all that hot … so do the math. A good effective advertising campaign might cost us more than $300,000.

    Is this all starting to come together for you now?

    Right now the Democrats are pushing a nationalized health care plan that, depending on who’s doing the talking, will add anywhere from another two percent to an additional 4.6 percent to my taxes. If I add a few more stores, which I would like to do, and if the economy improves, my taxable income … our business income … could go over one million dollars! If that happens the Democrats have yet another tax waiting, another five percent plus! I’ve really lost track of all of the new government programs the Democrats and President Obama are proposing that they claim they will be able to finance with new taxes on what they call “wealthy Americans..”

    And while we’re talking about health care, let me explain something else to you. I understand that possibly your biggest complaint with our company is that we don’t provide you with health insurance. That is because as your employer I believe that it is my responsibility to provide you with a safe workplace and a fair wage and to do all that I can to preserve and grow this company that provides us all with income. I no more have a responsibility to provide you with health insurance than I do with life, auto or homeowner’s insurance. As you know, I have periodically invited agents for health insurance companies here to provide you with information on private health insurance plans.

    The Democrats are proposing to levy yet another tax against Carrington in the amount of 8 percent of my payroll as a penalty for not prov! iding you with health insurance. You should know that if they do this I will be reducing every person’s salary or hourly wage by that same 8 percent. This will not be done to put any more money in my pocket. It will be done to make sure that I don’t suffer financially from the Democrat’s efforts to place our healthcare under the control of the federal government. It is your health, not mine. It is your healthcare, not mine. These are your expenses, not mine. If you think I’m wrong about all this, I would sure love to hear your reasoning

    Try to understand what I’m telling you here. Those people that Obama and the Democrats call “wealthy Americans” are, in very large part, America ‘s small business owners. I’m one of them. You have the evidence, and surely you don’t think that the owner of a bunch of tire stores is anything special. That $534,000 figure on my income tax return puts me squarely in Democrat crosshairs when it comes to tax increases. Let’s be clear about this … crystal clear. Any federal tax increase on me is going to cost you money, not me. Any new taxes on Carrington Automotive will be new taxes that you, or the people I don’t hire to staff the new stores I won’t be building, will be paying. Do you understand what I’m telling you? You’ve heard about things rolling downhill, right? Fine .. then you need to know that taxes, like that other stuff, roll downhill. Now you and I may understand that you are not among those that the Democrats call “wealthy Americans,” but when this “tax the rich” thing comes down you are going to be standing at the bottom of the mud slide, if you get my drift. That’s life in the big city, my friends … where elections have consequences.

    You know our economy is very weak right now. I’ve pledged to get us through this without layoffs or cuts in your wages and benefits. It’s too bad the politicians can’t get us through this without attacking our profits. To insure our survival I have to take a substantial portion of that $534,000 and set it aside for unexpect! ed expenses and a worsening economy. Trouble is, the government is eyeing that money too … and they have the guns. If they want it, they can take it.

    I don’t want to make this too long. There’s a great lunch waiting for us all. But you need to understand what’s happening here. I’ve worked hard for 23 years to create this business. There were many years where I couldn’t take a penny in income because every dollar was being dedicated to expanding the business. There were tough times when it took every dollar of revenues to replenish our inventory and cover your paychecks. During those times I earned nothing. If you want to see those tax returns, just let me know.

    OK … I know I’m repeating myself here. I don’t hire stupid people, and you are probably getting it now. So let me just ramble for a few more minutes. Most Americans don’t realize that when the Democrats talk about raising taxes on people making more than $250 thousand a year, they’re talking about raising taxes on small businesses. The U.S. Treasury Department says that six out of every ten individuals in this country with incomes of more than $280,000 are actually small business owners. About one-half of the income in this country that would be subject to these increased taxes is from small businesses like ours. Depending on how many of these wonderful new taxes the Democrats manage to pass, this company could see its tax burden increase by as much as $60,000. Perhaps more.

    I know a lot of you voted for President Obama. A lot of you voted for Democrats across the board. Whether you voted out of support for some specific policies, or because you liked his slogans, you need to learn one very valuable lesson from this election. Elections have consequences. You might have thought it would be cool to have a president who looks like you; or a president who is young, has a buff body, and speaks eloquently when there’s a teleprompter in the neighborhood. Maybe you liked his promises to tax the rich Maybe you believed his promise not to r! aise taxes on people earning less than a certain amount. Maybe you actually bought into his promise to cut taxes on millions of Americans who actually don’t pay income taxes in the first place. Whatever the reason .. your vote had consequences; and here they are.

    Bottom line? I’m not taking this hit alone. As soon as the Democrats manage to get their tax increases on the books, I’m going to take steps to make sure that my family isn’t affected. When you own the business, that is what you’re allowed to do. I built this business over a period of 23 years, and I’m not going to see my family suffer because we have a president and a congress who think that wealth is distributed rather than earned. Any additional taxes, of whatever description, that President Obama and the Democrats inflict on this business will come straight out of any funds I have set aside for expansion or pay and benefit increases. Any plans I might have had to hire additional employees for new stores will be put aside. Any plans for raises for the people I now have working for me will be shelved. Year-end bonuses might well be eliminated. That may sound rough, but that’s the reality.

    You’re going to continue to hear a lot of anti-wealth rhetoric out there from the media and from the left. You can chose to believe what you wish .. .but when it comes to Carrington Automotive you will know the truth. The books are open to any of you at any time.. I have nothing to hide. I would hope that other small business owners out there would hold meetings like this one, but I know it won’t happen that often. One of the lessons to be learned here is that taxes … all taxes … and all regulatory costs that are placed on businesses anywhere in this country, will eventually be passed right on down to individuals; individuals such as yourself. This hasn’t been about admonishing anyone and it hasn’t been about issuing threats. This is part of the education you should have received in the government schools, but didn’t.
    Class is now dismissed.

    • v. Holland says:

      Great article-What do you want to bet that if this meeting happened in real life this small business owner would be hiring a lawyer soon-some fool would sue him for harassment or something.

  24. President Obama tells NBC News that he expects that professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and executed.

    Nothing like a fair and impartial trial where one is innocent until proven guilty

    • He admitted guild. Gloated about it, actually. I’d say a conviction is a perfectly good expectation, no?

      • Many accused admit guilt but are found not guilty – it is hubris to assume so much before the wheels of justice roll.

        • It’s an expectation. I would bet that the overwhelming majority of people who admit guilt and brag about it on record before their trail are found guilty. Obama didn’t say “he will be convicted,” just that it’s what he expects.

          Just because some, or even many, get off does not mean that it’s likely. You can expect the likely outcome.

          That’s not particularly biased. If the judge said that, it might be a different matter, but last time I checked, the President isn’t part of the Judicial Branch.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Hi guys

            Question here. I hate to keep going back to this, but it’s the only one I can think of.

            O.J. was found not guilty of murdering his wife and her friend Ron Goldman, but then years later, was found guilty of wrongful death. My question. What’s the difference?

            • He was convicted in civil court where the burden of proof is lesser. In criminal court you need proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. In civil, you only need a preponderance of the evidence. It is why OJ is broke, but not in jail. He escaped criminal conviction (punishable by jail) and got hit with civil (punishable by monetary awards). To the Brown family pretty much owns him.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Thanks for answering, but I still think he did it, doesn’t matter to me what any court says. But, that’s just my opinion.

                Hope you’re doing well today Mathius.

              • Everyone thinks OJ did it. I still remember that great freeway chase in the Bronco though.. that was classic.

                Doing ok.. JAC, Flag, and Peter have been picking on me though 😦

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                That wasn’t a chase Mathius, that was a farce.

                You want mom to talk to them?

                LOL

              • Yea.. would you? Tell them to stop being meanies and admit they’re wrong.

                Then I would like some chocolate chip cookies 🙂

              • I think Black Flag needs to be grounded until he accepts that intellectual property rights exist.

                And no supper.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                There you go again throwing around the wrod “rights” and demonstrating no knowledge of the meaning…

              • Matt:

                The POTUS is the head of the country and in charge of the nations top law enforcement officer, including all the prosecutors.

                The President NEVER, I repeat NEVER comments on the hopeful or likely outcome of a case. “We will make sure justice is done”, or “we will work hard to make sure justice prevails” that is all. It means different things to diff. folks and avoids any mud in the water.

                The supposed “intelligent” man is an IDIOT. Meaning he is STUPID. Meaning he has the information required for knowledge but decides to ignore it to serve his own warped sense of reality and self importance.

                Bowing to foreign dignitaries is bad enough, but this is inexcusable.

                Making comments about local law enforcement issues is another Taboo. There are reasons for these protocols. It is based on the clear delimination between federal and state authorities. It is used to prevent introducing percieved bias into legal proceedings.

          • Matt,

            Obviously, one of my philosophy laughs loudly at any statement of the poly-ticks ….

            …however, the government in all its branches build the tree.

            A statement from the Executive – who appoints the head-honcho of prosecutors, nominates the big-wigs of courts, and veto’s and suggests new laws….

            ….stating such a thing kinda, sorta, probably, perverts government justice.

            **Darn, I contradicted myself – government justice! Sorry, JAC, Peter and USWep – even Black Flag’s trip once a century**

            • No worries mate.

              There are multiple varieties of Justice after all. Govt justice is just among the most violent.

              So see you didn’t trip. You were wrong though, only because you thought you were wrong when you weren’t.

    • Remember,

      Charles Manson almost got a mistrial for Nixon proclaiming him guilty in a newspapers.

  25. After being carpet bombed by Peter, the staggered, but brave, Mathius now faces the full brunt of the Cannae maneuver.

    So let’s deal with your specific complaints.
    (1) Jail break breaks “some agreement, way out there over the rainbow”

    I, on your behalf, sourced out the exact part of the agreement which pertains to this issue. No where in that agreement is my installation of software violates that agreement.

    Beyond this point – on this exact issue – it’s all down hill into the ditch for you.

    (2) Jail break breaks copyright for Apple.

    This leads into discussions of property and intellectual property rights – which I am sure will be wholly oppose to your positions. I think we will have to create a specialty thread on this one topic.

    However, as far as a breach of copyright within your (IMO, faulty) understanding Jail break does not violate that either.

    You attempt to create a moral question – and insist that my recourse to civil court cases is not appropriate.

    But, Matt, copyright et al are wholly legal constructs artificially created by writ of government law – they are not moral questions, but wholly questions of law!

    The court, therefore, are precisely a source to discover the intent of government law in the creation of copyright. And, case after case, they have decided my reasoning prevails.

    (3) An agreement signed between party places an obligation on a non-agreeing 3rd party who not party to the original agreement.

    This is more hypothetical and beyond the mere Apple specific, though we can use “Apple” for our examples.

    There is no way or no how a party can compel a 3rd party to an agreement made between the first two parties.

    You can ask you office lawyer, and trust me, he will not have to use some bizarre theory of assumed shared and fractional ownership of property to explain it to you.

    • A question somewhat on a tangent: imagine you and I are drafting a business deal and you notice a small detail which I do not – this detail changes the meaning of a sentence. It is important, because it will allow you to take complete advantage of me (which you intend to do). You will likely bankrupt me. You are certainly under no legal obligation to point it out and fix it (actually, you may be, but we’ll assume you aren’t). Are you morally justified in not doing so?

      Is it my problem because I failed to notice, or is it your problem because you are negotiating in bad faith? That is, do you have a moral obligation to negotiate in good faith? I suspect your answer is no.

      Just curious.

      • Obligation, no.

        Morally, yes.

        You get the difference from how you presented it, right?

        One can be immoral and still within their rights.

        Rights and morals are two, distinguishable, things.

        Me, as Black Flag, enters into a business arrange with you because me, Black Flag, see an advantage to do so.

        I expect you are there doing the deal on the same basis.

        Further, I expect this deal will benefit both of us (or you wouldn’t be there).

        As well, I expect that if new deals occur in the future, we will review our conduct on this opportunity to see if we should repeat. I want repeats, because I wouldn’t be doing this deal if it didn’t benefit me, and I am greedy. I want a lot more benefit, on going, in the future too – so I like building upon success.

        Me, Black Flag, under no obligation to do so, would point out such error; for devastating you would defeat my goal of building success. You make me wealthier alive then dead (or I wouldn’t be doing the deal).

  26. Wow

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_government_waste

    And some folks want to let them run a trillion dollar health care program.

  27. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
  28. Judy Sabatini says:

    Since the subject has been brought up, I thought this would coincide with what’s being talked about for some.

    Obama Paints a Fresh Bull’s-Eye on New York City

    by Kevin McCullough

    Terrorists may have been upset over the treatment of their brothers-in-arms at Gitmo, but striking back at the naval base was a logistical impossibility. Not so with a city of endless subway tunnels, elevator shafts and an entire island that can be brought to a halt given the right combination of carnage and chaos.

    The Obama administration grossly underestimated the response of the American people when it announced its intentions last week to try battlefield combatants in criminal courts. We were also not impressed that President Obama ducked responsibility by simply calling it a “prosecutorial” decision. We see the harm the trials could generate by allowing them to proceed.

    Yet if all these things are true of Americans at large, the residents of NYC realize them in greater magnification.

    On my nationally syndicated radio show this week we asked New Yorkers how they felt about enemy combatants, formerly taken straight from the battlefield, but now being given rights reserved for citizens of the United States. In a non-scientific survey the reaction was fierce 17 to 1 against bringing the terrorists to New York.

    Why should 9/11 families, and the rest of us, pay (through our tax dollars) for the court-appointed council of the terrorists?

    These trial proceedings will reopen the wounds of 9/11 — many of which have not yet fully healed. In deciding to make a political pay-off to the far left and the radical Islamic sympathizers they ignorantly embolden, President Obama is renewing the pain all over again. When the attorney general promises cameras in the courtroom, he seems to ignore the possibility that radicals might also shouting inaudible commands and insults at those in the room as well as those sitting in caves across the globe.

    The proceedings will paint a fresh bull’s-eye on New York City. Terrorists may have been upset over the treatment of their brothers-in-arms at Gitmo, but striking back at the naval base was a logistical impossibility. Not so with a city of endless subway tunnels, elevator shafts, and even a nearby nuclear reactor and an entire island that can be brought to a halt given the right combination of carnage and chaos.

    These legal proceedings are also an unnecessary move. With on-the-record confessions, the death penalty for the 9/11 terror suspects was virtually insured through a military tribunal. What New Yorkers are left with now are mere words that Holder will “seek” the death penalty.

    President Obama also added his “assurance” that they would receive “the most exacting form of justice” possible. Yet if that was a foregone conclusion, why must he give assurances?

    The proceedings are a disguised attempt to throw negative attention on to the previous administration. The real endgame of this matter is to reveal military and intelligence secrets for the public and our enemies to judge for themselves as to their legitimate use.

    The goal in essence becomes the re-election campaign for Barack Obama, and to create a way for Bush to still be part of the discussion when the trial finally becomes a reality years from now.

    The proceedings are also a move that spends wads of money. The process for these five terrorists now begins all over again. Discovery, testimony, evidence that has all been diligently put in place for trying enemy combatants must now be sifted through a different standard. Depending on the political leanings of the judge assigned the case, it is likely that many gaps will be left in the evidence path, and thus a jury will be instructed not to consider certain sections of otherwise admissible evidence.

    I am hesitant to believe that even the Obama administration with all of its harshest left leanings would genuinely want the mastermind of 9/11 to ever walk free. But that possibility exists.

    When O.J. Simpson was found innocent back in the last century, prosecutors had his blood, mixed with Nicole Brown Simpson’s at the scene and in trails from one room to the next. Yet he walked. Should a similar outcome occur in this case, it would not shock me if we as taxpayers would even be held responsible for the cost of transporting them to their jihadist homelands where they return to work attempting to strike America again.

    The average New Yorker understands all of this, as does the average American.

    They also clearly see that President Obama and his minions like Holder are willing to play games with national security in order to pander to their base.

    This travesty will not sit well in New York elections in 2010 and 2012 and unless President Obama decides to concede these basic concerns as legitimate by those who lost the most in our nation’s worst nightmare, he best consider the consequences.

    New York City may be a town of full of liberals, but even we New Yorkers, in large numbers, are willing to set aside many other concerns when it comes to the issue of national security in order to insure the safety of our nation and our children.

    One last parting note needs to be tucked in the back of the minds of the Obama administration, even if it doesn’t give them much comfort.

    I know that she was all “take one for the team” on the Sunday talk shows. But if these cases get bungled I do wonder what a Democratic presidential primary candidate in 2012 by the name of Hillary Clinton will have to say to her fellow New Yorkers about such a wrong-headed and utterly foolish gesture.

    Stay the course Mr. President, and we might just get an answer to that question.

    • Nothing in this world would make New Yorkers happier than the cases getting dropped and KSM getting released into NYC. You see, when the mob finds him, the ensuing festival will be like the Yankees winning (again) and a St. Patric’s Day parade rolling into one. They’d love it.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Yes, I’m sure the would. What happened to Flagster?

        • Black Flag’s has met representative members of the Mob in his “accidental” life.

          In legitimate business, they act like they know how to run a business. Fortunately for them, they actually hire managers who do know how to run a business.

          They came to review their ‘investment’ in an offshore bookie operation and -wow- they were out of a movie script.

          Large men in gaudy Hawaiian shirts over Bermuda short with thongs – a walking fashion catastrophe. Friendly enough, full of inane questions – but shocked that they actually made legitimate money…

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Okay, now you lost me here. What are you talking about, if I may ask.

            • Matt knows mobsters, I’ve met mobsters.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Are you talking real mobsters here. Okay, now there has to be a story in there somewhere Flag, am I right?

              • Mine were “real” mobsters.

                They were the funding for an offshore bookie that operated under license of a registered casino on a Caribbean island. All legit and everything.

                International business is quite interesting – Americans provided the money, European colonies the location, Canadians the management and the locals the worker-bee’s.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Oh, now you’re going to have to tell more. That’s it you can.

              • You know, in all fairness, I’ve had an interesting life too. I once killed a mobster by boiling him alive. Then I ate the meat in a butter sauce.

                Or was that a lobster…

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                By the way Flag, you still haven’t told me those other stories that you were going to tell me back in Sept. I believe it was on labor day weekend, if my memory serves me right.

              • Yes, Judy, I owe another segment of my life story.

                I’ll think about which one – remember, they may not be in chronological order

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Doesn’t matter Flag, I always enjoyed reading them.

  29. Judy Sabatini says:

    Flag, Mathius thinks you’re picking on him and he wants you to admit you’re wrong, and he thinks you should be punished and no supper for you tonight.

    All I’m going to say is, You two are going to have to come to some agreement here and work something out, I’m not going to get involved, it’s between the two of you. Just wanted to let you know, I’m watching.

    Play nice you two.

    MOM

  30. I want to add a few things tomy reply to Mrs. Weapon.

    First, Sarah Palin has been under costant attack from the Liberal media, the Liberal bloggers, and lefty’s in general. While she may not be Presidential material, she and her publicist have gotten the best of her enemies, and I would bet they are too dumb to even see it.

    Liberals everywhere, for someone you all claim is not to bright, she used your BS to her own advantage, and will now make millions on her book sales because of all the FREE advertisement time she has gotten, mainly from you. That’s right LIbs, you just helped her raise millions of dollars, of which she can put to good use in upcoming elections to kick YOUR asses out of office.

    The joke is squarely on the Liberal Left, who just had their own hate shoved down their Liberal throats. I sure hope it tastes good today, because it may be the cause of your aphyxiation later.

    Now, Palin is laughing out loud, and I will enjoy joining her today. Who’s the joke now?

    G!

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Replace Palin with Obama G-Man and much of the same effect applies. Curious that you don’t see or realize it.

  31. What a clever idea! Yes, Christmas cards. This is coming early so that you can get ready to include an important address to your list..
    >>
    Want to have some fun this CHRISTMAS? Send the ACLU a CHRISTMAS CARD this year.
    >>
    >> As they are working so very hard to get rid of the CHRISTMAS part of this holiday, we should all send them a nice, CHRISTIAN card to
    >> brighten up their dark, sad, little world..
    >>
    >> Make sure it says “Merry Christmas” on it.
    >>
    >> Here’s the address, just don’t be rude or crude. (It’s not
    >> the Christian way, you know.)
    >>
    >> ACLU
    >> 125 Broad Street
    >> 18th Floor
    >> New York , NY 10004
    >>
    >> Two tons of Christmas cards would freeze their operations because they wouldn’t know if any were regular mail containing contributions. So spend 44 cents and tell the ACLU to leave Christmas alone. Also tell them that there is no such thing as a ” Holiday Tree”. . . It’s always been called a CHRISTMAS TREE!
    >>
    >> And pass this on to your email lists. We really want to communicate with the ACLU! They really DESERVE us!!
    >>
    For those of you who aren’t aware of them, the ACLU, (the American Civil Liberties Union) is the one suing the U.S. Government to take God, Christmas or anything Christian away from us. They represent the atheists and others in this war.

    Help put Christ back in Christmas!

    • The government today announced that it is changing its emblem from an Eagle to a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects the government’s political stance.

      A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you’re actually being screwed.

      Damn, it just doesn’t get more accurate than that!

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        You’re funny LOI.

        • Now I’m going to get personal!

          A first-grade teacher, Ms. Brooks, was having trouble with one of her
          >students. The teacher asked, “Black Flag, what’s your problem?”
          >
          >Flag answered, “I’m too smart for the 1st grade. My sister is in the
          >3rd grade and I’m smarter than she is! I think I should be in the 3rd
          >grade too!”
          >
          >Ms. Brooks had had enough. She took Flag to the principal’s office.
          >
          >While Flag waited in the outer office, the teacher explained to the
          >principal what the situation was. The principal told Ms. Brooks he would
          >give the boy a test. If he failed to answer any of his questions he was
          >to go back to the 1st grade and behave. She agreed.
          >
          >Flag was brought in and the conditions were explained to him and he
          >agreed to take the test.
          >
          >Principal: “What is 3 x 3?”
          >
          >Flag: “9.”
          >
          >
          >Principal: “What is 6 x 6?”
          >
          >Flag: “36.”
          >
          >And so it went with every question the principal thought a 3rd grader
          >should know.
          >
          >The principal looks at Ms. Brooks and tells her, “I think Flag can go to the 3rd grade.”
          >
          >Ms. Brooks says to the principal, “Let me ask him some questions.”
          >
          >The principal and Flag both agreed.
          >
          >Ms. Brooks asks, “What does a cow have four of that I have only two of?”
          >
          >
          >Flag, after a moment: “Legs.”
          >
          >Ms. Brooks: “What is in your pants that you have but I do not have?”
          >
          >The principal wondered why would she ask such a question!
          >
          >Flag replied: “Pockets.”
          >
          >Ms. Brooks: “What does a dog do that a man steps into?”
          >
          >Flag: “Pants.”
          >
          >Ms. Brooks: What starts with a C, ends with a T, is hairy, oval,
          >delicious and contains thin, whitish liquid?”
          >
          >Flag: “Coconut.”
          >
          >The principal sat forward with his mouth hanging open.
          >
          >Ms. Brooks: “What goes in hard and pink then comes out soft and sticky?”
          >
          >
          >The principal’s eyes opened really wide and before he could stop the answer, Flag replied, “Bubble gum.”
          >
          >Ms. Brooks: “What does a man do standing up, a woman does sitting down and a dog does on three legs?”
          >
          >Flag: “Shake hands.”
          >
          >The principal was trembling.
          >
          >Ms. Brooks: “What word starts with an ‘F’ and ends in ‘K’ that means a lot of heat and excitement?”
          >
          >Flag: “Firetruck.”
          >
          >The principal breathed a sigh of relief and told the teacher, “Put Flag in the fifth-grade, I got the last seven questions wrong……
          >

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            That’s funny, but Flag might get mad at you for using him like that.

            • I think he will be flattered and tell us some childhood story, “in the seventh grade, I was building a proton gun when”…

              Think I will run before we find out, g’nite

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Chicken, afraid to face him, huh.

                Good night LOI Have a good one.

              • How did you know about my 6th Grade when I was working for the military industrial complex in weapons design? (I didn’t do the 7th…)

                LOI, you are in the running for official mascot of the site with your unique ability put a big smile on everyone’s face!

              • I’ll second that one…..

              • My
                humble
                thanks,
                its
                nice
                to be
                appreciated.

                From
                my
                serious
                side,
                I have
                added
                to #3
                post.

                Did
                try
                to
                add
                some
                humor.

                Damn
                squishey
                can’t
                see
                what
                I’m
                saying.

    • Help Lines

      Actual call center conversations !!!!!

      Customer: “I’ve been ringing 0700 2300 for two days and can’t get
      through to inquiries, can you help?”.

      Operator: “Where did you get that number from, sir?”.

      Customer: “It was on the door to the Travel Center”.

      Operator: “Sir, that is our opening hours”.
      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      Samsung Electronics

      Caller: “Can you give me the telephone number for Jack?”

      Operator: “I’m sorry, sir, I don’t understand who you are talking about”.

      Caller: “On page 1, section 5, of the user guide it clearly states that
      I need to unplug the fax machine from the AC wall socket and telephone Jack before cleaning. Now, can you give me the number for Jack?”

      Operator: “I think you mean the telephone point on the wall”.
      ———————————————————————-
      RAC Motoring Services

      Caller: “Does your European Breakdown Policy cover me when I am
      traveling in Australia?”

      Operator: ” Doesn’t the product give you a clue?”
      >———————————————————————-
      Caller (inquiring about legal requirements while traveling in France):

      “If I register my car in France, do I have to change the steering
      wheel to the other side of the car?”
      ———————————————————————-
      Directory Inquiries

      Caller: “I’d like the number of the Argoed Fish Bar in Cardiff please”.

      Operator: “I’m sorry, there’s no listing. Is the spelling correct?”

      Caller: “Well, it used to be called the Bargoed Fish Bar but the ‘B’
      fell off.”
      ———————————————————————-
      Then there was the caller who asked for a knitwear company in Woven.

      Operator: “Woven? Are you sure?”

      Caller: “Yes. That’s what it says on the label; Woven in Scotland.”
      ———————————————————————-
      On another occasion, a man making heavy breathing sounds from a phone box told a worried operator:

      “I haven’t got a pen, so I’m steaming up the window to write the number
      on”.
      ———————————————————————-
      Tech Support: “I need you to right-click on the Open Desktop”.

      Customer: “OK”.

      Tech Support: “Did you get a pop-up menu?”.

      Customer: “No”.

      Tech Support: “OK. Right-Click again. Do you see a pop-up menu?”

      Customer: “No”
      .
      Tech Support: “OK, sir. Can you tell me what you have done up until
      this point?”
      .
      Customer: “Sure. You told me to write ‘click’ and I wrote ‘click'”.
      ———————————————————————-
      Tech Support: “OK. In the bottom left hand side of the screen, can you
      see the ‘OK’ button displayed?”

      Customer: “Wow. How can you see my screen from there?”
      ———————————————————————-
      Caller: “I deleted a file from my PC last week and I have just realized
      that I need it. If I turn my system clock back two weeks will I have my file back again?

      ———————————————————————-
      There’s always one. This has got to be one of the funniest things in a
      long time. I think this guy should have been promoted, not fired. This is a true story from the Word Perfect Helpline, which was transcribed from a recording monitoring the customer care department. Needless to say the Help Desk employee was fired; however, he/she is currently suing the Word Perfect organization for “Termination without Cause.”

      Actual dialogue of a former WordPerfect Customer Support employee..
      (Now I know why they record these conversations!):

      Operator: “Ridge Hall, computer assistance; may I help you?”

      Caller: “Yes, well, I’m having trouble with WordPerfect.”

      Operator: “What sort of trouble??”

      Caller: “Well, I was just typing along, and all of a sudden the words
      went away.”

      Operator: “Went away?”

      Caller: “They disappeared.”

      Operator: “Hmm. So what does your screen look like now?”

      Caller: “Nothing.”

      Operator: “Nothing??”

      Caller: “It’s blank; it won’t accept anything when I type.”

      Operator: “Are you still in WordPerfect, or did you get out??”

      Caller: “How do I tell?”

      Operator: “Can you see the C: prompt on the screen??”

      Caller: “What’s a sea-prompt?”

      Operator: “Never mind, can you move your cursor around the screen?”

      Caller: “There isn’t any cursor: I told you, it won’t accept anything I
      type.”

      Operator: “Does your monitor have a power indicator??”

      Caller: “What’s a monitor?”

      Operator: “It’s the thing with the screen on it that looks like a TV.
      Does it have a little light that tells you when it’s on??”

      Caller: “I don’t know.”

      Operator: “Well, then look on the back of the monitor and find where
      the power cord goes into it. Can you see that??”

      Caller: “Yes, I think so.”

      Operator: “Great. Follow the cord to the plug, and tell me if it’s
      plugged into the wall.

      Caller: “Yes, it is.”

      Operator: “When you were behind the monitor, did you notice that there
      were two cables plugged into the back of it, not just one??”

      Caller: “No.”

      Operator: “Well, there are. I need you to look back there again and
      find the other cable.”

      Caller: “Okay, here it is.”

      Operator: “Follow it for me, and tell me if it’s plugged securely into
      the back of your computer.”

      Caller: “I can’t reach.”

      Operator: “Uh huh. Well, can you see if it is??”

      Caller: “No.”

      Operator: “Even if you maybe put your knee on something and lean way
      over??”

      Caller: “Oh, it’s not because I don’t have the right angle – it’s
      because it’s dark.”

      Operator: “Dark??”

      Caller: “Yes – the office light is off, and the only light I have is
      coming in from the window.”

      Operator: “Well, turn on the office light then.”

      Caller: “I can’t.”

      Operator: “No? Why not??”

      Caller: “Because there’s a power failure.”

      Operator: “A power………………………………… A power failure?

      Aha, Okay, we’ve got it licked now. Do you still have the boxes and manuals and packing stuff your computer came in??”

      Caller: “Well, yes, I keep them in the closet.”

      Operator: “Good. Go get them, and unplug your system and pack it up
      just like it was when you got it. Then take it back to the store you bought it from.”

      Caller: “Really? Is it that bad?”

      Operator: “No! — you are just too plain stupid to own a computer!!!!”

    • In addition, let’s hammer them with e-cards. You can look up your own states info or just cream mine, LOL:

      contact@acluohio.org

      Hers a good site to send an E-Card:

      http://greetings.aol.com/category.pd?path=62000

      If we all act on the same day(s), it might be fun!

      G!

  32. Judy Sabatini says:

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California will face a nearly $21 billion budget gap over the next year and a half, extending a fiscal crisis that already has led to steep cuts to public schools, social services and health programs.

    In a report Wednesday, the Legislature’s nonpartisan budget analyst pins the blame on the deep recession and poor decisions by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers over the past year.

    Many of the steps they said would patch previous budget deficits have failed, creating a $6.3 billion hole in the current fiscal year ending June 30.

    Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor said lawmakers should consider extending temporary taxes such as the 1 percent vehicle license fee. He said they need to look for longer-lasting and more realistic budget cuts. And he suggested lawmakers could go back to voters with a straightforward request to untie legislators’ hands when it comes to cutting currently protected mental health and early childhood development programs.

    “We did a lot of one-time stuff and I think we just have to make sure our solutions are real,” Taylor said.

    Taylor said the shortfall will expand to $14.4 billion for fiscal year 2010-11, forcing state leaders to make even more painful cuts.

    The report does, however, suggest California’s economy is on the mend, but analysts don’t expect it to recover for another year or two.

    A thriving economy sends more sales, capital gains and income taxes to the state. With a steep downturn, tens of billions in tax revenue evaporates.

    The options for Schwarzenegger and lawmakers are limited to spending cuts, higher taxes or borrowing. Tax cuts and borrowing appear to be in disfavor after taxes were raised earlier this year and tens of billions of dollars were added to the state’s credit card during Schwarzenegger’s tenure.

    Unless the governor and lawmakers reprioritize spending and add revenue, the state will face $20 billion deficits each year through 2015, Taylor warned.

    The largest shortfall is projected to be $23 billion in the 2012-13 fiscal year, when the state must pay back billions it borrowed from local governments to cover this year’s deficit.

    The report urged the Legislature to develop a long-term budgeting plan. Otherwise, California will teeter near the brink of insolvency as it did earlier this year when it had to issue IOUs, the report states.

    What happens in California tends to serve as a bellwether for the rest of the country. A study released last week by the Pew Center on the States warned that at least nine other states — Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin — face similar economic peril.

    The Pew report warned of higher taxes, more government layoffs or deep cuts in services in those states.

    Since February, California has made nearly $60 billion in adjustments over two fiscal years. Those have taken the form of cuts to education and social service programs, temporary tax hikes, and adding money from the federal stimulus package.

    Wednesday’s forecast said California will not be able to achieve savings from many of its earlier steps involving prison reform and tapping into transportation funds.

    Additional legal challenges could drive the projected $21 billion deficit even higher. For example, the governor’s order to furlough more than 200,000 state workers three days a month is being challenged by unions.

    Schwarzenegger had previously estimated that California would run a deficit of $12.4 billion to $14.4 billion when he releases his next spending plan in January.

    “We think the (legislative analyst’s) report is a realistic assessment of the gap the governor and Legislature are going to have to close,” said H.D. Palmer, spokesman for Schwarzenegger’s finance department.

    By early December, he said, finance officials will give the administration a number of options to close the deficit.

    Schwarzenegger warned that the toughest cuts are still ahead because the state’s temporary tax increases will begin to expire at the end of 2010, while federal stimulus spending will begin to run out a year after that.

    • From the L. A. Times
      1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes.

      This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
      2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
      3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
      4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
      5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
      6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
      7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
      8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
      9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
      10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.
      (There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County .)

      (All 10 of the above facts were published in the Los Angeles Times)

      Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States ‘ annual population growth

      (and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York ) results from immigration. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        And I don’t qualify for unemployment benefits, go figure.

        • Hi Judy!

          Sadly it seems that white folk don’t qualify for entitlements. Happy Birthday! My knees hurt today, damn weather coming in will hurt!

          Keep them boys and girls inline, I can’t post at work, so it’s up to you. Still haven’t got interested in all the hubub about apples and parking spaces, wish Matt and Flag and everyone else would stick to the real problems, LOL!

          G!

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            HEY G

            Oh, don’t get me started on the benefit thing. That damn bitch I was talking to hung up on me, but not before she told me to have the payroll department fix it and John too. She had a very snotty attitude, and if that’s how they talk to people, makes you wonder how they got a job there.

            Okay, you lost me there with the apples and parking spaces. Care to give me a clue.

            As for my birthday, that was yesterday, but thank you anyway. Today is Matthew’s, 24. We went to dinner last night, but unfortunately, Christopher was sick and couldn’t make.

            Well, there G, your knees hurting is just a sign of either getting older, or you have arthritis. I know, I have it throughput my body. In my hands, my knees, lower back, and up in the shoulder area. My knees pop and snap and get pain in them every time I go up and down the stairs, and it hurts like hell in the cold weather. Of course I’m told every day, that I’m getting old,and that’s what happens. LOL

            • Okay, you lost me there with the apples and parking spaces. Care to give me a clue.

              That was about the discussion about Apple (the company) and some phone thingy. Then it went to parking on previously owned land. Matt was on this for some reason, apparently trying to have fun with Flag. Long discussion, lots of time reading, accomplished nothing. Sounds like government, except the reading part LOL.

              Heck, Flag’s got me following gold prices now, which is a good thing, at least I’m a good student!

              G!

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Well, thank you for clarifying that for me G. Yeah, Flag I noticed almost always puts something up about gold. Makes for interesting reading when he puts a link up.

              • When I first startedcoming here, Flag had me flpping my lips in confusion, now I can understand things much better. His gold posts are valuable.

                G!

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Yes, they are valuable and they do help.

                But I think deep down, he’s just gold crzy.

                LOL

      • Bottom Line says:

        The LA Times is obviously racist. Anyone that lives in L.A. in a deep hole in the ground without media or human contact, knows that there is no illegal immigrant problem in southern California.

  33. So, just how much is the government going to destroy our way of life? Let’s look at the latest in healthcare and the raging debate. First, the Govt. can’t even get a website Recovery.gov , right. Yet the Obama Sheeple still want government run healthcare. We need a law, outlawing stupid people!

    Joseph Stubbs, president of the American College of Physicians — the second-largest doctors’ group in the country — confirms that “the supply of doctors just won’t be there” for the 30 million new patients President Barack Obama wants to cover. Noting that the doctor shortage is “already a catastrophic crisis,” Stubbs noted that underserved areas in the U.S. currently need almost 17,000 new primary care physicians even before Obama’s proposals are enacted.

    In the meantime, according to Bloomberg News, a 2009 survey by Merritt Hawkins & Associates, a recruiting and research firm in Irving, Texas, found that “the average waiting time to see a family-medicine doctor in Boston…is 63 days, the most among the 15 cities” surveyed. By comparison, in Miami, it was only seven days. The study noted that Boston’s longer wait was “driven in part by the healthcare reform initiative” passed in 2006 in Massachusetts, upon which the Obama program is modeled. Bloomberg reported that “as many as half of doctors in the state have closed their practices to new patients, forcing many of the newly insured to turn to emergency rooms for care.”

    Alan Goroll, a professor at Harvard Medical School, said that “the primary lesson of healthcare reform in Massachusetts is that you can’t increase the number of insured unless you have a strong primary-care base in place to receive them. Without that foundation…Massachusetts has ended up with higher costs and people going to emergency rooms when they can’t find a doctor.”

    Additionally, a study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, part of the federal government’s Health and Human Services Department, found that expanding insurance coverage to an estimated 32 million people who now lack it would create a demand for medical services that “could be difficult to meet initially…and could lead to price increases, cost-shifting and/or changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage.”

    Indeed, the report found that the Medicare cuts contained in the House-passed bill are likely to “prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.”

    The dynamic of the healthcare debate is decidedly turning against the administration. As details of the doctor shortage, Medicare cuts, tax increases, penalties for no insurance, shallow subsidies and high costs for the uninsured all leak out, more and more Americans are developing qualms about the bill.

    But within Congress, the momentum is the other way as the bill hurtles toward December passage in the Senate.

    But then it will hit a wall as the chambers try to reconcile their different versions so as to satisfy the liberal House and Obama’s base on the one hand and the most conservative among the 60 Democratic senators on the other. This debate will focus on such a broad range of issues and will be so contentious that it is going to take a long time to resolve.

    Meanwhile, popular angst with the bill will continue to build and Election Day will approach. More and more members will be anxious about supporting the bill and both left and right will dig in their heels and resist compromise.

    The healthcare bill may pass both houses, but may not be able to be enacted into law. The tide of public opinion cannot be resisted.

    Just some food for thought.

    G!

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Let me tell you a story that just happened to my sister. For about a month, her foot and ankle were swollen, had no idea what she did. Went to the doctor because it took that long for him to see her. He checked it out, took an X-ray, but found nothing. Told her to keep soaking it, and to try and stay off of it as much as she can. Sure, even though she has a job to go to. Called the doctor back, he told her to go to a foot doctor, she did, they took an MRI, found out she had a broken her foot between the big toe and the one next to it, plus the bones that go up to the ankle are all cracked. She is now wearing one of those boots on her foot. She said the thing weighs a ton, but if it’s going to help her foot, she’ll do it.

      Now, I ask, you’d think with her foot being swollen like that for such a long time, why wouldn’t/couldn’t her doctor see her right away. Makes you wonder.

  34. An unidentified Canadian real estate company was the winning bidder for the Silverdome, snatching it up for a mere fraction of its original value.

    A Toronto-based family-owned company bid $583,000 for the under-used stadium on Monday, which is currently owned by the City of Pontiac, Mich., according to auctioneer Williams & Williams.

    The company plans to refurbish the Silverdome into a stadium for men’s Major League Soccer and women’s professional soccer teams, said the auctioneer. While the stadium was the former home of the National Football League’s Detroit Lions, it also played host to some of the World Cup games in 1994. Brazil’s victory over Italy occurred elsewhere, at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif.

    The auctioneer Williams & Williams, based in Tulsa, Okla., said it will not identify the buyer “until the final details are worked out and the sale closes.”

    “The Silverdome will now be in the hands of professionals who can devote their time to transform this high-profile property into a vital asset instead of enabling it to continue to languish as an empty facility,” said Fred Leeb, the emergency financial planner for Pontiac, in a press release.

    The sale of the Silverdome takes a large financial burden off the hard-hit city of Pontiac, which has fallen on hard times, with budget shortfalls and high unemployment. Earlier this year, GM announced it would close a truck plant, taking about 1,400 jobs from the city.

    As a result, Leeb said, Pontiac could ill afford to continue paying $1.5 million in annual upkeep for the stadium. With a private owner, the property “will go back on the tax rolls,” he explained.

    The 80,000-seat Silverdome was the biggest stadium in the National Football League when it was built in 1975 for $55.7 million. The stadium, which sits on a 127-acre plot, is also the former home of the National Basketball Association’s Detroit Pistons.

    The stadium reached its football zenith in 1982 as the site of Super Bowl XVI, when San Francisco’s 49ers beat the Cincinnati Bengals.

    The Silverdome has also served as a music venue for some of the hottest acts in show business, including Michael Jackson, Madonna and Elvis. Another high profile visitor, Pope John Paul II, once delivered Mass from the field.

    But the Silverdome’s biggest event was Wrestle Mania III in 1987, when 93,000 fans packed into the stadium to watch Hulk Hogan body-slam Andre the Giant. That was the biggest turnout ever for an indoor sports event.

    Despite its rich history, the stadium has seen little use since 2002, when the Lions concluded their last season there.

    “We want to convert a major premier asset of the city – convert it from something that’s been languishing into a new, vibrant marquee asset of the city,” said Leeb, in an October interview.
    © 2009 CNNMoney.com

    This is how an economy recovers – large, debt ridden assets sold at massive discounts – and the unfortunate owners of the old shares and debt write off the loss.

  35. ” What would have happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons and lines at the gas stations, had learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New Jersey [part of the Rockefeller empire] managers shipped the enemy’s fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipping Allied fuel?

    Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars’ worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan [the Rockefeller family among others?]

    Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn, Michigan?

    Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during the war to help improve Hitler’s communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the FockeWulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops?

    Or that crucial ball bearings were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Goering’s cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them?

    Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?”

    — Charles Higham, researcher, about U.S.-Nazi collaboration during WWII

    —————

    And conspiracies can’t exist because too many people know about them, right, USWep?

    What happens when the people that know are paid off or don’t care or suffer the disease of “duty”?

  36. http://mises.org/daily/3845

    Keynes, the Man

  37. Matt,

    “Some notes on Intellectual Property and the use of contracts to create protection”

    The Contractual Approach

    Many will argue as if some form of copyright or possibly patent could be created by contractual tricks — for example, by selling a patterned medium (book, CD, etc.) or useful machine to a buyer on the condition that it not be copied.

    For example, Brown sells an innovative mousetrap to Green on the condition that Green not reproduce it.

    For such contractual IP to hold, it has to bind not only seller and buyer, but all third parties.

    The contract between buyer and seller cannot do this — it binds only the buyer and seller.

    In the example given above, even if Green agrees not to copy Brown’s mousetrap, Black has no agreement with Brown. Brown has no contractual right to prevent Black from using Black’s own property in accordance with whatever knowledge or information Black has.

    Now if Green were to sell Brown’s watch (a physical property, not whimsical property as is IP) to Black without Brown’s permission, most would say that Brown still owns the watch and could take it from Black. Why doesn’t a similar logic apply in the case of the mousetrap design?

    The difference is that the watch is a scarce resource that has an owner, while the mousetrap design is merely information, which is not a type of thing that can be owned.

    The watch is a scarce resource still owned by Brown. Black needs Brown’s consent to use it.

    But in the mousetrap case, Black merely learns how to make a mousetrap.

    He uses this information to make a mousetrap, by means of his own body and property. He doesn’t need Brown’s permission, simply because he is not using Brown’s property.

    The IP advocate thus has to say that Brown owns the information about how his mousetrap is configured. This move is question begging, however, since it asserts what is to be shown: that there are intellectual property rights.

    In other words, the proof that Brown owns information exists because of the assertion of IP, and such proof of ownership is then used to prove that IP exists as ‘real’ property needing to be protected. Quite circular.

    But since the watch – of which in reality it exists uniquely (and therefore, by definition is scarce), and idea can be held simultaneously in millions of minds with out any diminishing of that idea.

    Property rights exist as a consequence of scarcity. That is, since an object is scarce, the control of that property needs to be ordered to enable society to be sustainable.

    However, when a “thing”, an object like air in the atmosphere (an example of a physical) or an idea (an example of imagination) is not scarce and wholly immune to diminishment, control of such a thing has no need for order since all can use it at the same time. Thus, property rights – necessary to establish order of use – is wholly unnecessary – and worse, dangerous redundant if used.

  38. Judy Sabatini says:

    Really, really sad.

    15-Year-Old Missouri Girl Indicted in Murder of Neighbor, 9

    Wednesday, November 18, 2009

    JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Blessed with a Friday off school, 15-year-old Alyssa Bustamante dug two holes in the ground to be used as a grave, authorities said. For the next week, she attended classes, all the while plotting the right time for a murder, they said.

    That time arrived the evening of Oct. 21, when Bustamante strangled 9-year-old neighbor Elizabeth Olten without provocation, cut the girl’s throat and stabbed her, prosecutors said. Why?

    “Ultimately, she stated she wanted to know what it felt like,” Missouri State Highway Patrol Sgt. David Rice testified Wednesday during a court hearing over the slaying.

    Rice, who interviewed Bustamante in the days after Elizabeth’s disappearance, said she confessed to investigators and led them to the fourth grader’s well-concealed body in a wooded area near their neighborhood in St. Martins, a small town west of Jefferson City.

    A Cole County judge ruled Wednesday that Bustamante, who has been held in Missouri’s juvenile justice system, should be tried as an adult. Hours later, the teen was indicted on adult charges of first-degree murder and armed criminal action for allegedly using a knife to kill Elizabeth. A judge later entered a not guilty plea on Bustamante’s behalf and referred her to the public defender’s office.

    The court proceedings marked the first time that the suspect in Elizabeth’s death had been publicly identified since a two-day search for the girl by hundreds of volunteers. When they found Elizabeth’s body Oct. 23, authorities only said that a 15-year-old had led them to it and was in custody for the slaying.

    Bustamante remained largely expressionless as she sat with her hands shackled around her waist in court Wednesday. She occasionally looked down beneath the brown bangs that covered her eyes and swallowed hard as a judge read the charges against her.

    On one side of the courtroom sat her mother and grandmother, who has been Bustamante’s legal guardian for about half of her life. On the other side sat Elizabeth’s mother, relatives and friends, several of whom wore pink — Elizabeth’s favorite color.

    Bustamante was ordered held without bond pending her trial. If convicted of first-degree murder, she would be sentenced to life in prison without parole.

    Witnesses at Bustamante’s adult certification hearing described a girl who was bright yet depressed and clever in a sometimes sneaky sort of way. She ranked in roughly the top third of her class at Jefferson City High School, the principal said, and had been in no trouble at school or with the law.

    Yet Bustamante had tried to commit suicide at age 13 and had been receiving mental health treatment for depression and cutting herself, said David Cook, the chief juvenile officer in Cole County. Once, she led her family to believe she was attending a local church event when she instead sneaked off to a concert in St. Louis, about two hours away, Cook said. On one or two other occasions, Bustamante spent the night in the woods without permission, he said.

    After her arrest, Bustamante tried to cut herself with her own fingernails while being held in juvenile custody, said her appointed juvenile defense attorney Kurt Valentine.

    He argued Bustamante should remain in the juvenile system, where she could potentially be rehabilitated before being set free by age 21. Valentine warned that Bustamante would either kill herself or be assaulted and killed by others if she were placed in an adult jail cell or prison.

    “We are throwing away the child and we are signing a death sentence for Alyssa,” Valentine said. “She is not going to survive her time in the Cole County jail.”

    Cole County Sheriff Greg White said later that Bustamante would be held at a different, undisclosed location.

    Cook recommended Bustamante be tied as an adult. Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem agreed, saying the killing was vicious and that the state had no adequate facilities or services to treat Bustamante if she remained in the juvenile system.

    Bill Heberle, with the Missouri Division of Youth Services, testified that the state has no secure facilities with fences for female juveniles. Youths in Missouri’s juvenile system generally are housed in group settings and are not typically watched by staff 24 hours a day, he said.

  39. Judy Sabatini says:

    Time to go for the night, and I hope you all will have a good night. See all in the morning.

    Night and have a pleasant sleep.

    Judy

  40. Can anyone say Deja Vu’

    From MSNBC headlines

    “N. Korea offered aid to scrap nukes

    Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP President Obama and South Korean President Lee call on North Korea to end its atomic ambitions in return for massive economic aid. Full story”

    I know my memory aint what it used to be, but didn’t we try this once or twice before????

  41. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Unions…:(

    A Boy Scout going for his Eagle Badge and the town that allowed him to do his Eagle Badge community service is being harrassed by the local SEIU. The SEIU is threatening to take legal action against a town in PA because they gave permission for the Boy Scout to clear a path.

    The SEIU’s gripe is that the town should have hired out-of-work SEIU members to do this instead of the boy volunteering…

    Hmmm…is this the SEIU of Acorn fame who is all about “Community”?

    See the article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575650,00.html?test=latestnews

    Best Regards to all,
    RS

    • Can you believe it?

      Several years ago was helping a friend set up her vendor booth for a tradeshow in Chicago. We had it all set up and the only thing left was to plug in her cord to the electrical outlet located in the floor directly beneath her booth. She was just about to do this when a guy came running over (he had watched us set up the entire booth) and said, if she plugged that in, she would be fined as only union electricians could do that.

      We waited for almost an hour, for some overpaid union thug to come and plug it in. Crazy!

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Kathy…

        Was your friend charged for the thug to plug it in or was that a part of her “fee” as a vendor at the Trade Show? Just curious…

        Thanks,
        RS

  42. Off Topic…

    Is anyone who is in law enforcement aware of this:

    Re: Political Elite Fund Draconian Programs to “Handle” Opponents
    Official Washington has quietly responded to last summer’s “Town Hall” phenomenon with some disturbing new policies.
    I’m not talking about Service Employees International Union thugs (“Purple Shirts”) being used for “crowd control.” Or liberal activists packing Town Halls with friendly audiences only. Or their switching Town Halls to one-way-only communication electronic formats.
    Today’s Executive Bulletin spells out very disturbing military preparations authorities are making to quash massive demonstrations — which those running the show in Washington are apparently now anticipating on a regular basis.
    A wise intelligence expert told me a long time ago: “Never accept government intentions at face value; pay attention to the capabilities it is developing to anticipate future events.” Please read this bulletin carefully, because that’s exactly what I am going to do right now.
    Federal Government Responds To Town Hallers
    As Security Threat
    You may remember last summer that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other top Democrats branded Town Hall protesters as Nazis and raised concerns that violence could be imminent. Since then the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has responded in kind.
    As an October Washington Times story notes DHS is now sending grants to local police forces all over the country to buy military-style sonic “cannons” to “subdue unruly crowds and political protestors…”
    Here’s an overview of the situation:
    A new series of DHS grants are being made to local police departments nationwide to purchase military-style “LRADS” short for Long Range Acoustical Devices which the San Diego-based LRAD maker, American Technology Corp., says are not intended to be used as “sonic weapons” but rather to “influence the behavior and gain compliance” from large crowds. In a nutshell, these devices deafen people (even if their ears are plugged) and compels them to flee in order to escape the pain.
    These LRAD sonic devices are aimed at malcontents and have been used by the military in Iraq to disperse crowds. The Times reports that LRADs were actually carried in the early fall for possible use against “unruly behavior” at least two congressional town hall meetings — including Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) town hall meeting in Spring Valley, California.
    What You Need to Know About the
    National Ammunition Shortage
    You probably know about the emerging national ammunition shortage since Barack Obama was elected president. The most commonly-offered explanation by the mainstream is that the bullet supply crunch is a consequence of the Iraqi and Afghan wars. But here’s the real story:
    The Pentagon has a complex of major ammunition-making contractors that cater only to the military. Recent Congressional documents have established these ammo-makers are not working at anywhere near full capacity.
    The private-sector shortage of ammo to some degree reflects increased demand consistent with any Democrat in the White House. But the larger cause of the bullet shortage are millions of dollars in DHS grants to militarize local police departments across the country. Military-style SWAT units, once a rare fixture in major metropolitan areas, have become common to even small and medium-level police departments. And these departments are stocking up on bullets.
    The increasing militarization of local police to support federal emergency “crowd-control” plans is drawing a reaction among ex-military and police officers in the form of the Oath Keepers. This group, founded in March, have pledged themselves to defend the Constitution if they are ever ordered to fire on American citizens on U.S. soil.
    The Oath Keepers are specifically promising they will not obey any order to disarm U.S. citizens in violation of their Second Amendment rights.
    The Oath Keepers movement is headed by ex-army paratrooper and Yale-educated lawyer Steward Rhodes, who says “the whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here… my focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can’t do it without them.”
    It is impossible to know just how large the Oath Keepers movement is. But the fact that it exists at all suggests some Constitution-friendly people in law-enforcement are themselves disturbed about the militarization of local police in support of federal emergency planning

  43. Thanks BF. I agree with my boyfriend living dangerously in that he believe only what the MSM tells him.

    Part of me suspects that he is starting to notice reality. He’s still very resistant to me pointing out what’s happening, though. I’m hoping that half the crap he says is just to wind me up and watch me spin. I provide him with plenty of cheap entertainment! 🙂

%d bloggers like this: