Tuesday Night Open Mic for October 5, 2010

Open mic night comes on the heels of some pretty good discussions. We have covered some interesting ground around the free market over the past couple of days. And we have also begun some discussions about what the important areas are for an ideal candidate going forward. After the discussion on federal regulation and control, we have an interesting article tonight that shows the government’s complete inability to use reason on something as simple as a paper clip. We also have some further claims of racism coming from the pages of ESPN, of all places (although athletes claiming racism has become a much more common thing these days). Another of tonight’s topic revolves around a environmental group in the UK that felt the right message to send was to comply with their world view or they will blow you up. Finally, we wrap up my topics with yet another story of how the tax money that Obama is redistributing to those “in need” is mysteriously ending up in Vegas casinos, Hawaii resorts, and pleasure cruise ships. I can’t wait to see what topics you all add as well!


  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    Science Kit Makers Battle Feds Over Safety Tests on Paper Clips

    Federal regulators are hard at work making the world a safer place for kids — starting with the threat posed by toxic paper clips.

    Never heard of a toxic paper clip? Neither have the manufacturers of science kits for classrooms across the country.

    But they’re now locked in a debate with federal officials, who just moved a step closer to requiring costly new safety tests on the components of those kits.

    The kit makers warn the requirements could end up mandating pointless tests on components ranging from paper clips to nails to rulers.

    “There’s never been a problem with lead or anything in any of these products,” said Paul Nathanson, spokesman for the HandsOn Science Partnership.

    The dispute emerged in the middle of the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s work implementing a 2008 law that requires lead and other chemical tests on children’s products. As part of that process, the commission Wednesday issued guidelines over what qualifies as a children’s product — at the same time, the panel rejected a request from science kit makers to exempt the above components.

    Toxic paper clip testing could be next.

    Not every bell and whistle in the kits will have to undergo testing. But some of them could, depending on how the kit is marketed and other factors. The companies argue that the regulation subjects their products to a double standard — paper clips bought at the local convenience store would not be subject to any testing, but once they find their way into a child’s lab kit they might have to be certified.

    “They miraculously become a children’s product when our clients pick those products up and put them in a science kit,” said Ed Krenik, a lobbyist for HandsOn Science, a network of manufacturers.

    Commissioners insist the regulations will not ban science kits and would be applied on a case-by-case basis.

    Roy Phillips, a spokesman for the commission, said under the new guidelines four different criteria would be used to determined whether the components qualify as a children’s product — such as the way the kit is marketed.

    According to the guidelines approved Wednesday on a 3-2 vote, the regulations would not apply to “adult” items like microscopes and telescopes.

    Chairwoman Inez Tenenbaum said in a written statement that the commission had adopted “common sense” rules covering an array of products. She noted the concern that the panel did not set “bright line rules” for certain products like science kits, but suggested the makers could get around the rule by marketing their products differently.

    But not everyone on the commission sees the sense in regulating paper clips.

    “It is crazy that the Hands-On Science Partnership needs to be concerned about doing lead tests on products purchased at an office supply store and then packaged into a science teaching kit for use with children,” Commissioner Nancy Nord wrote on her blog. “Even crazier is the fact that if a teacher buys the same paper clip at the same store and uses it for the same science teaching project, it’s okay.”

    Read the article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/01/science-kit-makers-battle-feds-safety-tests-paper-clips/

    Example number 1,998,645,239,784,103,458 of government having absolutely no ability to operate within the market. That something as simple as a damn paper clip takes this much debate and bureaucratic finagling shows just how lost the federal government is.

    This….. THIS…. is the government that proponents of federal regulation tell us is a government that is capable of protecting consumers, overseeing financial transactions, certifying safety standards, or controlling our health care. They cannot manage to allow a paper clip to be part of a science kit without waivers, debates, or safety testing. It is a paper clip. While I understand that MacGyver could take said paper clip and construct a nuclear device with it, the real world understand that it is a paper clip. Heck the children that the government claims to be protecting are endowed with more common sense and decision making ability than the government agencies in question.

    The market has always existed under degrees of freedom. In the truest sense it has been centuries since we enjoyed a free market as it was meant to exist. Since that time, the degree of freedom in the market has steadily declined, and the rate has rapidly increased over the last 100 years. With each subsequent intrusion into the private market made by government, it becomes more clear that the government is not in any position to regulate or control the market in any way.

    The federal government is too big, too slow, and too STUPID to be effective. While I applaud the tenacity of pro-government regulation folks, they are blindly staring at the facts and are completely oblivious to what would be obvious to a 5th grader: Government simply lacks the common sense, resources, and ingenuity to be a positive influence on private industry in the market place.

    Yet this doesn’t seem to sink in for some. Despite massive government regulation, Wall Street nearly collapsed our economy by simply being faster and smarter than government. Despite massive regulation, private industry manages to do what private industry wants to do. Government will never be able to do what the free market can do…. control industry. In fact government kills the market in two ways.

    First the massive regulations are horrible for both industry and our economy. We watch industry and manufacturing move overseas because of regulation. We watch prices spiral out of control because of the costs associated with all of this completely ineffective regulation. Second, once the bad people do what the bad people want to do, government protects them from their proper punishment in the market.

    I know… beating a dead horse. But how many news stories of the failure of regulation and the absolute ineptness of the government agencies have to come out before people will realize that this pipe dream of government being a positive force for our economy and our private industry is just that…. a pipe dream?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @USW – so what is the answer here? I get it – really I do – government is incompetent, they do dumb things, blah blah blah.

      But this story provides a great example that I’d ask free market proponents to help me wrap my hear around.

      Fact 1 – lead poisoning can cause significant health problems, especially in more vulnerable populations such as children

      Fact 2 – we have numerous documented cases of foreign and domestic products containing lead

      Fact 3 – infants, toddlers, children will put damn near anything in their mouths

      Fact 4 – the average consumer has no means by which to assess whether products they use contain lead (unless its a lead pencil)

      So in my mind the “problem” is that consumer products may contain lead which can kill, maim or otherwise injure you. Your posting holds that government cannot be involved in solving this problem because they are incompetent, will deliberately protect the wrongdoers, and/or because the regulation may put someone out of business or reduce a profit margin then it is inherently bad (that is one helluva litmus test).

      For shits and giggles I’ll say ‘ok USW – you’re right’.

      But the problem still exists.

      So how does the problem get solved? Do we j

      (Remember, the CPSC banned lead paint in 1977. Did the economy shit the bed because of it? How many paint manufacturers went out of business?)

      • How about using common sense.. kill several birds with one stone. Bring manufacturing back to the USA and start making paper clips (or whatever) with no lead in them. SIMPLE

        • It’s been my experience that common sense is not so common…

          Adding, oh dear.. I’m confused. Can you explain to me how a weak small government operating in a free market brings manufacturing back to the USA when people work for a dollar a day in China, India, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, et cetera and can dump waste and chemicals directly into the local rivers, don’t have to worry about pesky environmental concerns, safe working conditions, child labor laws, et cetera?

          • Don’t know about your region of the country but here in the Motor City..union capital of the world..with unemployment near 15%..the mindset has changed for the most part. People understand now that they must swallow their pride and take the less paying job to be able to get a meal on the table. Now let’s just bring on the jobs! You can throw whatever you want at me as far as protest for better wages.. I’m saying I see it with my own eyes here. People are desperate for jobs and will work for $7.50 if they have too. Many here are working two $7.50/hr jobs to get by.

            • Funny thing.. I live in Westchester, NY, which was not hit nearly as bad by the recession (house prices fell by around 10%). Around here, I see tons (TONS!) of help wanted signs for minimum/low wage jobs: waiters, bus boys, crossing guards, taxi drivers, retail, etc. No one is taking them. They all feel – GASP – entitled to a better, high paying job.

              At least around here, no one is swallowing their pride and taking these jobs.

              • Tried twice to reply to you earlier but Comcast had other ideas! I typed out twice that I have not seen a help wanted sign around here in quite some time, anywhere for any job. Have you any idea what the unemployment rate is in your part of town?

            • Two other thoughts to add.

              Thought 1: When I was laid off in December of ’08, I had a large severance that let me hold out for another high paying job. Just before I got my job, I started to look at retail jobs to hold me over until the recession ends. I lucked out, but I sure as hell wasn’t going sit around on the dole when I was perfectly capable of doing something else.

              Thought 2: With people’s homes underwater, they can’t move anymore. So regardless of the fact that there are jobs here, you can’t sell your house and move to fill them. This immobility is probably a major driver of the problems we see today.

          • I think you underestimate the costs of manufacturing and shipping overseas. Most companies don’t just go for cheap labor. There are mountains of things to overcome to get that cheap labor. they would not leave here if they were not strangled in a host of ways by regulations and taxed to death to boot.

            • Jon,
              You contradict yourself:

              There are mountains of things to overcome to get that cheap labor

              they would not leave here if they were not strangled in a host of ways by regulations

              So there’s a lot of “things” (regulations?) to over come to get the cheap labor, but the over-regulation in the USA is one of the main reasons they leave?

              Labor costs are by far the largest expense for most companies – especially for the jobs that are moved over seas.

              The biggest difference in regulations is the environmental regulations, and I don’t want our rivers to end up like China’s or Hungary’s:


              • Todd,

                Perhaps you don’t want that, but that is a political decision.

                But you cannot then claim you made a great economical one.

                Companies WILL leave and go somewhere else and take their economic output with them.

                Now you may say to yourself “I don’t care that my life style of nice shoes went down, I value my green grass more”.

                But you will degrade your economic lifestyle

                If it is a price you are willing to pay, then you made a good trade.

                But if you know no one else will think it is a good deal, so you lie to them while providing false economic theory … then…., well, you’re just political!

              • Todd,
                I should have been more specific. I was not talking about regulations when referring to “things”. “Things” was more a long the lines of:

                1) Language barriers.

                2) Cultural barriers.

                3) Various hurdles for acquiring property leases, some even requiring bringing on foreign partners.

                4) Retraining.

                5) Moving key staff persons, getting them to move overseas, cost of the move, etc.

                6) Coping with foreign laws and corruption.

                7) Risk of foreign instabilities, including government instability or unpredictability, unstable access to resources, currency variances, etc.

                8 ) Rebuilding or moving of facilities.

                9) Building infrastructure or dealing with a lack of it.

                Still think moving over there to save on labor costs is a simple decision? There are overseas destinations with fewer of these issues, but generally, the fewer the barriers and other “things” because the country is more developed, the less the savings in labor costs. India has come a long way on infrastructure and welcoming outsourcing, etc. They are also not as cheap as they used to be. The places that still have the pennies and hour rates for labor have all of the above listed “things” to contend with.

                • Jon,
                  If these barriers are so great, why do companies move jobs over seas? Because the labor savings are worth the hassle.

                  • No, Todd, you missed my point.

                    They still leave because THEY ARE SAVING MORE THAN JUST ON LABOR! They are saving on taxes and on the freedom to run their lpants as they see fit, or at least more so than here. It is not JUST labor costs that motivate them to go elsewhere. If we reduce regulation and taxation, they are far mroe likely to stay here because the labor savings alone are not enough to be worth the risks and other costs. There may be exceptions, but I would submit that you would see far fewer companies leaving our shores, and maybe even some returning if we were actually business friendly. Furthermore, the power level of unions in this country ar a major threat to reasonable business action, and make labor costs here higher than they would otherwise be, making the difference in labor cost very high, again, without that crap we would see more companies staying and starting here, and even some returning to our shores. Our attempts to milk business for all we can at the government and worker level has had the predictable effect of driving them away.

      • Hi,

        I’ll channel Black Flag. In a free market individuals who are truly concerned about the dangers of lead paint will be willing to band together and create a market incentive. This will spawn a testing agency which will test everything they might buy. Because these people do no buy lead tainted materials, it creates yet another market incentive to manufacturers to refrain from using lead.

        Same effect, no violence.

        And now we return to our regularly scheduled Mathius:

        BS, Flag. Simple and blatant BS. Even if such a group were to form, they would never have the market power to force testing and compliance across the spectrum. You’re living in a fantasy world.

        Black Flag (as channeled by Mathius) replies: Well, if they can’t command enough market power then it’s not a serious enough issue. If it becomes more serious, more people will band together and then they will have the requisite power.

        Mathius: It’s serious enough if they’re poisoning innocent people just because they don’t have enough of a voice to defend themselves.

        Black Flag: Why should a small group be given inordinate power over the rest of us by virtue of the fact that they are powerless? How does that make sense?

        Mathius: It makes sense because they are human beings and the fact that they are weak doesn’t mean that they should be trampled.

        Black Flag: That doesn’t give them the right to use violence on the non-violent

        ::the argument devolves into bickering from here and strays off topic. Mathius suggests we settle it over some grog::

        • USWep,

          As long as the People give legitimacy to an entity to use violence to enforce its edicts, the edicts that this entity creates will constantly expand – for what force can be used to stop it, if this entity

        • Mathius,

          Not quite the argument, Mathius.

          Poisoning is not an economic issue, but a political issue.

          Do not try to use economics to solve it.

          Now try again.

          • I thought I did a pretty good job..

            Can we still settle it over grog?

          • Well then what’s your argument?

            • Mathius,

              My argument is thus:

              No person has a right to poison another. It is an act of violence no less than using a knife to stab another.

              • If I sell you something that contains poison, but tell you not to eat it, that’s not me poisoning you.

                Adding, selling alcohol is an act of violence by your definition.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            So since the use of poisoning which leads to injury and death is violence, we are now justified in using violence against these companies? Therefore we can legitimately form a government to impose such rules and guidelines on these violent companies!

            How’d I do!?

            • I hear the peckings of an essay on economics vs politics coming. You probably failed 🙂

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Do I at least get an ‘A’ for effort!?

                • No.

                  The Black Flag Academy does not hand out A’s for effort. He fails you and you can retake the course if you like.

                  Try taking the prerequisites first.

              • Drugs Policy 101 and Immigration 101 – those are just about the only subjects I’ve ever gotten an A at the Black Flag Academy.

                He’s a tough grader.

            • Buck

              You did great right up to using government.

              While it would be your right to use a government, I would argue that using a tool of evil for your own ends will end up with that tool ending you.






              • I was thinking the same thing, I have never seen so many BF points handed out at once, ever!

                Was that really you, BF, or are those counterfeit? Or were you and Matthius having that grog….

        • Actually the market has already provided voluntary organizations that provide standards and test proceedures to indicate a level of safety for the consumer. The company I work for uses ANSI standards to test our products for safety. This is not a requirement on our part, but provides our company with reasonable saftey procedures and our customers with more confidence in our product. While ANSI does have some govenment ties, if you read over the history of ANSI you will find that it was civilians interested in creating standards that created the organization and not the government.

          The market power for these organizations to exsist doesn’t always come from the consumer. It often comes from the manufactures. If my company can advertise that it meets a saftey standard when the other company does not. Consumers will often buy my product over the other. Thus its becomes a big incentive for my company to have standards to meet.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Fact #1:


        FACT #2:


        Most kids are exposed to lead from lead-based paints, which do not contain METALLIC lead. They contain organo-lead compounds which do enter the bloodstream when injested… UNLIKE metallic lead, which only enters the bloodstream when it is in a fine powder form and is inhaled or perhaps injested.

        Since a paper clip (whether it contains SOLID metallic lead or not) clearly poses ZERO RISK of lead actually getting into the bloodstream of a child, by COMMON SENSE it should require ZERO REGULATION!

        Zero Risk = Zero regulation, except once the government gets involved!

        Any other questions?

        • What if he chews it first?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            Try a simple and totally harmless experiment:

            TRY to chew on an old full-copper (pre-1982) penny.

            Following your attempt at chewing on the penny (please do not break any teeth), swallow the penny.

            For the next several days, examine your fecal matter until you find the penny which you “chewed” and then swallowed. I assure you that the penny will be intact, just as the paperclip would be if a child chewed and swallowed it.


            • Ok, I’ll do that.

              I want you to eat a magnet, then wait 6 hours and eat another one and tell me how that works out for you 🙂

              PS: Don’t do this.

        • Ray Hawkins says:


          No need to yell.

          Am sure you’re aware that in 1991 the CDC set the threshold for acceptable lead levels at 10 μg/dL.

          Am sure you’re also aware that in the years since that numerous studies (including the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, or ALSPAC) have demonstrated and proven measured negative impact of lead in children in levels below 10 μg/dL and now recommend to the CDC dropping the minimum threshold to “at least” 5 μg/dL.

          Am sure you’re also aware that the same studies have demonstrated that children absorb lead more readily than adults at 50% v. 15%.

          Am sure you also know that since 1 μg is one microgram or one-millionth of a gram, and that a gram of lead can be approximated to weigh the equivalent of a paper clip – if the paperclip contains at least 5 to 10 part per million of lead and you consume the paperclip – unless you consume on an empty stomach and completely pass the paper clip w/o eating or drinking anything, then there is a strong likelihood of additional consumed materials breaking the paperclip or at least causing some precipitate (I’ll solve the riddle for you Peter – a swig of sugary soda pop!).

          Any other questions?

      • It is not as tho free marketers want a full on buyer beware world. To some extent, the buyer does need to pay better attention, and would do so in the absense of a false sense of security. However, bear in mind that quality control companies exist in spite of the government being in place, I can assure you they would be far more profitable ventures if the governemtn was not trying to monopolize that sector.

        Also, lead pencils do not contain any lead. That is graphite.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Jon – how does a consumer that “pays better attention” to a plant in China or India and what all compounds and chemicals they are placing in manufactured products? Quality control only checks what the manufacturer pays them to check.

          • Look for the QC label. If it is not there, do not buy it. Or, take the risk and buy it after doing research. Or take the risk and suffer the consequences. Not buying it would be the best option, because that is what motivates companies to pay a QC service in the first place.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Good point. Cannot imagine anyone ever putting a fake QC label on something. So long as their biggest threat is me not buying their product anymore then we’re good. I like it.

              • No, That is fraud, and I am still of the opinion that such an action should be punishable by law. Even if there was not direct law enforcement against a fraudulent act (something BF supports, but not I), there would still certainly be a suit filed by the company whose label was falsified. Such a thing impacts the reputation of the QC company, and profiteers on their name. As such, the threat for falsifying a label would be anything from a major costly lawsuit to more severe legal action.

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    Climate Change Group Apologizes for Violent Video

    Emaciated polar bears clutching to melting icebergs. Smokestacks fading to reveal wind turbines and clear air. These are the kinds of images you typically see in a TV spot for climate change awareness or clean energy use.

    But exploding children?

    That’s precisely what’s depicted in a new ad released Friday by British clean energy group 10:10, ironically titled “No Pressure.”

    The ad, or “mini-movie” as the 10:10 website describes it, features four vignettes where groups of people discuss their efforts to reduce their carbon footprints. In the first, a schoolteacher tells her class about energy-saving light bulbs and transportation alternatives, then asks students to raise their hands if they agree to use those “green” options. Most comply, but two shrug their shoulders and decide not to participate. “That’s fine, it’s absolutely fine; your own choice,” the teacher says before she pulls out a detonator and summarily blows up the dissenters, to the shock of their classmates.

    This theme carries throughout the film-at an office, a soccer field, and a radio studio-and each time, those individuals who appear indifferent toward or choose not to adopt energy-saving technologies meet their bloody demise at the hands of their “greener” cohorts. Information about 10:10 and its mission isn’t delivered until three-quarters into the four-minute film, when a woman’s voice asks, “Care to join us? No pressure.”

    Carey Campbell, chairman of Virginia’s Independent Green Party, expressed shock when he heard a description of the video: “Holy cow, those people are crazier than a loon! Drunk on moonshine!”

    “We need more candidates, less apathy. We need more trains, less traffic; nationwide high speed rail; cut dependence on foreign oil in half,” and depictions of violence aren’t the way to get there, he said.

    The video went viral Friday, but it soon appeared that 10:10 was the one under pressure. Just hours after the film was posted, 10:10 removed the ad from its website and issued an apology.

    “With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back to the headlines whilst making people laugh,” the statement read, so the group enlisted a comedy writer to put the concept together.

    “Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise [sic] to anybody we have offended.”

    Though the ad is no longer posted on 10:10’s website, the group said it would not attempt to “censor or remove” copies that exist elsewhere online.

    “Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark,” the mea culpa continued. “Oh well, we live and learn.”

    Read the article here: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/02/climate-change-group-apologizes-violent-video?test=latestnews

    I happened to see the said video prior to the organization pulling it down from their website. I imagine that there are other places where it can still be found. They were very clear that they will not do anything about it appearing in other places, which tells me that they absolutely DO NOT mean one word of their apology. They want the video out there and they want to have it out there while not having the balls to stand behind the shitty message that they sent. So they will ensure it remains up on other sites but can claim to be civil by citing the fact that they pulled it down when people objected. Their sentiment can truly be seen in that final boded statement in the article (my bolding, not theirs).

    Having seen it, I was admittedly a bit shocked at the message. What they were basically espousing was that it was OK use violence to threaten people into going along with the radical environmental movement. Despite the gaping holes in the science behind man made climate change, the environmentalists refuse to admit defeat. So now they create videos portraying violence against those who don’t assimilate to their world view. The video is extremely graphic. There is no humor at all in what they portray.

    I found the message despicable. And it goes right along with the sentiment that man made global warming skeptics are akin to war criminals and should be tried for treason. And it says a ton when someone from the Green Party thinks that something is crazy. We are talking about the party that selected Cynthia McKinney’s crazy ass to represent them.

    I guess the question that I have to ask is when will this all end? When are the environmentalists going to give up the fear campaigns (which ironically they hate the GOP for using) and actually attempt to debate their issues based on facts and logic and reason? At some point, shouldn’t we all be mocking these fruit balls for what they are doing? The environmentalists have perhaps been one of the most damaging groups of people to our economy and our liberty over the last several decades. Don’t get me wrong, they are not more damaging to those areas than the two parties in power. But as a lobbyist group, they sure have screwed up the world under the guise of trying to save it.

    It will be interesting to see what corporate sponsors of the group such as Sony, O2, and Kyocera do after such a horrific statement from the group.

    • Good Morning All 🙂

      Before heading out into the woods with bow in hand, I leave this morning with a thought. In the spirit of “Achmed the Dead Terrorist” I present “Alan the Clean Environmentalist” Alan says : “Stop exhaling, or I will NUKE you!”

      Here’s a morning funny to start the day with:

      The kindergarten class had a homework assignment to find out about something exciting and relate it to the class the next day. When the time came for the little kids to give their reports, the teacher was calling on them one at a time. She was reluctant to call upon little Johnnie, knowing that he sometimes could be a bit crude. But eventually his turn came. Little Johnnie walked up to the front of the class, and with a piece of chalk, made a small white dot on the blackboard, then sat back down. Well the teacher couldn’t figure out what Johnnie had in mind for his report, so she asked him just what that was. “It’s a period,” reported Johnnie. “Well I can see that,” she said, “But what is so exciting about a period.” “Damned if I know,” said Johnnie, “But this morning my sister said she missed one. Then Daddy had a heart attack, Mommy fainted and the man next door shot himself.”

      Have a great day!


    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    • And I thought the Audi Superbowl Commercial was bad…

  3. USWeapon Topic #3

    LeBron James, manager: Race a factor

    LeBron James and his manager say they believe race played a factor in how the two-time reigning NBA MVP’s decision to join the Miami Heat was covered this summer.

    Neither James nor his manager, Maverick Carter, cited specifics when talking to CNN for a story that aired Wednesday night.

    In the interview, CNN correspondent Soledad O’Brien asked about “The Decision,” the one-hour special on ESPN in which James announced that he would play for the Heat, and some of the negative headlines it generated.

    “It’s just about control and not doing it the way it’s always been done or not looking the way that it always looks,” Carter said.

    O’Brien asked if race played a role.

    “I think so at times,” James said. “It’s always, you know, a race factor.”

    Said Carter: “It definitely played a role in some of the stuff coming out of the media, things that were written for sure.”

    James turned down a chance to stay with the Cleveland Cavaliers and ultimately decided to join the Heat in the oft-criticized televised special that raised $3 million for the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.

    James was expected to talk to the media Thursday and an e-mail to his representatives requesting comment was not immediately answered.

    Read the article here:  http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5633199

    It isn’t every day that I am able to bring forth an article from ESPN to a political forum for discussion. I mean, how relevant to politics can a bunch of below average IQ athletes be? Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I was an athlete and I consider myself fairly smart, so I don’t believe all athletes are dumb. It just appears that a majority of the true superstars in sport were given the choice between physical ability and mental ability, and their selection becomes obvious when they open their mouth. Plus I simply have to question the mental capacity of someone who flashes gang signs in the end zone and then “gives glory to God” in the post game interview.

    Case in point, Lebron James and his agent. I was floored at the accusation that race was a factor in the coverage of Lebron’s choice to screw over the city of Cleveland in order to join a super team to attempt to win the championship that he couldn’t win on his own (the greatest my ass). These are exactly the types of claims that are thrown out there with absolutely no basis in reality. And the worst part is that it will be picked up and believed by many who are too simple to understand the reality of what happened. Much like the claims of racism in the Tea Party, the claim is made in general, so that it becomes much harder to dispute.

    So let me just say this to “the King” and his agent. Race was not a factor in the coverage. The negative coverage you received was a result of the fact that the majority of Americans don’t like to see anyone “buy” success. They like you to work hard and earn it. The negative coverage you received was a result of the fact that most Americans do not like a narcissist. And there was little that wasn’t narcissistic about you having a one hour prime time special to announce that you were screwing the city that loved you to go attempt to buy a championship in South Beach. You’re an asshole, Lebron. I defend your right to be an asshole, not to mention a quitter (you quit in the Celtics series, thanks for that). And I defend your right to make the choice to take the money and attempt to buy yourself a championship by building a “superteam” in Miami. But when you start throwing around claims of racism because you don’t like the fact that people pointed out that you are an asshole, I have to take umbrage.

    Because what you have done is further dilute the term. I find it ironic that the very people who fought so hard to gain civil rights are the very same people who have rendered the claim of racism irrelevant: The Democratic Party and minorities in America. The constant claims of racism where racism isn’t the factor are the proverbial cries of “wolf”. Now the claim is so common that no one even listens to you anymore. Face it Democrats, your claims of racism are only paid attention to and believed by the party diehards who have drank so much kool-aid that they can’t see straight. And now minorities are falling into the same boat. Sharpton and Jackson and the NAACP have claimed racism so many times that no one listens anymore. The shame is that because of all you idiots, true incidents of racism are simply being ignored.

    Great job idiots.

    And I want to say that I am growing weary of minorities who complain that they are racially discriminated against in a professional arena where they are paid millions of dollars for playing a game. I mean at $20 million a year, can Lebron really claim that he is racially discriminated against? The other one that kills me are latinos who claim that they are racially discriminated against in baseball. The sheer volume of latino players in a profession where the MINIMUM salary is $400,000 a year with all benefits, work attire and equipment, and travel covered at team expense, makes me simply cringe when I hear that they feel discriminated against. The same goes for football and basketball. Blacks make claims that the number of head coaches or quarterbacks is too high of a white ratio. Isn’t the point of professional sports to field the best candidate in order to win? Do blacks really believe that there is a quarterback better than Peyton Manning or Tom Brady who simply wasn’t allowed to start in the NFL because the quota of black quarterbacks had already been met? The result, the official rule that NFL teams are required to interview at least one minority candidate for every opening prior to making a decision.

    Just another example of the progressive definition of a free market. Sorry I couldn’t help but take that shot after the conversations the other day, LOL.

    Again, these types of claims do nothing but dilute the use of the term. The constant drone of racism claims is doing little other than ensuring that future claims that have basis in reality will be less likely to be believed and investigated.

    • Good morning, USW. I did not know a fire could be so time consuming but I am through now.

      Racial issues are a hot button and a remnant of the 60’s. It does not exist anymore except in the minds of a few. I have asked on here many times, of our friends from the left, to give me ONE example of racism today and no one has come forward. I am talking about institutional racism and some redneck that still thinks the civil war is going on or some inner city black that thinks white men walk around with chains still. But true institutional racism. This is a “chicken little” syndrome and has runs its course with me. I just simply scoff at racism remarks now. It is not worth the effort and the athletes are among the biggest cry babies out there. The free market has allowed them to achieve million dollar status and they complain that they need 22 million instead of 20 millioin. Amazing.

      So, racism is a time worn bullshit excuse today…and carries no weight anymore with most people.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @D13 – maybe none of us answered you because we thought “he is shitting us right?”


        • It works both ways though Ray. I know 5 people right this second, white, who were laid off, with more seniority, than blacks and arabs. I’m with D13. Racism against blacks is way over rated. They just bitch about it because they know they will get defended. Try complaining reverse racism and it falls on deaf ears.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @Anita – I get that. But one must at least acknowledge that it is there rather than “It does not exist anymore except in the minds of a few”.

            • Mad cow exists too. Blacks use racism as an edge to get ahead, an excuse for not doing the right thing to begin with, IMO.

              When was the last time you personally saw racism in action? I’m not saying a ‘claim’ of racism. I’m saying you actually seeing it with your own eyes. Not a tea party sign, those could be plants. I am willing to bet you’ll say a looong time. If ever. If you’ve seen it..lay it out. I can honestly say that I just don’t see it.

              • Ray Hawkins says:


                “Blacks use racism as an edge to get ahead, an excuse for not doing the right thing to begin with, IMO”

                Wow. That is the same as “black are looking for an excuse to not do the right thing to begin with, so they use racism”


                Head exploding. (is this even worth throwing gasoline on the fire).

                Sucks that you carry that opinion Anita.

                Its no wonder you’d never see racism – your own ignorance would preclude you from doing so.

                In a recent job I was told I could not promote someone because the next level “up” already had met the diversity quotient and she had missed too much time at the tail end of the year. This employee was black and had taken 6 weeks maternity leave at the end of the prior year.

                Is that a good enough example for you?

                • I cannot get over you continually seeing me as ignorant! WHATEVER! I’m sorry I don’t live up to your standards Mr. Hawkins, sir!

                  I’m simply saying I don’t see it and I still stand by what I said.

                  Ok! Did you defend said black person in your example?

                  • Ray Hawkins says:

                    They’re your words Anita not mine. If I misunderstood you then please correct me. My standards are only that I would not characterize an entire race of people as “looking for excuses” because the members of the race I have seen or known do just that.

                    With respect to my example I can offer that no one would put anything in writing which left me empty-handed (my word against theirs). I no longer work there (for what should be an obvious reason among others) and my former employee is leaving the field for a different line of work. No lawsuit, no entitlements, but definitely some disgusted people.

                • Ray,

                  I’ve had many black people tell me that it’s easy to “work” the system because they are black. I don’t think Anita has her opinion because of the skin color, but rather the attitudes she has experienced in her neck of the woods. I have experienced the same attitudes and witnessed the true outcomes. It is, sadly, in many areas of the country, exactly as Anita speaks. However, there are exceptions in those areas, as well as other eareas completely different that manifest better attitudes.

                  • Ray Hawkins says:

                    Understood G – speaking only in written words makes understanding harder. I’ll offered her the benefit of the doubt if she’ll take it.

                  • Thanks G.

                    My ignorance limits my ability to get my point across in intellectual enough lingo for the intellectuals to understand.

                    Comprende? 🙂

        • Not very much there Ray…except government figures and since 2001….not very many cases at all. Some really stupid ones though and no one challenged some of them as they should have in several cases. Anytime a company bows to statistics…it is a weak ineffectual company, in my opinion.But 75 cases in 9 years is not very much…..not enough in my opinion to claim racist as a standard. However, thank you for your response….even these were more than I thought. We just don’t hear it here very much. No one gives a damn about color. At least not in my world area.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @D13 – my point was not so much that “it is standard” – but answering your claim that somehow it just doesn’t exist. There may be numerous reasons for the number of cases on the EEOC site and its tough to say if they are high, low or just right – I have no idea how many claims are submitted versus how many are found to have any merit. We must also note that companies will sometimes settle w/o admitting wrongdoing so they can move on and save downstream cost.



      • Black Pa. judge rejects plea deal for ‘white boy’

        Published October 06, 2010

        | Associated Press

        PITTSBURGH – A black judge from western Pennsylvania rejected a plea agreement for a man accused of fighting with police during a traffic stop, saying it was “a ridiculous plea that only goes to white boys.”

        Allegheny County Judge Joseph Williams said on Tuesday that a black defendant in that situation would not have been treated as leniently.

        Williams recused himself after making the comments, and a white judge accepted the plea agreement for 24-year-old Jeffery McGowan, who had faced charges including aggravated assault.

        The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review says Williams made the comments after a prosecutor proposed three months of probation for a white man with no criminal record who agreed to plead guilty to disorderly conduct.

        Williams’ secretary on Wednesday told The Associated Press the judge does not give interviews.

    • I believe white quarterback Brett Favre has received similar media ridicule in recent years.

  4. USWeapon Topic #4

    California Welfare Recipients Reportedly Spent Millions in Vegas, Tourist Hotspots

    Welfare recipients in California reportedly have blown millions in government aid outside the state at tourist hotspots ranging from Las Vegas to Hawaii to South Beach — even cruise ships.

    The Los Angeles Times reported Monday that more than $69 million in welfare money was spent or withdrawn out-of-state since 2007, at hotels and restaurants and ATMs across the country. Of that, nearly $12 million was withdrawn in Las Vegas, some of it at high-dollar shops and casinos along The Strip.

    The spending accounted for a fraction of the $10.8 billion California spent on its welfare recipients during that time period. The state does not require the aid to be spent inside California, though recipients are supposed to get permission to skip out on the program’s job training requirement.

    But recipients are supposed to prove they need the welfare money to pay for basic expenses. According to the data analyzed by The Times, nearly $400,000 was accessed in Hawaii — including more than $70,000 on the ritzy getaway island of Maui and more than $2,000 on the tiny island of Lanai, where Four Seasons resorts are just about the only attraction.

    The Times reported that in Las Vegas, nearly $9,000 was withdrawn at the Tropicana and nearly $8,000 at the Venetian. In Florida, more than $13,000 was tapped in South Beach. And more than $16,000 was withdrawn from 14 cruise ships from ports ranging from Beijing to Rio de Janeiro.

    Read the article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/04/california-welfare-recipients-reportedly-spent-millions-vegas-tourist-hotspots/

    And the original source article from the LA Times here: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-welfare-20101004,0,5787669.story

    And here, presented in all its glory is exactly why I so vehemently oppose the social programs that the left is in favor of. When we have evidence that a significant portion of our tax dollars are being redistributed to “those in need”, only to find that what they “needed” was a vacation or a trip to Vegas, I have a serious issue with the entire system.

    Don’t get me wrong, we all know that deep down I am a proponent of social darwinism. I believe that people will either thrive, survive, or perish based on their personal effort. Adding government to the mix only serves to ensure that those who should have been part of that last group are saved so that they can reproduce at a higher rate than sensible people do and further dilute the gene pool.

    This is a clear example of the ineffectiveness of government social programs. These programs are failures from the word “go”. There is little accountability built into the system any longer because the left claims to feel that everyone must be helped, and doing anything short of offering everything we can in the easiest way we can is barbaric. You can currently be on unemployment for nearly two years. That isn’t good enough says the left. You can be on welfare FOREVER thanks to President redistribution deciding that the effective Clinton welfare reforms must be repealed. Heck, the left even wants to ensure that illegal immigrants who skirt our laws and forego that whole silly business of paying taxes get full use of these programs.

    I know that our resident lefties will say that the numbers don’t constitute enough of a problem to change our ways. But this is simply one more example of how “vital help to the needy” is abused. We have the welfare queens out there (granted there are not nearly as many of these as conservatives would claim). We have tons and tons of people spending money on items that are clearly not within the realm of necessity. I can’t remember where I saw the report talking about how much welfare and unemployment money was spent in the Wal-Mart electronics departments, but I remember that the number was gigantic.

    The point is that far too often the money that is being handed out under the premise of helping those who are in dire straights is ending up being used for things that have nothing to do with surviving in a tough economy. I find especially difficult to accept that while I am sacrificing some of my vacation aspirations each year because of the taxes that I pay, those who are so in need that they cannot survive without a government handout seem to be doing just fine taking that money and using it for the vacation that I can no longer afford.

    The more important point is that government completely lacks the ability to control this or put a stop to it happening. We have been watching reports like this come out for years and nothing changes. And so long as we have stories like this as a regular thing, you will find many Americans who will subsequently view all entitlement programs as feeding this type of behavior. In my opinion, the fact that so much of the money meant to help those in need ends up being spent on things that are not part of the needs of life is one of the primary contributors to the opposition to social programs intended to help. Every story like this turns another couple thousand people completely against social welfare programs.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      – I for one would never say the number quoted here is inconsequential – it only reflects what they were able to *find*.

      I have always hated the concept of a welfare safety “net” – a net is something you get entangled in. These types of handouts/benefits/whatever-we-call-them should be very short term and non-renewable – behavior will never change if there is always a way to jackpot this type of system.

      • Ray

        “a net is something you get entangled in.”

        Excellent. I hope you don’t mind if I use that from time to time.

        As for me, Unemployment Compensation is OK.

        Welfare for those who are TRULY physically or mentally incapable of supporting themselves, OK.

        Everything else……………DINOSAUR.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @JAC – please do use it. And I agree with the remainder of what you said as well.

          A half sister of my nephew is on her 8th or 9th child – all on welfare. She lives in a nicer house than I, never worked a day in her life and is open about how she knows how to play the system. Makes me f’in nuts.

          • Question: Are any of her nine children older than 18? If so, are they also on welfare?

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Yes Mathius – at least two of them are over the age of 18. Both have already produced offspring – all of whom are on welfare. Two more of the kids (of the 9) are already pregnant with their own future welfare recipients.

    • Screw ’em. I’m paying for you to eat, have a roof over your head, drink (water), heat (if necessary), and maybe a little bit extra that might help you get a job so you don’t stay dependent on me.

      I am not paying for you to hit up a casino.

      Yes, yes, the amount shown here is miniscule, but I’d agree with Ray that it’s probably far, far larger. I remember being in line at a target behind a woman with a loaded shopping cart. She rang up maybe $200 in food AND a 36″ TV. She then paid in food stamps and cash. Let’s think about that. The woman had the money to buy a TV, but ostensibly needed my tax dollars to pay for her food? As Rahm would say, F*** THAT.

      Growing up, I also had a friend whose mother was on welfare. He had a big screen TV and THREE X-Boxes. THREE. I didn’t even have one, and I assure you that my family was paying a lot of tax.

      There is something broken here.

      But….. and this is where it gets sticky, I still think we have an obligation to the truly needy. Screw these people, but the ones who legitimately cannot fend for themselves should be taken care of. How do we shake off the parasites without screwing the ones we need to help?

      My suggestion? Workfare. You want food stamps, you can pick up trash on the side of the freeway 5 days a week (you can miss work if you are interviewing or for education). Some of the recipients’ job is to supervise the other recipients to make sure they are actually doing their job. Some of the other recipients’ job is follow up on alleged interviews and education to make sure that you actually went and that you actually tried. If you are incapable of picking up trash, or some other menial task (as determined by some mechanism I haven’t worked out yet), then you can just receive benefits – but I think they should still randomly drop in from time to time to make sure you’re not gaming the system. I could elaborate, but I don’t think people like this philosophy in general.

      If you make a man comfortable in his situation, he will never change it. Enough money + no work required = no incentive. Very little money + hard work + supervision = incentive.

      • So when they say they have to pass another stimulus to spur job growth, what will you say?

        • I don’t like handouts. I am Keynesian in that I do think the government can stimulate the economy with an influx of cash, but I don’t just want them handing out $600 checks.

          If they’re going to do it, I’d rather they dedicate it to public works – high speed rail, high speed internet, update the power grid, modernize the medical records database, build and fund experimental schools, subsidize colleges, national endowment for the arts, offer a $1,000,000,000 prize for anyone who invents an infinitely renewable power source that can be used domestically and is a viable replacement for foreign oil, subsidize (more so) a shift to electric or hydrogen powered vehicles, build subways in crowded cities, build desalination plant, pave the road on my way to work, fund (more so) cancer research.

          If you’re going to spend the money, you might as well get something long-term out of it.

        • CBS’s Jarvis Laments Lack of ‘Political Will’ for More Stimulus, Cheers Government Intervention in Economy
          By Kyle Drennen | Wed, 10/06/2010 – 14:57

          Rebecca Jarvis, CBS Appearing on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, business correspondent Rebecca Jarvis expressed disappointment in the lack of a new stimulus package, but hoped for other government action: “…while the government doesn’t necessarily have the political will or the motivation to put a new stimulus into effect here in the United States, the Federal Reserve is prepared to step in and do that.”

          Co-host Maggie Rodriguez had asked Jarvis about possible reasons for why the stock market “sky-rocketed” on Tuesday. Jarvis touted possible intervention by the Fed as a reason for the stock “surge”: “…many are anticipating that the Federal Reserve will take its own tools and do stimulative action.”

          Rodriguez then wondered: “Yeah, the Fed has been indicating that’s it’s going to step in and prop up the economy. But there’s a lot of speculation about what exactly Ben Bernanke will do. What are the options?” Jarvis replied: “…one particular thing, and that is to start printing more money, put more money into circulation.” While she acknowledged that such an action “decreases the value of the money in your pocket,” Jarvis rosily predicted: “…it also can increase the value of things around you, like your home.”

          Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/#ixzz11cEfd7ed

      • There is something broken here

        Yep. The baby daddy is runnin drugs which is where the cash comes from for the TV.

        I agree with you on this one Matt! 😯

        • Probably.

          That’s just another argument for legalizing drugs.

          I’ll just tell one more story, and this one is awful. There was a woman sitting on a bench near me talking loudly to someone. She was complaining that she had no money because welfare didn’t pay enough and she couldn’t afford to do anything fun. Meanwhile, she must have weighed 300+ lbs and was wearing name brands and drinking Starbucks – her young daughter was there, dressed in ripped hand-me-downs, thin as a rail (unhealthy kind of thin), and dirty. This woman was spending all of the money on herself and the child was going hungry and neglected.

          I gave the girl some of my lunch. The mother saw this and screamed at me – “I can take care of my own daughter. I don’t want no handouts from nobody” – never mind that she was already taking welfare handouts. She took the food from the kid, took a bite for herself and threw it in the trashcan.

          I really don’t know how to fix all of the problems with this world, but I just don’t see how the free market can do it either. I know that the government isn’t good enough the way it is, but I fear the alternative would be far worse.

          • No because the net wouldn’t be there to catch her (would there be one strong enough???), she’d have to actually do something. Will there be suffering? Of course! But as you pointed out, her daughter is already suffering and maybe, just maybe, her daughter will see what working for your supper is instead of leaching.

            • I don’t want the net to catch her – she was obviously just mooching off the system. Screw her. Let her hit the ground.

              The question is how to set up the net to catch those who can’t work but also not catch people like her?

              It’s like catching dolphins in a tuna net.

              A faulty net is better than no net in my opinion. But I’d sure love to fix it.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                “A faulty net is better than no net…”

                Nope, it isn’t.

                Return this function to private institutions like churches and LOCAL CHARITIES, and let them do the assessment of who is really deserving and in need of charity vs. who is just bullshitting.

                The money will go to people who actually need it with FAR LESS waste, fraud, abuse, and overhead than it currently does now.

                Will there still be attempted waste, fraud and abuse? Sure, bad people will always attempt to do bad things. However, if this is handled by local churches and charities, people will simply not give to any institutions which commit fraud or abuse contributions.

                Historically, this approach worked FAR BETTER than what we currently do – the problem is, you will never learn that in a history class.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            You should have called Child Protective Services on her.

      • And you claim to be a liberal 😛

        • I am a liberal. I want to help those who cannot help themselves.

          And I’m a liberal (in the typical American definition) in that I want drugs legalized, I want to get rid of DOMA and DADT. I like a large and powerful government which I feel is necessary to protect us from ourselves. I like the DOE, the NEA, Park Service, progressive taxation, HHS, HUD, DOI, and a lot of other three-letter organizations. I want our military out of foreign countries and massively scaled back. I hate fear mongering, war mongering, hate mongering, and pretty much every other type of mongering. I think we have an obligation to help the less fortunate. I think we really need to ease up on our immigration policy and start treating immigrants like human beings regardless of how they got here. I think women should not be forced to carry around and give birth to a fetus if they do not want to. Prostitution should also be legal. I really like Jon Stewart and I might attend the Restoring Sanity rally on October 30th in DC.

          I’m a conservative (in the typical American definition) in that I want more common sense in regulations, I want to scale back a few things, I want to balance the budget, I really want to pay off the debt, I want to means test social security, I want to cut fraud and waste across the board, I want to audit the living daylights out of the DOD, I don’t want the government spying on Americans. I don’t want to help welfare queens and other parasites on the system. I like Stephen Colbert and I might attend the Keep Fear Alive rally on October 30th in DC.

          So what does that make me?

  5. EPA and DOT Call for 62 MPG Standard by 2025

    Published October 01, 2010
    Associated Press/FOX NEWS

    WASHINGTON – The new cars and trucks sold in 2025 may be required to average 62 miles per gallon as a group, far surpassing the fuel efficiency of current high-mileage stars like the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic hybrids.

    The government on Friday presented the potential range it is considering for fuel efficiency standards for new cars and trucks starting in 2017.

    The Transportation Department and Environmental Protection Agency said the fleet of new vehicles may need to meet a standard set somewhere from 47 mpg to 62 mpg by 2025. The mileage gains would be the equivalent of an annual decrease in carbon dioxide emissions per mile of 3 to 6 percent.

    The new standards, while several years away, are closely watched by automakers who plan vehicle lineups years in advance, as well as environmental groups trying to curb oil dependence and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. President Barack Obama has pushed for tougher fuel efficiency standards and the rules could take on added significance if Congress is unable to pass energy legislation capping greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

    After little progress during the past three decades, rules adopted earlier this year will lift the new vehicle fleet average to 35.5 mpg by 2016, an increase of more than 40 percent over current standards. The administration’s announcement Friday is just a beginning in the work on mileage standards for the 2017-2025 model years.

    The government intends to issue a proposal in September 2011 and a final rule by late July 2012.

    EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said the next round of mileage standards “will accelerate the environmental benefits, health protections and clean technology advances over the long-term.”

    Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the administration needed to “keep the momentum going to make sure that all motor vehicles sold in America are realizing the best fuel economy and greenhouse gas reductions possible.”

    The fuel efficiency standards are designed to improve gas mileage across each automaker’s lineup and across the nation’s entire fleet of new vehicles. Vehicles must meet differing standards based on their dimensions. Compact cars must get better mileage than sport utility vehicles, for example, but requirements for all types will go up.

    Environmentalists have sought requirements of at least 60 miles per gallon by 2025, arguing that more gas-electric hybrids, electric vehicles and cars and trucks with improved internal combustion engines and reduced weight could dramatically alter the fleet.

    Governors from eight states — New York, New Mexico, Maine, Oregon, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Washington — urged Obama in a letter Friday to set standards of 60 mpg by 2025.

    Automakers have cautioned that pushing gas mileage standards up that quickly could force them to raise prices beyond the reach of many consumers.

    The documents estimate that the toughest efficiency standards in the range being considered would add $2,800 to $3,500 to the price of each vehicle. But under that scenario, owners would recoup their investment in 3 to 4 years and save $5,700 to $7,400 over the lifetime of the vehicle.

    If met, the targets would bring topflight fuel efficiency to a larger number of vehicles in 15 years. For example, a new Toyota Prius gets 50 mpg in city-highway driving combined and a Honda Civic hybrid garners 42 mpg in combined driving — figures that would become more commonplace across the fleet.

    Later this year, several automakers will begin releasing plug-in electric hybrids and electric cars. General Motors Co. is releasing the electric rechargeable Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Motor Co. begins selling the Nissan Leaf electric car, opening a new wave of mass-produced electric vehicle options.

    The government’s so-called “notice of intent” document gives an overview of the possible standards, describing the technologies that would be needed to achieve those goals. It seeks feedback from the public. The two federal agencies plan to issue a second “notice of intent” by Nov. 30 with an updated analysis of potential targets for the 2017-2025 period.

    The government is also expected to soon release a proposal for first-ever fuel efficiency and emissions standards for medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks beginning with the 2014 model year.

    • The Five Year Plan Makes Its American Debut
      By Marcia Sielaff


      The central planners have you and your lifestyle targeted for change. They draw on a long historical tradition — just not an American tradition.

      Pyatiletka (пятилетка): A five year plan as pioneered by the Soviet State Planning Authority, GosPlan. The state planning committee developed these plans based on the Theory of Productive Forces. This theory was one of the general guidelines of the Communist Party for economic development. This planning methodology was adopted by Communist China among many other bastions of liberty and emulated by Nazi Germany in preparation for WWII. Centralized planning was in force in the Soviet Union between 1928 and 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed.

      On March 11, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced a new policy directive: Transportation policies will no longer favor motorized transportation, i.e. cars and trucks.

      On May 21, LaHood told reporters at the National Press Club that his department has formed an Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

      He said the partnership was designed to

      “coerce” people out of their cars.

      When asked to respond to the complaint that the partnership would intrude in people’s lives, he replied, “About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives. So have at it.”

      The following excerpts from The U.S. DOT Strategic Plan FY 2010 – 2015, referred to in this essay as the Five Year Plan (FYP), provide a guide to the extent of the intrusion.

      President Obama has made place-based policy a key component of his domestic agenda and has challenged all Federal agencies to coordinate and innovate around this goal in an unprecedented way. Fostering livable communities – places where transportation, housing and commercial development investments have been coordinated so that people have access to adequate, affordable, and environmentally sustainable travel options …

      The FYP is replete with similar “we’re from the government and here to help” rhetoric that attempts to mask the coercion alluded to by Sec. LaHood. Under six “livability” principles — “Safety, State of Good Repair, Economic Competitiveness, and Environmental Sustainability” — the FYP justifies the assaults on liberties that, until now, have been taken for granted: housing choice and mobility.

      Justification for restricting access to automobile travel can be found in the “Safety” section of the FYP.

      Discretionary/recreational travel is considered much riskier than necessary travel for work and family obligations.

      It places motorists behind the wheel for longer lengths of time and during all hours of the day and night. … DOT will continue its ongoing efforts to develop new and innovative strategies in the pursuit of safe and livable communities …

      One of the “innovative strategies” suggested by LaHood, and reported in the Washington Examiner, is that people be taxed for every mile driven: “We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled.” As the Examiner pointed out, that would require tracking people’s movements. The White House press secretary quickly announced that the president did not endorse LaHood’s innovation.

      The FYP complains that U.S. transportation spending “has contributed to the prevalence of low-density, scattered, auto-dependent communities and disinvestment in many of our Nation’s core urban centers.”

      This trend was amplified by single-use zoning that separated housing from shopping, work, and schools. Such zoning emphasized wide streets, ample off-street parking, and large front and side yard setbacks… This kind of development is energy-intensive and contributes to a dependence on fossil fuels and a tendency toward high carbon-emissions; it has been correlated with increasing rates of obesity in the U.S. and higher transportation costs for American families …

      DOT now resolves to

      “give the same priority to walking and bicycling as is given to other transportation modes.”

      In other words, funding that would otherwise go to roads and highways will now be diverted to walking and bicycling paths — with traffic congestion and accidents to follow. On its face, this seems ridiculous, but it turns out to be no laughing matter. The Heritage Foundation reports that Highway Trust Fund money is being diverted to pay for the FYP.

      • LOI

        There was only one major flaw in the article and other stories of recent.

        This effort started before Obama. To a large extent he is taking credit for groundwork laid by both Clinton and Bush II.

        I have one of the memo’s from the White House in my possession. I was going to write an article on this for USW as it also fits with the UN agenda 21 story. It is all tied together.

        • JAC,

          I look forward to your article. I was hoping some of our liberals would comment. I wonder how they will feel in 20 years when they have to walk or ride a bicycle. Cars will still be legal, just the taxes on the privilege of owning and operating one will be prohibitive.

  6. A “What If” question. What if a bug was slowly destroying your home? You would kill the bugs, right? What if you would be arrested and sent to prison for killing the bugs?
    from #1, “Chairwoman Inez Tenenbaum said in a written statement that the commission had adopted “common sense” rules”

    Really? The government uses common sense? When? Where?

    October 05, 2010
    Green fever
    Thomas Lifson, American Thinker
    A mental disorder we should name “green fever” is the only explanation I can come up with for suicidal environmental policies, such as the cutoff of water to California’s San Joaquin Valley, impoverishing farmers and creating a new dust bowl, in the name of “saving” a supposedly “endangered” species – in this case the Delta Smelt, a tiny and useless fish.

    Another instance comes from Maryland, where houses are about to tumble down a cliff, with authorities preventing the owners from saving their homes because an “endangered” beetle’s habitat consistes of burrowing into and weakening the cliffs. WJZ TV in Baltimore reports:

    Earlier this year, we revealed why almost 100homes are in danger of falling down a cliff. (snip)

    In February, an investigation revealed 90 other homes are also in danger of collapse but nothing is being done because of the rare Puritan Tiger Beetle. Only 5,000 of the endangered species are left on the planet.

    “How much is this tiger beetle worth, compared to a bald eagle, a polar bear or that bush?” said Glenn Thierres, DNR.

    Last winter, WJZ spoke to a state official in charge of endangered species. He said because of the way these beetles burrow and lay eggs, they need the fast-eroding cliffs to reproduce or they could become extinct.

    “If erosion doesn’t occur on the cliff faces, then vegetation establishes itself. It’s detrimental to the beetle,” Thierres said.

    Greenies, including global warmists, always speak with utmost certainty about their predictions of doom. However, when it comes to “endangered” species (as with global warming predictions of doom), they often don’t know what they are talking about. David Derbyshire of the UK Daily Mail:

    Conservationists are overestimating the number of species that have been driven to extinction, scientists have said. (I still want to question every thing every “scientists” says…as should all of the press)

    A study has found that a third of all mammal species declared extinct in the past few centuries have turned up alive and well.

    Some of the more reclusive creatures managed to hide from sight for 80 years only to reappear within four years of being officially named extinct in the wild.

    The shy okapi – which resembles a cross between a zebra and a giraffe – was first discovered in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1901.

    After increasingly rarer sightings, it vanished from the wildlife radar for decades from 1959, prompting fears that it had died out.

    But five years ago researchers working for the WWF found okapi tracks in the wild.

    Other mammals ‘back from the dead’ include the rat-like Cuban solenodon, the Christmas Island shrew, the Vanikoro Flying Fox of the Solomon Islands, the Australian central rock rat and the Talaud Flying Fox of Indonesia.

  7. Buck the Wala

    I wanted to comment on your post regarding Slate’s view that the Supreme Court is moving to the Right and doing so in some “stealthy” mode. I have not reviewed all their examples but found the first couple to be faulty.

    This notion that they are using the case selection to force a move to the right isn’t consistent with the facts, in my opinion. Here is just one example of a case they did not hear that establishes a precedent contrary to the right.

    By Jeanette Rundquist
    Religion News Service
    (RNS) “Silent Night” and other religious songs will remain off the program at holiday concerts in one New Jersey school district–and possibly others across the country–after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a school ban on religious holiday music.
    By deciding Monday (Oct. 4) not to hear the case, the high court ended a six-year legal battle that started when parent Michael Stratechuk sued the School District of South Orange and Maplewood over a policy that barred religious songs at public concerts.
    The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban last year, and Stratechuk attempted to take the case to the higher court.

    The rest of the story can be found here:


    You know as well as I that school districts around the country will be reacting to this, regardless of District.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      The Court has always cherry-picked its cases based in part on ideology and how to move the law towards right vs. left. This is nothing new, but it is something that is clearly happening in a rightwards motion with the Roberts Court. And, based on the article, he is a bit more effective at it than past Chief Justices.

      I’m not all that familiar with the case you mentioned above, but there are many reasons why Roberts may have foregone this case even based simply on the ‘tricks’ mentioned in the Slate article — the facts aren’t crazy enough to garner more than a 5-4 majority, the law is deemed more ‘settled’ on the specific question posed by this law suit, etc.

      You can’t use a single case NOT chosen to make the argument that the Roberts Court is not cherry-picking cases to move the law further right. What about all the cases chosen? Take another look at that Miranda case, the effect of the Carhart case, the rationale behind the Citizens United case, etc.

      • Buck

        The claims against the Miranda case are a rationalization by those trying to portray the court as “right”, in my view.

        It was I believe a legitimate issue to be taken up by the court. It is completely asinine to think that Mirandizing someone is STILL in effect three years later. If that were true then why did they Mirandize the guy twice on the second investigation? Once before questioning and again before the polygraph.

        I am calling B.S. on this as an example of the “rights” hatred of Miranda, as is presented in Slate’s comments.

        When you start hunting for ghosts you will start seeing them everywhere.

        One more point on the concept itself. I find it hilarious that any move AWAY from the left is considered a radical move to the right. We have been moving left for decades. There has never been a major return to any position considered on the right. Only little steps to the right of the NEW leftist position. But always progressing to the left. The pendulum never swings back, it stops at center or somewhere left of center before returning to the left once again.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I fear you missed the point of the article in relation to the Miranda case. On the facts of the case and application of the law I agree that it was the right outcome (so did most liberal judges, I believe). The issue is how the opinion is worded and the impact that opinion has on other situations where the facts are not so egregious.

    • Times Watch’s New Supreme Court Study Discussed on Fox News
      By Clay Waters

      Times Watch’s new study “Supremely Slanted — How the New York Times Pounds Conservatives and Coddles Liberals When Nominated for the Supreme Court,” was discussed by Fox News contributor Liz Trotta on “America’s News Headquarters” just before the one o’clock hour on Saturday afternoon.

      After some discussion of a Gallup poll showing Americans have little trust in the mainstream media, host Uma Pemmaraju shifted the discussion to the new Supreme Court study from Times Watch. (Watch the video here.)

      Fox News Host Uma Pemmaraju: “But there’s another poll, out right now that looks at media behavior as well and specifically how the media handles the Supreme Court nominees, how are those related?”

      Liz Trotta: “Exactly. Well, they’re related in this way, just to go back to the Gallup [poll] for one second. Forty-eight percent of the people who were polled said that they were, that the press was too liberal. Well, the Media Research Center has done a study on the New York Times coverage of Supreme Court nominees and this is where you can see that this has to be an example of why people don’t trust the media. What they did, is they looked at seven Supreme Court nominees from 1991 to 2010, that’s four Democrats and three Republicans. And they wanted to see how the New York Times treated them. Well, I can just hear you thinking out there, well, you could have told, you could certainly guess, because you read the paper or you’ve heard, and you know it’s a liberal newspaper. But the figures are interesting, because you can see that they have one figure tells us that they’re 10-to-1 more likely, that is the Times, to describe the Republicans as conservatives as they would describe the Democrats as liberal. And the intensity of the coverage, of the coverage and the glorification of liberal candidates really amounts to a certified chapter in advanced liberal media bias.”

      —Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2010/10/04/times-watchs-new-supreme-court-study-discussed-fox-news#ixzz11ageE300

  8. Here’s the short version of what happened: In rural Obion County, homeowners must pay $75 annually for fire protection services from the nearby city of South Fulton. If they don’t pay the fee and their home catches fire, tough luck — even if firefighters are positioned just outside the home with hoses at the ready.

    Gene Cranick found this out the hard way.

    When Cranick’s house caught fire last week, and he couldn’t contain the blaze with garden hoses, he called 911. During the emergency call, he offered to pay all expenses related to the Fire Department’s defense of his home, but the South Fulton firefighters refused to do anything.

    They did, however, come out when Cranick’s neighbor — who’d already paid the fee — called 911 because he worried that the fire might spread to his property. Once they arrived, members of the South Fulton department stood by and watched Cranick’s home burn; they sprang into action only when the fire reached the neighbor’s property.

    Daniel Foster, a self-described “conservative with fairly libertarian leanings” who writes for the magazine, took issue with the county’s laissez-faire approach to firefighting, calling it “a kind of government for which I would not sign up.”

    But Foster’s colleague Kevin Williamson took the opposite view. Cranick’s fellow residents in the rural stretches of Obion County had no fire protection until the county established the $75 fee in 1990. As Williamson explained: “The South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own…”

    Liberals are pouncing on the Cranick fire as an illustration of what they take to be the callous indifference of a market regime that rewards privileged interests over the concerns of ordinary Americans.

    “The case perfectly demonstrated conservative ideology, which is based around the idea of the on-your-own society and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well-off and privileged,” Think Progress’ Zaid Jilani wrote in a response to the National Review writers…

    Rural Tennessee fire sparks conservative ideological debate

    Two questions:

    1) Were the firefighters’ actions (or the orders of their superiors, if you prefer) right or wrong? Why?

    2) How would you improve the situation?

    I’ll post my own comments later.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      1) The fire departments was wrong (in the sense of their refusal to put out the fire after Cranick offered to pay costs in full)

      2) I would improve the situation by mandating the fire company (public or private) respond and put out a fire and accept payment in full by the homeowner who neglected to pay the annual fee.

      • Agreed. But what if they don’t pay. I say attach it to their ability to renew a driver’s license, or attach it to state income tax return like they do for child support deadbeats.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        I sort of agree. There were NO fire services available in the county prior to 1990. The $75 ANNUAL fee was instated in 1990 to give those who ELECTED TO HAVE fire service the service which they desired.

        If the homeowner in question (who ELECTED not to participate in the VOLUNTARY assesment of the $75 annual fee) had come out with a money order, certified check, or CASH in the amount of $1500.00 to pay for his 20 years of fire service ON THE SPOT, then yes, he should have been given service.

        Think Progress is (as usual) full of crap. It doesn’t take being “well off and priveledged” to come up with freaking SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS PER YEAR to pay for fire service. I strongly suspect that the guy in question pays far more than $75 per year on booze and smokes. I am CERTAIN that he could have easily come up with $75 per year for fire service IF HE HAD CHOSEN TO DO SO.

        He did not choose to pay for the service, so he is not entitled to the service. Any attempt to paint it in “class warfare” terms is simply stupid.

        $75 per year comes out to about 21 cents per day. Pretty darned affordable fee for fire protection services.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Oh I don’t think he should have merely had to pay the $1500. He would have had to pay for the full cost.

          The problem in my mind with the scenario is not his refusal to pay, as he was ostensibly willing (and able) to pay for the full cost at the time he needed it. Sure he was looking to game the system and avoid paying for an unnecessary service; but he didn’t appeal to emotion to get a free service, he offered to pay in full. The problem is the fire department’s refusal to accept full cost payment and put out the fire.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            I completely agree that if he was willing to pay in full for the service then the service should have been provided to him…

            provided that he could demonstrate his ability to pay in full for the service at the time when it was rendered.

            If he could not demonstrate that he had the actual ability to pay in full at the time the service was rendered, then it would have to be assumed that he was not, in fact, able to pay.

            This is why services such as fire protection are often set up with a low monthly or annual fee. By paying a low periodic fee, the buyer is getting something similar to insurance.

            In the event that the resident suffers no fire over a 20-year period, then the resident has spent $1500 for the security of knowing that HAD THERE BEEN A FIRE the fire services people would have been there to take care of it.

            If the resident DOES experience a fire during a 20-year period, he has only paid $1500.00, which is far less than the actual cost of service for putting out the fire.

            To me, this sort of system makes perfect sense.

            I pity the fool who doesn’t pay the annual fee, not because he lost everything in a fire, but simply because he was a fool.

      • “I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong.” said Cranick.

        He appears by this statement to have bet on what would happen and lost out. Seems he desired to get something for nothing initially. The fire department wasn’t in the wrong.

        Cranick’s offer comes a bit late. Kind of like the robber offering to return the money if he/she can “just be let go.”

        If this county has no fire services other than a program where residents can choose to pay a city department for fire protection (or not) then maybe the county residents and voters need to get some changes made in the county public services.

        • Further, if the local county government wants to rectify this situation then set it up in an agreement with the city fire department to respond, fight the fire, and bill the county for payment of costs. Let the county fight it out collecting the full costs from the resident.

          If I was in mayor I’d be seriously considering having a city wide vote othe city should continue the program at all.

    • Cranick purposely did not pay the fee, denying the fire dept. money they need to keep the service operational. He gambled that he would not have a fire, or that he could pay then.

      The problem is how many deadbeats like him are they putting up with?

      “I would improve the situation by mandating the fire company (public or private) respond and put out a fire and accept payment in full by the homeowner who neglected to pay the annual fee.”

      Then even more of the residents would not pay, until they had a fire, and the fire dept. would go under. The other side, mandate every homeowner pay
      the fee or be subject to seizure of their property, as is done for property taxes.

      1) I think the fire dept. acted legally and properly. The have sent a message to all the deadbeats that, if you want a fire dept., you must support it.

      2) Announce this is their policy, and send that and a copy of the newspaper
      article out with their yearly bill. Free market, be as much a part of our community as you want, don’t like it, leave. No one is forcing you to pay.

    • I suppose I’ll answer my own questions now.

      1) Firefighters were justified in letting the guy’s house burn down. The premise is this is a voluntary service, which works both ways – seller can refuse to provide service for any reason, buyer can refuse to purchase service for any reason.

      2) Letting the guy’s house burn down when he offered to pay full costs is a stupid PR move and probably a missed business opportunity as well. My personal business model would be you either pay the annual fee, or you pay an exorbitant one-time cost if services are needed. I’m sure math geeks, insurance adjusters, etc would be able to figure out the appropriate pricing to ensure that most people pay the low annual fee (guaranteeing a certain regular cash flow while avoiding the possible trust issues of firefighters only getting paid when there are fires to put out) while accounting for those who would later avoid paying the large one-time fee. Long term I believe it wouldn’t be a problem as I’m sure most banks would eventually require purchasing the fire coverage as a condition of getting a mortgage (much like they already require certain levels of homeowner’s insurance coverage).

      And of course if I didn’t like the current fire service being offered I should be free to start my own competing service. In this case however I think that volumetric efficiencies would tend towards consolidation into 1-2 primary suppliers of the service anyway, or possibly a cooperative network of such.

      Final point – I’ve often heard arguments that a free market firefighting service wouldn’t work because of freeloaders. I think this story demonstrates that there are effective methods of dealing with that issue, and wonder if it could not be extrapolated to other similar services (police, national defense, consumer protection, court system, etc).

      I also found it interesting how the situation was being portrayed as some kind of ideological divide between “conservatives” and “libertarians”.

    • Little

      firefighter was working on the engine outside the Station,
      when he noticed a little girl nearby in a little red wagon
      with little ladders hung off the sides and a garden hose
      tightly coiled in the middle.

      The girl was wearing a
      firefighter’s helmet.

      The wagon was being pulled by
      her dog and her cat.

      The firefighter walked over to
      take a closer look. ‘That sure is a nice fire truck,’ the
      firefighter said with admiration.

      ‘Thanks,’ the girl replied.
      The firefighter looked a little closer. The girl had tied
      the wagon to her dog’s collar and to the cat’s testicles.

      ‘Little partner,’ the firefighter said, ‘I don’t want
      to tell you how to run your rig, but if you were to tie that
      rope around the cat’s collar, I think you could go
      faster. ‘

      The little girl replied thoughtfully, ‘You’re probably right, but
      then I wouldn’t have a siren.’

    • DKII,

      1) Were the firefighters’ actions (or the orders of their superiors, if you prefer) right or wrong? Why?

      I want to say “Wrong” because…well hell, they’re firefighters. That’s their job. What’s next – they arrive at your house and determine the fire started because you were careless, so they don’t fight it to teach you a lesson?

      But the dumb-ass should have paid the $75. If they save his house, no one will pay the $75 in the future…

      2) How would you improve the situation?

      The county should access a $75 annual fire-protection fee in rural Obion County and pay the fee to the city. Fire protection is one of the most basis functions of local government.

      I want to know how insurance companies handle this. A large part of homeowner’s premiums are based on the quality of local fire-protection and it’s location (if your live close to a fire station – or even a fire hydrant – your premiums are lower).

      I’ll bet homeowner’s premiums in rural Obion County are going to sky-rocket, and the insurance companies will require residents to submit the receipt for their $75 fee.

      The fact that this situation has existed since 1990 seems incredible to me…

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        ” Fire protection is one of the most basis functions of local government.”

        Why does it have to be a function of government at all?

      • “The county should access a $75 annual fire-protection fee in rural Obion County and pay the fee to the city. Fire protection is one of the most basis functions of local government.”

        Great idea-best common sense solution I have heard.

      • If the county assesses a “fee” of $75 – assuming you mean that it is mandatory – then it is a tax and – hopefully – should require some type of vote by the registered voters. Fees are normally elective, still giving the person a choice.

        You have a good point in reference to the insurance companies. An owner’s insurance company could require some proof of fire protection coverage, which would be automatic if residents are taxed for fire services, otherwise that owner would provide that receipt from the fire service showing the fee was paid for the year to agree to provide insurance, ergo no need for a vote on some tax measure.

        The only part of your comment I would stand on the other side of the firefighters being “wrong” because it’s their job to fight fires. Yes it is, for those who pay for their services (be it by taxes or voluntary fees), otherwise no. There are limits. What if there was no fee for service plan outside the city, would the city department still be obligated to respond and fight the fire “because…well hell, they’re firefighters. That’s their job?” Kind of like saying you’re a fast food counter employee at McDonald’s but I’m next door at Burger King and there’s no counter person here so you should run next door and provide the service for me because “it’s your job” (and yes I realize that’s a pretty ridiculous example – but I believe it shows the point of limits).

        • Plainlyspoken,
          Fee or tax – whatever – I don’t care what you call it.

          Why would this require a “vote by registered voters?” The elected County Board passes a law. If you don’t like it, run for office and rescind it.

          owner would provide that receipt from the fire service showing the fee was paid for the year to agree to provide insurance

          I know I said this, but it’s not a good solution. How many minutes does the dispatcher waste verifying you paid the fee? Check’s in the mail? The city clerk entered your address wrong? This piece-meal approach is just an error waiting to happen. That’s called “risk” to insurance companies, and they don’t like risk.

          Collect a tax – pay the city.

          The only part of your comment I would stand on the other side of the firefighters being “wrong” because it’s their job to fight fires. Yes it is, for those who pay for their services (be it by taxes or voluntary fees), otherwise no. There are limits.

          Did you see this part of my response? I think I covered that…

          But the dumb-ass should have paid the $75. If they save his house, no one will pay the $75 in the future…

          Clear enough?

          <blockquote cite=""Kind of like saying you’re a fast food counter employee at McDonald’s but I’m next door at Burger King and there’s no counter person here so you should run next door and provide the service for me because “it’s your job” (and yes I realize that’s a pretty ridiculous example – but I believe it shows the point of limits).

          I already agreed with your ‘limits’ in my first response. But I hold fire-fighters to a higher standard than fast-food workers. Maybe it’s just me…

          • Todd,

            OOooooooooooohhhh, I had to stop right there in reading your post because of how completely dangerous you dismiss this

            There is an infinite difference between a tax and a Fee

            One is theft, the other is voluntary exchange – it is the difference between slavery and freedom.

            • Black Flag,
              Yes, the County and City working together to provide Fire Protection for all citizens certainly is SCARY and will obviously lead to SLAVERY for everyone.

              Since that is my goal, I approve…

              Your arguments are getting more mellow-dramatic (and more humorous) each day…

              • Todd,

                The moment you believe your service is the end all/be all to the degree you can steal my money to pay for it, you are not only a thief, but a tyrant.

                Who are you to force me to pay for your crap?

                That is my judgment with my money, which is not your money and not your judgment.

          • Todd,

            <blockquote cite="Why would this require a “vote by registered voters?” The elected County Board passes a law. If you don’t like it, run for office and rescind it."

            Sorry, where I live a new tax, a change in the use of a collected tax, or a raise in a tax rate requires voter approval before it can be done. I mistakenly assumed it was that way where you lived. I agree that there should either be a tax, or the county government should be liable for reasonable costs for county residents who don’t pay up, or the city should just stop offering the service outside the city.

            I did read the portion where you said he should have paid the fee, yet you still said the firefighters were “wrong” even though you agree there are limits. Which is it?

            I also think calling up the time involved to verify, if the city clerk put in the address wrong, ect., are invalid arguments. “If” is the middle word of “life”, we take risks every day and so do insurance companies. While they like to minimize the risks they make their money on risks. We could make up “what ifs” all day.

            • Plainlyspoken,

              Sorry, where I live a new tax, a change in the use of a collected tax, or a raise in a tax rate requires voter approval before it can be done.

              If you vote on every tax change, why do you have elected officials?

              I did read the portion where you said he should have paid the fee, yet you still said the firefighters were “wrong” even though you agree there are limits. Which is it?

              I didn’t say the firefighters were wrong. I said “I want to say “Wrong” because…”

              I also think calling up the time involved to verify, if the city clerk put in the address wrong, ect., are invalid arguments.

              You might not think these are invalid if your house was burning and time was wasted verifying you paid the fee.

              we take risks every day and so do insurance companies. While they like to minimize the risks they make their money on risks.

              It’s not “they like to minimize risks” and “they make their money on risks.” Insurance companies make their money by minimizing risks. A small but important difference.

              • Todd,

                If you vote on every tax change, why do you have elected officials?

                Because elected officials seldom listen to the voters over special interest groups/lobbyists for one. Again, I don’t know where you live but it sounds like you’re pretty trusting of your politicians? Not so here. I am more than pleased that politicians can’t tax citizens at their whim.

                People become to complacent in letting their elected representatives almost free reign to govern. Is it any wonder this country is in such a mess now?

                • Plainly,

                  Go a step further and ask, “Why do we have politicians at all?”

                  • To make life miserable? 😉

                    While I take an interest in what you write I am not at the point where “no government” would be the best way to go. That being said I would say politicians should have very limited responsibilities and authorities in a very limited government.

                    I don’t like them, but as it stands at this time we’re going to have the evil sob’s around.

              • Todd,

                Actually (and you are right, the difference is vitally important) onsurance companies make their money on actuary – that is evaluating risks.

                To save you money they may suggest ways to reduce those risks.

                But they do not make money minimizing them – that’s up to you. They will evaluate the risk and charge you accordingly.

              • Hit the submit button too soon.

                Todd, there is an easy remedy to the problem of wasting time checking if the address has had fees paid. Initiate response and check as they begin traveling to the scene. If the address turns out to not be on the paid listing, cancel the response and let them return to the station. But, more likely the information in today’s technological age would pop up on the computer screen when the call came in.

    • I’m disappointed everyone – including me – missed the obvious question. The first thing my wife asked was “what would have happened if someone was trapped in the house?”

      If Cranick had said on the 911 call “my daughter is trapped in the house” (and assuming that’s true) how would the fire department respond?

      This is why the County should collect a tax and pay the fee.

      • Actually it wasn’t missed -we discussed this on another page a day or two ago.

      • Todd,

        Not one bit.

        The essential instinct of most people is to assist others in dire need. Most people don’t even thing about not doing it – it just happens.

        Read this, for it is a historical record, but a great example of the instinct of humanity and the concern for others.

        It’s practically standing still now. They’ve dropped ropes out of the nose of the ship, and they’ve been taken a hold of down on the field by a number of men. It’s starting to rain again; it’s—the rain had slacked up a little bit. The back motors of the ship are just holding it just, just enough to keep it from — It burst into flames! It burst into flames, and it’s falling, it’s crashing! Watch it! Watch it, folks! Get out of the way! Get out of the way! Get this, Charlie! Get this, Charlie! It’s fire—and it’s crashing! It’s crashing terrible! Oh, my, get out of the way, please! It’s burning and bursting into flames, and the—and it’s falling on the mooring-mast and all the folks agree that this is terrible, this is the worst of the worst catastrophes in the world. Ohhhhh! It’s–it’s–it’s the flames, [indecipherable, ‘enty’ syllable] oh, four- or five-hundred feet into the sky and it … it’s a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen. It’s smoke, and it’s flames now … and the frame is crashing to the ground, not quite to the mooring-mast. Oh, the humanity and all the passengers screaming around here. I told you, I can’t even talk to people whose friends are on there. Ah! It’s–it’s–it’s–it’s … o–ohhh! I–I can’t talk, ladies and gentlemen. Honest, it’s just laying there, a mass of smoking wreckage. Ah! And everybody can hardly breathe and talk, and the screaming. Lady, I–I’m sorry. Honest: I–I can hardly breathe. I–I’m going to step inside, for I cannot see it. Charlie, that’s terrible. Ah, ah—I can’t. I, listen, folks, I–I’m gonna have to stop for a minute because I’ve lost my voice. This is the worst thing I’ve ever witnessed.

        Here is a man naturally calling out a warning to those who cannot possibly hear him. He knows that – but his natural instinct overrules and he cannot help it.

        They let the building burn because there was no risk to life (nor economic reason, for them) to save it. Why risk their lives putting out a fire that the man obvious didn’t feel 75$ was worth paying for?

        But had there been life endanger, they would have naturally and without hesitation engaged the fire full-on.

  9. Memphis teen shot in behind over sagging pants

    (AP) – 20 hours ago

    MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Police say a 45-year-old Memphis man angry over two teens’ sagging pants shot one in the buttocks during an argument. He faces aggravated assault charges. The boys were walking through a southeast Memphis neighborhood when Kenneth E. Bonds yelled at them to pull up their pants, according to an arrest document.

    Police Sgt. Ron Perry said the teens refused and the three began arguing in the street. Bonds then brandished a semi-automatic pistol and threatened to shoot the teens.

    Perry said Bonds fired several shots and hit one of the teens as the pair ran away. The teen’s wound wasn’t critical. The other wasn’t injured in the Sept. 25 shooting first reported by The Commercial Appeal in Memphis.

    • I was in an A&W with my son and two of his friends. It’s outdoor seating. I’d been fighting with my son about his pants for a couple weeks. There was a twenty something kid there who was sagging big time. We get out of the car and I notice MY son sagging. I grew horns on him purposely to get the older kid to undertand. I didn’t get to far. My son pulled his britches up. The older kid just glared at me. 🙂

      • Anita,

        Explain to your son how sagging began and what it originally meant. Saggin, as it is known, began some years ago (before it became a fashion thing) in prisons throughout the country. Male prisoners would sag their pants to show other male inmates they were available and willing for a sexual encounter. It was introduced by released convicts and used in the same manner in public, unbeknownst to it’s reasoning by the public. It later became a fad by inner city youth, who also didn’t understand the true meaning.

        So in escence, saggin is a show of availablility by those who want homosexual encounters. However, the youth of today are most likely trying to show their necks, because their heads are stuck up their asses.


        • YUK!! I didn’t know that G. oooooo! I will use that line on my son. Thanks!

        • I didn’t know either, man will I have some fun with this one.:lol:

          • I learned this a few years back on Dr. Phil. He had one program on the subject, with many “experts” on the subject. The term “saggin” also comes from prison around the same time. It’s a reflection of those who used the prison info technique the most. You now have a riddle! 🙂 Who does it refer too?

        • Wow! Learn something new everyday…

          This will be the topic at our dinner table tonight, although it’s not nearly the problem it once was ever since I sagged my pants every time I caught my son sagging his.

    • If people want to look like idiots, that’s there prerogative.

      In the Mathius household, its not very important to conform to society’s dress code, but it’ll be a cold day in hell before any child of mine leaves the house looking like a hoodlum.

  10. Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    1348.38 (+7.72)


    • *sniff* *sniff*

      Is that a bubble I smell?

      • Jim Cramer: Gold Going to $2,000
        Jeff Poor.

        One of the most embattled commodities over the last few years as the economy has struggled has been one of the most precious of all metals – gold.

        Over the last 12 months, the price of gold has appreciated considerably. But CNBC host Jim Cramer contends it is going higher – much higher. In an Oct. 5 interview for with Alix Steel, a reporter from Cramer’s website TheStreet.com, Cramer explained that the current high price of gold is not the result of a bubble, which he debunked by explaining the definition of a bubble.

        “Well you see, bubble’s a complicated term because a bubble to me implies that you’re never going to get your money back,” Cramer said. “People say that there’s bubble in bonds – you will get money back just you may not do that well. Bubble in Chinese real estate – entirely possible. The Chinese economy is a growth economy and can sustain a bubble in one area and not others. The gold bubble is what people talk about. They talk about it when gold’s down for a given day but — I think as our resident gold expert, I mean you could tell us – finding costs have gone up. There’s just not a lot around.”

        According to the Cramer, gold’s destination will be $2,000 an ounce. He explained there are fundamentals at play and how modern technology has made it possible for more people to buy gold, causing its price to go even higher, referring to exchange-traded funds (ETFs), like the GLD (NYSE:GLD).

        “Depends upon what your long term outlook is,” Cramer explained. “I think gold’s going to $2,000. So I mean you know you can buy it – it’s like a stock that it’s going to 20. You can buy it at 13. It might go buy it at 10. But I just feel like that this supply/demand is right. I was doing some work on how the Exchequer of Britain sold half the gold at $280. And people have poorly timed gold for years. But I do believe that it’s an adequate hedge against inflation. We saw that in Vietnam. In, you know three years ago when their currency was going down and they became the largest importer of gold. We also know that supply and demand are important and I know we’ll do another video when you have waxed eloquently about the ETFs but the demand is easily met – you know, purchased in a time when there was demand but you couldn’t really buy it. You know, obviously people wanted it. And the GLD changed that. You know, we talk about that later on.”

        To those who call gold a bubble – Cramer claims they’re the traditionally the ones that missed gold going up to its highs early on.

        Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/10/05/jim-cramer-gold-going-2-000#ixzz11bK2kAdf

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Gold is not yet in a technical bubble.

        When the vast majority of traders STOP acquiring short positions (positions assuming that gold will go down) and almost all traders jump on the “buy buy buy!” bandwagon, then gold will be in a bubble.

        Do some research at a site like http://www.kitco.com

        It will show you some of the current arguments for and against gold being “in a bubble”. The arguments that gold is NOT currently in a bubble make by far the most sense, at least in my view.

        You also have to realize that nearly ALL world governments are busily trying to find ways to DEVALUE their currencies. When fiat currencies are devalued, what “gains” in value???

        Gold, Oil, commodities, rare earth elements, silver copper, etc.

        You ain’t seen nothing yet from gold – the world governments are going to continue to find ways to DEVALUE their currencies for the foreseeable future, and while that trend holds, the upward trend in the price of gold will hold as well.

        I expect to see some consolidaton and resistance around the $1400.00 per ounce mark, and then a continuation to $1500.00 per ounce and probably beyond.

  11. OK you Nittany Lions, time to call out your alma mater once again!

    Higher education can’t get much lower: Penn State censors anti-terrorism art exhibit


  12. Anita, Is Conyers your Rep?

    • I WISH! I’d love to vote his ass out. His woman just tried to beg her way out of prison on a bribery charge. The judge wasn’t buying it! She’s keeping Kwame Kilpatrick company for 9 months. The joke around town is Mr Conyers is livin it up with Barney Franks. 🙂

  13. Although who can forget this doof? Guam – it might tip over!


    You know, they should just put out a commercial on these and end it with – “Time to Clean Up and Sweep Out the Dirt”

    • Kathy

      Dirt told me you hurt his feelings and wants an apology.

      Geez, are there no ethics anymore? 🙂

    • TEN
      State, % of People Below the Poverty Level

      1. Detroit , MI
      > > 32.5%

      2. Buffalo , NY
      > > 29.9%

      3. Cincinnati , OH
      > > 27.8%

      4. Cleveland , OH
      > > 27.0%

      5. Miami , FL
      > > 26.9%

      5. St. Louis , MO
      > > 26.8%

      7. El Paso , TX
      > > 26.4%

      8. Milwaukee , WI
      > > 26.2%

      9. Philadelphia , PA
      > > 25.1%

      10. Newark , NJ
      > > 24.2%

      U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August

      What do the
      top ten cities

      (over 250,000)with the highest
      poverty rate all have in common?

      Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty
      rate list) hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1961.

      Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn’t

      elected a Republican mayor since 1954.

      Cincinnati, OH (3rd) hasn’t
      elected a Republican mayor since 1984.

      Cleveland , OH (4th) hasn’t
      elected a Republican mayor since 1989.

      Miami , FL (5th) has
      never had a Republican mayor.

      St. Louis, MO (6th) hasn’t

      elected a Republican mayor since 1949.

      El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor.

      Milwaukee , WI (8th) hasn’t elected
      a Republican mayor since 1908.

      Philadelphia , PA (9th) hasn’t elected
      a Republican mayor since 1952.

      Newark , NJ (10th) hasn’t elected
      a Republican mayor since 1907.

      Einstein once said,
      ‘The definition of insanity
      is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.’
      It is the poor who habitually
      elect Democrats
      yet they are still POOR!

      “You cannot
      help the poor by destroying the rich.
      You cannot
      strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
      You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
      You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
      You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
      You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative
      and independence.
      You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what
      they could and
      should do for themselves.”
      -Abraham Lincoln

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @LOI – you’re assuming that the poor are the ones who do the preponderance of voting. tsk tsk

        • Hi Ray!

          Me again 🙂

          Youngstown,Ohio has been Democrat since before I was born, it has, all my life, had a Democrat as a Mayor. Y-town has been known as “little Chicago” before the late 80’s, and has typically been one of the FBI’s most dangerous cities since then. Since the steel mills closed in the late 70’s, the town has deteriorated and blight is common, as is a very busy welfare office. There are very few wealthy people that reside in the city limits, therefore, the poor are left to vote for Mayor.

          psst! the rich live in the ‘burbs, and can’t vote in city elections.

          Peace my friend!

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Darn it G! Ruining all my fun! Hahaha

            • SORRY!

              Not for long, the winds are perfect for an evening ambush. Soon I’ll be heading to the tree stand on the edge of the field where I take pictures.

              Hope the family is well!

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                G-man – you hunting four legged creatures or liberals? (Don’t answer that one!)

                • What is the difference?

                  • Ray Hawkins says:

                    @JAC – I’d assume the meat from a deer would taste better than meat from a liberal – you’re saying they’re the same?

                • Four legged today, Liberals in the morning in town, then back to four legged in the evening. I’ll explain #2 later down the road when I’m finished. Did see plenty of deer though, all said 16 in less than 1/2 hour, just got too dark to shoot once in range, tomorrow is another day, with a new weapon to play with (crossbow).

          • Ditto with Milwauke G-Man. Might visit for a concert or ballgame but then you get the hell out of there. Current Dem Mayor is running for Governor – wants to bring the Milwaukee sludge to the whole state. He’s currently behind in polls.

        • Ray,

          I saw on Fox this week, that 91% of blacks still support Obama. 36% of whites, down from around 48%? So is their loyalty because of race, or entitlements? It can’t be because they believe he’s doing a great job.

          There is not one, but multiple reasons why so many people live in poverty. A big one is that many choose to do so.
          It may be the only life they have ever know, since dropping out of school at whatever age, but it’s still their choice.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @LOI – I would have to grossly generalize and say that many who support Obama do so because:

            (1) Any other option they see as worse (but likely not sure why)
            (2) They don’t think he has been given enough time to lead/govern given where he started from, and therefore by default support him
            (3) They generally think he is doing a good job
            (4) He is black (f@%# – now I’m a racist too)
            (5) Most people hate admitting they were/are wrong or refuse to acknowledge that what they voted for is not what they got

            What do you think?

            • Ray,

              I think they need to do better studies to get an honest answer. How many people living on entitlements vote? Who do they vote for?

              I think we know the answer, and it does tie in with their race some. Blacks, as a percentage are more likely to be receiving government assistance. Whites outnumber blacks, so more whits in total receive assistance.

              (1) Some people prefer to live in poverty rather than work.
              (2) They don’t think he has been given enough time (they probably say the same about FDR)
              (3) They generally think he is doing a good job(some think their agenda is more important than reality(Pelosi))
              (4) He is black (f@%# – now I’m a racist too, I’ll join you, I think that’s 50% of it at least)
              (5) Most people hate admitting they were/are wrong or refuse to acknowledge that what they voted for is not what they got(agree, but think it’s a small percentage)
              (6) Entitlements increased under Obama/Pelosi, poverty levels were declining under Clinton’s welfare reform, Pelosi reversed that in the stimulus, deliberately re-expanding their dependent class voter base.

              • LOI,

                (6) Entitlements increased under Obama/Pelosi, poverty levels were declining under Clinton’s welfare reform, Pelosi reversed that in the stimulus, deliberately re-expanding their dependent class voter base.

                It seems you skipped 8 years here. Poverty levels sky-rocketed under Bush. You need to look at the real cause-n-affect.

            • Simply, he’s a Bro, man. Gotta back the Bro.

            • Ray and LOI

              I think it is understandable why Blacks overwhelmingly support Mr. Obama.

              If you lived with the “perception” that you and your race were the victims of constant injustice and discrimination, you would naturally view one of your own running for high office as a HERO.

              I think the message of “HOPE and CHANGE” probably resonated more deeply with this group because of this. When you become so personally invested in a HERO it becomes almost impossible to admit they have flaws. In this case, admitting he was a failure would be admitting that Black People were failures. The psychological linkage is that tight among many, in my unprofessional and personal opinion.

              I think this also explains why criticizing Mr. Obama is viewed as racist by so many Blacks. You are attacking them and because of their “perceptions” of racism and injustice your attacks simply confirm the perception. You must therefore be racist.

              Simply look to rationalizations by others regarding those who stir positive emotional responses in us. Sara Palin is a good example, to a lesser extent. Because she offered some hope to those who could relate, and being viewed as an outsider, some folks simply can’t admit to her many flaws.

              In my early days I witnessed the same with J. F. Kennedy and then his brother Bobby. It was rock star, cult like worship by many. Their many flaws were in plain view but never acknowledged. There was a time that you could not criticize either of these two to a “liberal” without having a good chance of getting in a fight.

              It is the “perception” that must be broken. And that is going to be a very hard nut to crack, because there is racism in this country. As D13 mentioned earlier. There is nothing today like the “institutionalized” racism that existed in the 50’s, 60’s and even early 70’s. This weakens with each generation, but all it takes is a case here and there to reconfirm the “perception” among those who have suffered.

              • Excellent analysis JAC!!

                There is nothing today like the “institutionalized” racism that existed in the 50′s, 60′s and even early 70′s. This weakens with each generation, but all it takes is a case here and there to reconfirm the “perception” among those who have suffered.

                That seems like a long time ago, but people have to remember that the older generation (my parents age) of African-Americans grew up in an America were racism was the norm in many areas. You can’t just say “get over it” because it greatly impacted their lives and limited their FREEDOM – something that many people here seem to get pretty worked up about…

                • Agreed Todd. However, I am not asking that people simply “get over it”. Instead I am asking that they use reason and logic to PROPERLY determine whether their claim of racism has merit. No matter what those folks went through in the past, that has nothing to do with the present. An act is racism or it isn’t. We cannot allow false claims to be the norm simply because those claims were accurate 40 years ago.

                  • Ray Hawkins says:

                    @USW – I think you have a warped sense of reality on this – most people are not NHL-caliber goaltenders on MLB pitchers in that they can just forget the last goal scored or homerun hit – I know you were probable wired to some degree from birth and then trained in the military to be completely dispassionate about things – but the same (I think) does not apply for people that grew up under racism and have itchy trigger finger now – doesn’t make it right – but it takes time/generations/change for people to change how they’re wired. Perhaps the same phenomena now is what can be attributed to many white, middle class folks – the palpable and unfortunately sometimes unfocused anger at feeling like the harder they work they harder they get screwed (I know I feel that way and I know why). This fast approaching boiling point many here feel now is the same in some ways to the boiling point hit a generation or more ago but many minorities – they get wired to over-interpret most anything and often lump many things that are not racist into the racist bucket. Its the same puzzlement I get at some of your postings that underscore a belief that government cannot do anything right and therefore should not be allowed to do anything (are you an anarchist wanna-be or not?). Maybe the answer is lets figure out what the government does do right / do well – and take everything else away from them – that “everything else” then goes up for “bid”.

                    I’m rambling……

                    But thanks….

                  • USWeapon,

                    I am asking that they use reason and logic to PROPERLY determine whether their claim of racism has merit.

                    I can agree with this. But I’d also ask that those on the Right use reason and logic to PROPERLY determine whether their claims of socialism – blah, blah, blah – have merit. 😉

                    It’s comments like D13’s that bother me:

                    So, racism is a time worn bullshit excuse today…and carries no weight anymore with most people.

                    It’s so easy for those who were unaffected by or actually benefitted from things like racism to dismiss them today. People might feel different if they had experienced it first hand or watched as their parents were constantly put down and made to feel sub-human.

                    It’s similar to PTSD. Words, phrases, gestures can trigger a response. Something that you or I might not even notice, and sometimes the “offender” may not even realize the impact of their actions. But to simply dismiss them just bottles up the anger and emotion…

                    No matter what those folks went through in the past, that has nothing to do with the present.

                    It was this comment that trigger the PTSD correlation. The past has everything to do with the present.

            • This is what happens when education is dumbed down and the Media is the 4th branch of Gov’t.

  14. TexasChem says:

    BF Stated:”So, if you remember my proof of God using math AND axioms – which define the system.”

    TC:No I’ve never seen your proof.Would you mind posting it again.I’d love to see where your starting point was in your mathmatical equation and your axiom that you used to deduce your conclusion.Please try it without the dragon and leprechaun references.I don’t think they are relative.

    TC:The Higgs Boson has not been discovered yet.This is still hypothetical theory.

    BF Stated:”A new field of physics has been discovered and a whole new set of natural laws await our investigation.”

    TC:Yes I agree but it is for the reason that when the Higgs Boson is not found new theories will have to be postulated to explain volume vs mass upon the curvature of space time and its affects upon gravitation.

    Mass effect-Curvature of Spacetime-Closed Volume.

    It makes more sense for a Closed Volume to have an effect upon the Curvature of Spacetime and Gravity than Mass alone.What if Gravitation is not an attractive force between masses, but a pressure force exerted by the 3 dimensions and 4th of time upon closed volumes? Hmmmm?

  15. ABC Sanitizes Left Wing Rally, Excludes Communist and Socialist Signs
    Scott Whitlock.

    Good Morning America on Sunday recapped the liberal One Nation rally held on the nation’s capital, Saturday, but skipped any mention of the socialist and Communist themed signs seen during the march.

    These are some of the signs that were featured during reporter Tahman Bradley’s segment: “”Peace, justice, equality, hope, change,” “Fair trade, not free trade,” “Educate every child,” “Full and fair employment” and “Silence GOP lies.” However, signs with the Communist Party USA logo, posters reading “Capitalism is failing, socialism is the alternative” and “Build a socialist alternative” were not. [Pictures can be found here. Video, here.]

    Instead, Bradley repeated Democratic talking points: “Several speakers and people in the crowd noted the diversity at the rally. Their insinuation, the Tea Party movement has attracted only a narrow slice of Americans.”

    Individuals with books such as the Communist Manifesto and The Jewish Question were also avoided. Interestingly, on Saturday, GMA’s Deborah Roberts actually asked Ben Jealous of the NAACP about communist infiltration of the rally: “Now, Glenn Beck has said to some of his viewers and listeners on the radio, that among your organizers are Communist Party members and the New York City Democratic Socialists of America. What do you say to that?”

    Roberts also had no follow up to Jealous’ odd answer: “This is a big tent…You’ll see Jews, Christians and Muslims. You’ll see black, brown, Asians. You’ll see everybody here from both parties who believe that tax cuts for the richest one percent at this time is crazy.”

    People from both parties attended the rally? Were they socialist Republicans?

    Considering how eager members of the media were to tout extremist signs at Tea Party rallies, Good Morning America should at least have shown a few of the socialist and communist signs, especially since Roberts raised the subject on Saturday.

    More on Tahman Bradley (see file photo at right): He interned for the left-wing People for the American Way. Reporting on the Glenn Beck rally for the August 29 GMA, he complained that the “crowd was almost all white, giving critics an open door.”

    A transcript of Sunday’s segment, which aired at 8:10am EDT, follows:

    DEBORAH ROBERTS: Liberals rally. Tens of thousands of people gather at the Lincoln Memorial to make their voices heard. But, will it be enough to energize voters and help the Democrats retain control of Congress?

    RON CLAIBORNE: And with election day less than a month away and Democrats struggling now to hold power on Capitol Hill, the left is trying to fire up its base, tens of thousands of people turned out for the One Nation Working Together rally in Washington, D.C. yesterday. Tahman Bradley has the story.


    TAHMAN BRADLEY: In a campaign that seems dominated by the Tea Party liberals put on their own strong show of support at the Lincoln Memorial. Their message, they too plan to show up on Election D ay.

    ED SCHULTZ: One nation. We are together.

    BRADLEY: The One Nation rally came almost one month after Glenn Beck energized conservatives at the same location.

    GLENN BECK: For too long this country has wandered in darkness.

    BRADLEY: This time hundreds of progressive groups, organizations from labor unions to the NAACP let their voice be heard.

    AL SHARPTON: They say that we’re apathetic. They say we’re not energized. We got to go home and we’ve got to hit the pavement.

    BRADLEY: Several speakers and people in the crowd noted the diversity at the rally. Their insinuation, the tea party movement has attracted only a narrow slice of Americans.

    GERALD HUDSON (Service Employees International Union): I think the Tea Party does not represent America. I think this is America. Asians, African-Americans, Latinos, whites, we’re all coming here saying, give us the politics that matter.

    JESSE JACKSON: Don’t you give up now.

    BRADLEY: The issues they say matter, jobs, education and social justice. issues that help Democrats win big in 2008, issues that liberals hope can once again motivate progressives to stem what polls show could be a large Republican tide. For Good Morning America, Tahman Bradley, ABC News, Washington.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/10/04/abc-sanitizes-left-wing-rally-excludes-communist-and-socialist-signs#ixzz11cGTi4Np

    • One Nation Rally Picture Guaranteed to Haunt Media – Especially Ed Schultz

      By Noel Sheppard

      The media – and especially MSNBC’s Ed Schultz – were hoping for a huge turnout at Saturday’s “One Nation” rally in Washington, D.C.

      So hopeful were so-called journalists that this liberal event would top the attendance of Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally in August that Schultz even “guaranteed” on his radio show that he “could do more than 300,000.”

      Well, here’s a picture of Saturday’s gathering followed by a similar angled shot taken during “Restoring Honor.”

      follow link for photo’s
      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/10/03/one-nation-rally-picture-guaranteed-haunt-media-especially-ed-schultz#ixzz11cHl9ypZ

    • Omission Watch: Communist, Socialist ‘Partners’ of One Nation Protest Left Out of News Accounts
      Tim Graham.

      An official NAACP video for Saturday’s One Nation rally (featuring their leader Ben Jealous, among others) claims that their movement includes “Conservatives and moderates, progressives and liberals.” But a look at the actual “endorsing organizations” on the One Nation website doesn’t list conservative groups, but it does include the Communist Party USA, the Committee of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (founded as a “moderate” wing of the CPUSA), the International Socialist Organization (publishers of SocialistWorker.org), and the Democratic Socialists of America (as well as its Chicago, Detroit, and New York chapters).

      And the liberals get mad when you associate them with socialism. Well, what are these groups doing on this list, then? Where are the media worrying about “fringes” and “extremists”?

      These endorsements have been missing from news accounts. AP’s pre-protest dispatch by Nafeesa Syeed surgically began “Groups pushing for progressive policies will gather in the nation’s capital this weekend for a march aimed at recapturing momentum for their agenda and mobilizing supporters before next month’s midterm elections.” Krissah Thompson left this angle out in her Washington Post story.

      On the National Public Radio show Tell Me More, host Michel Martin welcomed in three liberals on Wednesday, but tried so very hard not to identify them or the march as “liberal” or “left-wing.” The issue of fringy endorsing organizations never came up. She began:

      But first, we want to tell you about One Nation Working Together. That’s the name of a rally scheduled for Saturday here in Washington. The group spearheading the march includes civil rights organizations, gay rights activists and labor groups, among others.

      The rally is pitched as a challenge to Glenn Beck’s attention-getting march in August, but it’s also scheduled for exactly a month before this year’s midterm elections in November, and it’s attempting to focus the nation’s attention on jobs, justice and education.

      We wanted to know more, so we’ve called two of the many people scheduled to speak at the event. With us now is Janet Murguia, the president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza.

      La Raza is, of course, the largest national Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States. Also with us is Randi Weingarten. She’s the president of the American Federation of Teachers, which has about 1.5 million members. I welcome you both. Thanks for joining us.

      And for additional perspective on the midterms, we’ve also called Karen Finney. She’s a former communications director for the Democratic National Committee and a commentator on MSNBC. Welcome to you, as well.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/10/01/omission-watch-communist-socialist-partners-one-nation-protest-left-out-#ixzz11cJiCIsO

    • Have you seen pictures of this rally? It was a scary bunch of people gathered there. Personal agenda after personal agenda. They’ve all been slighted.

      The mess they left was inexcusable.

      • Kathy,

        What personal agenda? They were just a diverse group that came together to promote making America a better place for all. And the trash they left on the National Mall was to provide additional work for the parks dept.:lol:


        “In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. … Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. … We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.”

        That closing two-sentence motto is chilling to everyone who values equal rights for all. It says: “For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing.”

        One of America’s greatest strengths has always been taking in immigrants from cultures around the world, and assimilating them into our country as Americans. By being citizens of the U.S. we are Americans first, and only, in our national loyalties.

        This is totally opposed by MEChA for the hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, to whom they say:

        “Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we…should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot…Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas … It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.”

        the National Council of La Raza succeeded in raking in over $15.2 million in federal grants last year alone, of which $7.9 million was in U.S. Department of Education grants for Charter Schools, and undisclosed amounts were for get-out-the-vote efforts supporting La Raza political positions.

        The Council of La Raza succeeded in having itself added to congressional hearings by Republican House and Senate leaders. And an anonymous senator even gave the Council of La Raza an extra $4 million in earmarked taxpayer money, supposedly for “housing reform,” while La Raza continues to lobby the Senate for virtual open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens.

  16. SUFA

    Here is a pretty darn good article that looks back over the past few year in D.C. and tries to explain how the Dems got into the pickle they are in and what they are now doing about it.

    I say darn good but not excellent. I think it doesn’t explain enough how the R’s initial response of “dont’ criticize” the President was driven away by the general public’s anger over TARP and STIMULUS. They make it sound like the RNC simply recognized the tea party summer of 2009 as a signal to attack. It doesn’t mention how that also led to serious conflict within the RNC establishment and how it is still making politics the most interesting I have seen in my life time.

    The article also reveals how petty both sides of the isle are when deciding what and when and why to attack.

    You will love some of the one liners in here.


    • Not bad. I think when it’s all said and done, this Adm.’s agenda isn’t popular because the country is center right and their agenda is far, far left.

      I like this one:

      Nowadays voters wouldn’t trust the government to walk the dog, (except for Ray, Buck and Mathius who apparently trust government with just about anything!)

      • Kathy

        That was my favorite also.

        I would say most of America is generally complacent. And because of that what we call “center right” today is far left of the center of 30 years ago.

        One of the big reasons to get everyone back to work is that then they won’t pay as much attention to the other things that Congress wants to pass. Now you know the real purpose behind Stimulus.

        You have to keep the natives from going on the war path.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @Kathy – I trust Government with just about anything? You don’t pay attention very well. I believe in “trust but verify” – and yes – there are many things we can verify that do not look good. There are also things the government does do well.

        • hmmm, I don’t know Ray. You’ve come a long way and you have your moments of clarity, but push come to shove, you always seem to side with “Government knows best”.

  17. The Universal Solider

    …with respect to vets on SUFA…

    • Bottom Line says:

      I remember watching “Bowling For Columbine” where he(Moore) mentions all of the bombs dropped on Bosnia. I immediately thought of all the thousands of tons of ordinance that my shipmates and I delivered to be dropped on Bosnia. I thought of the good Bosnian refugees that I had the pleasure of meeting in my home town(brought there by various christian groups), and the stories about what it’s like to watch a community being turned to rubble by A2G ordinance. That’s when I realized that, although indirectly, I was a “baby killer”. Funny how at the time I was delivering that ordinance, the furthest thing from my mind was the hell that it would cause.

      • BL,

        You are me, but less a saving grace of a strange heart.

        It is why the government preys on the youth – they are too “stupid” to understand.

        Then, when you are older, but already committed or acted, does one realize the importance of such action.

        Salute, BL.

        • Bottom Line says:

          “The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one” – Wilhelm Stekel

          Salute, BF.

  18. Crist teams up with democrat against Rubio in Florida….gee what a revelation….He gets pissed because he gets beat then his ego wants to hurt the one that beat him. Hmmmmm, perhaps he was the democrat in Repub clothing to start with….OR just a part of the whole problem of the “good ol’ boys” that permeates the political disourse.

  19. Oh, that peace loving Iran.

    Afghan Police Seize 22 Tons of Explosives From Iran

    Published October 06, 2010

    NewsCore/FOX News


    Oct. 6, 2010: An Afghan policeman checks passengers of a vehicle at a joint U.S. and Afghan military checkpoint in the outskirts of Kandahar. Afghan police say they have intercepted 22 tons of explosives reportedly imported from neighboring Iran.

    Afghan police said Wednesday they had seized 22 tons of explosives stashed in boxes marked “food, toys and kitchenware” that were reportedly imported from neighboring Iran.

    The discovery was made Tuesday in a customs office in the western province of Nimroz on the Iranian border, deputy provincial police chief Mohammad Musa Rasouli told the AFP.

    “We found these materials hidden in a 40 foot shipping container that had come from Iran. The explosives were disguised as merchandise like food, toys and kitchenware,” he said.

    Bombs made from old ammunitions and explosives are the main weapon used by the Taliban and other insurgents fighting against the Western-backed Afghan government and Western troops, and cause the bulk of military casualties.

    Foreign military commanders and some Afghan officials have accused Iran of providing weapons to the Taliban, the chief group leading the insurgency since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion ousted its regime from power.

    Tehran, a long-running U.S. foe, denies the charges and senior Afghan administration officials say they have no evidence against Iran.

    The U.S. and NATO have more than 150,000 troops in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and keep President Hamid Karzai’s administration in power.

    • LOI

      Those peace luv’n Americans

      The U.S. and NATO have more than 150,000 troops in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and keep President Hamid Karzai’s administration in power

  20. Ray Hawkins says:

    Following a great excerpt from Matt Taibbi’s latest work from Rolling Stone (did I just hear a few heads explode?). Anyway – read first then assess – it captures how quite a few us supposed “lefties” feel about the Tea Party movement and he also offers some fairly sound analysis on where we all are:

    From the following: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904?RS_show_page=0

    Early in his campaign, Dr. Paul, the son of the uncompromising libertarian hero Ron Paul, denounced Medicare as “socialized medicine.” But this spring, when confronted with the idea of reducing Medicare payments to doctors like himself — half of his patients are on Medicare — he balked. This candidate, a man ostensibly so against government power in all its forms that he wants to gut the Americans With Disabilities Act and abolish the departments of Education and Energy, was unwilling to reduce his own government compensation, for a very logical reason. “Physicians,” he said, “should be allowed to make a comfortable living.”

    Those of us who might have expected Paul’s purist followers to abandon him in droves have been disappointed; Paul is now the clear favorite to win in November. Ha, ha, you thought we actually gave a shit about spending, joke’s on you. That’s because the Tea Party doesn’t really care about issues — it’s about something deep down and psychological, something that can’t be answered by political compromise or fundamental changes in policy. At root, the Tea Party is nothing more than a them-versus-us thing. They know who they are, and they know who we are (“radical leftists” is the term they prefer), and they’re coming for us on Election Day, no matter what we do — and, it would seem, no matter what their own leaders like Rand Paul do.

    In the Tea Party narrative, victory at the polls means a new American revolution, one that will “take our country back” from everyone they disapprove of. But what they don’t realize is, there’s a catch: This is America, and we have an entrenched oligarchical system in place that insulates us all from any meaningful political change. The Tea Party today is being pitched in the media as this great threat to the GOP; in reality, the Tea Party is the GOP. What few elements of the movement aren’t yet under the control of the Republican Party soon will be, and even if a few genuine Tea Party candidates sneak through, it’s only a matter of time before the uprising as a whole gets castrated, just like every grass-roots movement does in this country. Its leaders will be bought off and sucked into the two-party bureaucracy, where its platform will be whittled down until the only things left are those that the GOP’s campaign contributors want anyway: top-bracket tax breaks, free trade and financial deregulation.

    The rest of it — the sweeping cuts to federal spending, the clampdown on bailouts, the rollback of Roe v. Wade — will die on the vine as one Tea Party leader after another gets seduced by the Republican Party and retrained for the revolutionary cause of voting down taxes for Goldman Sachs executives. It’s all on display here in Kentucky, the unofficial capital of the Tea Party movement, where, ha, ha, the joke turns out to be on them: Rand Paul, their hero, is a fake.

    The original Tea Party was launched by a real opponent of the political establishment — Rand Paul’s father, Ron, whose grass-roots rallies for his 2008 presidential run were called by that name. The elder Paul will object to this characterization, but what he represents is something of a sacred role in American culture: the principled crackpot. He’s a libertarian, but he means it. Sure, he takes typical, if exaggerated, Republican stances against taxes and regulation, but he also opposes federal drug laws (“The War on Drugs is totally out of control” and “All drugs should be decriminalized”), Bush’s interventionist wars in the Middle East (“We cannot spread our greatness and our goodness through the barrel of a gun”) and the Patriot Act; he even called for legalized prostitution and online gambling.

    Paul had a surprisingly good showing as a fringe candidate in 2008, and he may run again, but he’ll never get any further than the million primary votes he got last time for one simple reason, which happens to be the same reason many campaign-trail reporters like me liked him: He’s honest. An anti- war, pro-legalization Republican won’t ever play in Peoria, which is why in 2008 Paul’s supporters were literally outside the tent at most GOP events, their candidate pissed on by a party hierarchy that preferred Wall Street-friendly phonies like Mitt Romney and John McCain. Paul returned the favor, blasting both parties as indistinguishable “Republicrats” in his presciently titled book, The Revolution. The pre-Obama “Tea Parties” were therefore peopled by young anti-war types and libertarian intellectuals who were as turned off by George W. Bush and Karl Rove as they were by liberals and Democrats.

    The failure of the Republican Party to invite the elder Paul into the tent of power did not mean, however, that it didn’t see the utility of borrowing his insurgent rhetoric and parts of his platform for Tea Party 2.0. This second-generation Tea Party came into being a month after Barack Obama moved into the Oval Office, when CNBC windbag Rick Santelli went on the air to denounce one of Obama’s bailout programs and called for “tea parties” to protest. The impetus for Santelli’s rant wasn’t the billions in taxpayer money being spent to prop up the bad mortgage debts and unsecured derivatives losses of irresponsible investors like Goldman Sachs and AIG — massive government bailouts supported, incidentally, by Sarah Palin and many other prominent Republicans. No, what had Santelli all worked up was Obama’s “Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan,” a $75 billion program less than a hundredth the size of all the bank bailouts. This was one of the few bailout programs designed to directly benefit individual victims of the financial crisis; the money went to homeowners, many of whom were minorities, who were close to foreclosure. While the big bank bailouts may have been incomprehensible to ordinary voters, here was something that Middle America had no problem grasping: The financial crisis was caused by those lazy minorities next door who bought houses they couldn’t afford — and now the government was going to bail them out.

    “How many of you people want to pay your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills? Raise your hand!” Santelli roared in a broadcast from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade. Why, he later asked, doesn’t America reward people who “carry the water instead of drink the water?”

    Suddenly, tens of thousands of Republicans who had been conspicuously silent during George Bush’s gargantuan spending on behalf of defense contractors and hedge-fund gazillionaires showed up at Tea Party rallies across the nation, declaring themselves fed up with wasteful government spending. From the outset, the events were organized and financed by the conservative wing of the Republican Party, which was quietly working to co-opt the new movement and deploy it to the GOP’s advantage. Taking the lead was former House majority leader Dick Armey, who as chair of a group called FreedomWorks helped coordinate Tea Party rallies across the country. A succession of Republican Party insiders and money guys make up the guts of FreedomWorks: Its key members include billionaire turd Steve Forbes and former Republican National Committee senior economist Matt Kibbe.

    Prior to the Tea Party phenomenon, FreedomWorks was basically just an AstroTurfing-lobbying outfit whose earlier work included taking money from Verizon to oppose telecommunications regulation. Now the organization’s sights were set much higher: In the wake of a monstrous economic crash caused by grotesque abuses in unregulated areas of the financial-services industry, FreedomWorks — which took money from companies like mortgage lender MetLife — had the opportunity to persuade millions of ordinary Americans to take up arms against, among other things, Wall Street reform.

    Joining them in the fight was another group, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the billionaire David Koch, whose Koch Industries is the second-largest privately held company in America. In addition to dealing in plastics, chemicals and petroleum, Koch has direct interests in commodities trading and financial services. He also has a major stake in pushing for deregulation, as his companies have been fined multiple times by the government, including a 1999 case in which Koch Industries was held to have stolen oil from federal lands, lying about oil purchases some 24,000 times.

    So how does a group of billionaire businessmen and corporations get a bunch of broke Middle American white people to lobby for lower taxes for the rich and deregulation of Wall Street? That turns out to be easy. Beneath the surface, the Tea Party is little more than a weird and disorderly mob, a federation of distinct and often competing strains of conservatism that have been unable to coalesce around a leader of their own choosing. Its rallies include not only hardcore libertarians left over from the original Ron Paul “Tea Parties,” but gun-rights advocates, fundamentalist Christians, pseudomilitia types like the Oath Keepers (a group of law- enforcement and military professionals who have vowed to disobey “unconstitutional” orders) and mainstream Republicans who have simply lost faith in their party. It’s a mistake to cast the Tea Party as anything like a unified, cohesive movement — which makes them easy prey for the very people they should be aiming their pitchforks at. A loose definition of the Tea Party might be millions of pissed-off white people sent chasing after Mexicans on Medicaid by the handful of banks and investment firms who advertise on Fox and CNBC.

    The individuals in the Tea Party may come from very different walks of life, but most of them have a few things in common. After nearly a year of talking with Tea Party members from Nevada to New Jersey, I can count on one hand the key elements I expect to hear in nearly every interview. One: Every single one of them was that exceptional Republican who did protest the spending in the Bush years, and not one of them is the hypocrite who only took to the streets when a black Democratic president launched an emergency stimulus program. (“Not me — I was protesting!” is a common exclamation.) Two: Each and every one of them is the only person in America who has ever read the Constitution or watched Schoolhouse Rock. (Here they have guidance from Armey, who explains that the problem with “people who do not cherish America the way we do” is that “they did not read the Federalist Papers.”) Three: They are all furious at the implication that race is a factor in their political views — despite the fact that they blame the financial crisis on poor black homeowners, spend months on end engrossed by reports about how the New Black Panthers want to kill “cracker babies,” support politicians who think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an overreach of government power, tried to enact South African-style immigration laws in Arizona and obsess over Charlie Rangel, ACORN and Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Four: In fact, some of their best friends are black! (Reporters in Kentucky invented a game called “White Male Liberty Patriot Bingo,” checking off a box every time a Tea Partier mentions a black friend.) And five: Everyone who disagrees with them is a radical leftist who hates America.

    It would be inaccurate to say the Tea Partiers are racists. What they are, in truth, are narcissists. They’re completely blind to how offensive the very nature of their rhetoric is to the rest of the country. I’m an ordinary middle-aged guy who pays taxes and lives in the suburbs with his wife and dog — and I’m a radical communist? I don’t love my country? I’m a redcoat? Fuck you! These are the kinds of thoughts that go through your head as you listen to Tea Partiers expound at awesome length upon their cultural victimhood, surrounded as they are by America-haters like you and me or, in the case of foreign-born president Barack Obama, people who are literally not Americans in the way they are.

    It’s not like the Tea Partiers hate black people. It’s just that they’re shockingly willing to believe the appalling horseshit fantasy about how white people in the age of Obama are some kind of oppressed minority. That may not be racism, but it is incredibly, earth-shatteringly stupid. I hear this theme over and over — as I do on a recent trip to northern Kentucky, where I decide to stick on a Rand Paul button and sit in on a Tea Party event at a local amusement park. Before long, a group of about a half-dozen Tea Partiers begin speculating about how Obamacare will force emergency-room doctors to consult “death panels” that will evaluate your worth as a human being before deciding to treat you.

    • Nice article, I am sure it is based on a lot of his experiences. I am also sure it is based on a lot of his biases, as are the opinions of other liberals toward the Tea Party. I certainly have seen much of what he describes in the Tea Party, I have also seen a lot of the people who think like Ron Paul instead of Rand. Of course, I am viewing it from the point of view of a libertarian, so of course I see that. I am biased too.

      I have stayed allied with the Tea Party because they want to stop spending. IF that goes away and it really is just “stop the Democrats”, then they will lose my support. Situations like what happened in Delaware, however, indicate to me that whether the Tea Partiers really are people who protested spending under Bush or not, they are no fan of it now, and they have no problem bucking the Republican Party line to show it. Also, maybe there were a lot more people mad about Bush on the Republican side than you want to admit. Obama did not win based solely on democrat energy, it was also on Republican apathy due to their anger. I think Obama’s loss next election will be based on a similar circumstance.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Good point Jon – Taibbi’s writing over the last 3 years has moved from left of center to more and more cynical.

      • Obama also won because the Republicans allowed the MSM to pick their candidate…

        • Terry

          As much as I have contempt for the MSM the reality is that the “religious conservatives” of the Republican party are responsible for making McCain the candidate.

          Huckabee was unelectable nationally. But they couldn’t get past Romnie’s Mormon faith. And that is and will continue to be a problem for the Republicans at all levels. Romnie was on a roll when Huckster started piling up votes in the south. Then the DEAL to give delegates to McCain to prevent a Romnie win was made and Romnie’s run was over. From that point McCain was the candidate.

          I would like to remind everyone here that of all the candidates who ran in 08, it was ONLY Romnie who seemed to understand what was happening and ONLY Romnie who articulated a rational way to stem the tidal wave.

          And that is why I wrote his name in on the ballot I submitted. My little act of defiance and one that I will continue to make from here on out. I will never vote for one of the “ordained” candidates again, unless I believe in what they have to offer. That requires them to display both understanding and HONOR.

          Sorry Terry, I got a little off track there.

          Best Wishes

          • No problem…I really value your opinion. It was my opinion, and I still hold that the Liberal MSM promoted McCain, and that at very least assisted him (greatly IMO) in gaining the Republican nomination.

            • Agree, Terry. When, very early on, the NYT was touting McCain, I knew we were in trouble.

            • Terry

              There is not doubt that he was their favorite from the beginning and they tried to pump him up.

              That is their style. Pick one, pump them up, and then pull the rug out from under them to garner headlines later.

              I think they kept him in the game, which did in fact allow him to win nomination in a divided primary. Remember, he finished 2nd or 3rd or even 4th most of the time until Romney dropped out and Thompson and Giuliani fizzled. Had the media not kept him going then someone else might have been their to pick up the votes in the South. Maybe Huckabee and Romney would have gone to the convention tied.

              • They knew that he was the least palpatable candidate for a true conservative, and him being the nominee would de-energize the conservative base…or am I giving them too much credit?

    • Ray

      I think it is a good article, from his perspective.

      I happen to think that he has some things out of sequence and like most on the “left” assumes to much about the “organized” and “coordinated” nature of the Tea Party movement in the beginning.

      Note that in the article I provided the Republican operatives admit that they did not see the power of the movement until the 2009 summer recess and town hall meetings where congress critters were getting scalded by their constituents.

      I participated in the first two rounds of Tea Party rallies. There was not true “coordination”. There was “information exchange”. Somebody came up with the idea of an April 15th rally. It went viral and then the media, folks like Beck, got hold of the information and spread it further. The points of each rally, speakers, etc was completely left up to the local folks.

      In fact, if you go back to our discussions on SUFA you should find my comments, echoed by others, that the Tea Party must be careful to not let the established politician coopt the movement. The first rallies did not include many politicians.

      In my view Sarah Palin was not the first to wedge her way in. It was Michelle Bachman. By standing in front of cameras and carrying the Tea Party anger to mainstream she became a VOICE and thus claimed authority without actual delegation. Other politicians soon followed her example and one day the Tea Party woke up to find something called the Tea Party Express claiming their movement.

      Here is a piece of an article on The History of the Tea Party Movement, by Beth Rowen. You can find the whole thing on WIKI. But warning, Beth also somehow doesn’t seem to get things quite straight.

      “Santelli, however, can’t claim credit as the sole mastermind of the movement. Prior to his appearance in Chicago, Keli Carender, a Seattle at-home mother also known as Liberty Belle, had been using her blog to get the word out about the populist “Porkulus Protest” she was organizing against President Barack Obama’s proposed $750 billion stimulus package. About 100 people showed up for her event in mid-February. Similar events inspired by both Santelli and Carender, followed in quick succession in Denver; Mesa, Ariz.; Tampa, Fla.; and other cities. Tea Party organizers claim that the first nationwide Tea Party protest took place on February 27, 2009, with coordinated events occurring in more than 40 cities.”

    • Ray,

      Who but Matt Taibbi says the Tea Party advocates the rollback of Roe v. Wade?
      “Its key members include billionaire turd Steve Forbes” I will admit to bias, I do not care for his style of personal attacks. Gutter journalism has never appealed to me.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @LOI – are you just being lazy? Don’t believe me or Taibbi – read for your self:

        http: // tpartyus2010. ning. com /main/search/search?q=Abortion

        http: // www. politicsdaily. com /2010/09/17/christine-odonnell-no-tax-hikes-no-abortion-no-masturbation/

        http: // www. huffingtonpost. com /2010/06/29/sharron-angle-opposes-abo_n_629371.html

        http: // www. teapartypatriots. org /BlogPostView.aspx?id=0758a810-25fc-4471-960e-6ac9d904fe37

        For me at least, even given the decentralized nature of the Tea Party, there is enough there to uncover enough ideology on where they stand relative to abortion.

        • Ray,

          “are you just being lazy? Don’t believe me or Taibbi”
          Can it be all of the above?:lol: First link did not show anything on abortion, might be my poor ‘puter skills.

          Christine Odonnell does not personally believe in abortion or masturbation, is she advocating changes in federal law to enforce her beliefs? Stopping federal funding of abortions to me would be fiscal, as well as a moral issue.

          Sharron Angle, same as above.

          TeaPartiePatriots looks to me to be a liberal false flag group, started to discredit all Tea Parties, just as several have shown up at rallies with offensive signs to try to portray them as racist.

          Kathy said,
          “The Tea Party Express is a group that has gone over the line, in my opinion, and has been publicly rebuked by other tea party groups.”

          I think the Republican party will also try to highjack the Tea party, and I am waiting to see how that goes, but my take on them is strictly small, fiscally responsible government.

    • Disagree with much of it and that is as someone who has attended many, many tea party events and is on mailing lists from several organizations.

      I don’t know of this so-called history of the tea party beyond the rant from the guy on CNBC(?) that encouraged people to do something. There was a subsequent gathering in Chicago and then then the tax day tea parties across the country.

      The tea party concept is very simple: smaller government, less taxes, less spending. That’s it. Not us vs. them, not Rep vs. Dem. I’ve seen Rep, even popular ones like Paul Ryan here in WI, get booed (for supporting TARP). The primaries have shown, especially in Delaware and Alaska, that incumbent Repubs are just as susceptable to the “wrath” of the tea party as anyone. Again, you don’t support with actions that you are for smaller government, less taxes, less spending – you are not going to get the support of the tea party.

      The tea party concept is made up of many, many groups. There has to be some organization in order to get the word out and there is no doubt some of the groups have different ideas from others and perhaps have ties to the RNC. I know I have removed my name from some mailings as I’ve felt they are trying to hijack the movement and have ideas outside of the main three that I’ve mentioned. The Tea Party Express is a group that has gone over the line, in my opinion, and has been publicly rebuked by other tea party groups.

      Unless someone is a true statist and believes only the government can solve problems, they should be part of the tea party.

      Just like articles like this one, the tea party participants has taken hits from all over. BECAUSE IT IS WORKING! We’ve been called astro-turf, racists, crazy, extremists – you name it, we’ve been called it. And, there certainly might be some involved that fit that label, who knows? For so long, Americans have been lazy and uninvolved in their government. Will the hoped for change (remember – smaller government, less taxes, less spending) happen in one or two elections? Of course not, because there will be some that arrive in Washington and get sucked into the corrupt vacuum. I think most on tea party members realize they are commiting themselves for the rest of their lives. Complacency, apathy got us here and we can’t go down that road ever again.

      I know the talk on this post is that the best way to reduce government’s importance is to ignore it. On some scale I get that. But for right now, that is extreme to me and to most Americans. So I will do my part to bring about change (remember – smaller government, less taxes, less spending), by working through the tea party movement.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @Kathy – you contradict yourself – all in the same posting you describe how the Tea Party is many, many groups; many of whom have different ideas (apparently different enough that you felt compelled to distance yourself from some them), yet your rhetoric of:

        “Unless someone is a true statist and believes only the government can solve problems, they should be part of the tea party”

        …rings very true of what Taibbi wrote of and warned about. This notion that either I am either Tea Party or I am a Statist I find appalling – especially when you admit that even the Tea Party itself cannot get its shit together. I fear the Tea Party because I think the hijacking that has occurred (what be curious if you dispute the observations regarding Rand Paul and why) is mere cover for either a coming culture war or just an underhanded attempt by some pretty smart GOPers to hijack yet another grass roots movement.

        I look forward to your response.

        • Ray, there is not one leader, really not one tea party, it’s just a name for us citizens who are frustrated and fed up. I don’t get this need to put us all as one group or that we need a leader or that we can’t “get our shit together”. I think the voices are being heard quite nicely.

          I know we’ve all previously been pinned into a corner with a label put on us and expected to believe certain things. This is the complete opposite and that is why it is driving some crazy – on the right and left. The GOP can’t control it (remember Rove’s meltdown on Hannity a few weeks back when O’Donnell won?) and the DNC is afraid of its successes.

          The attendees at these events are becoming more and more aware of what is and has been going on in Washington (and the media) – they are very independent and I personally do not worry about them being hijacked by anyone. Been there, done that.

          Will this become a third party? I have no idea. I’m not sure anyone wants to be tied into that corner again. But in some sense, it is a new revolution, a revolt. Is it perfect? No – but it’s a movement that seems to on the right track.

          I’ve clearly hit a nerve with the statist comment – my question to you, are you happy with the direction of the country? If so, great – more power to you! Sit back, open up your wallet, and sing praises to your government. If not, then come to an event and check it out!

          I don’t know enough about the Rand situation you are referring to comment on it.

          • Ray Hawkins says:


            “I don’t know enough about the Rand situation you are referring to comment on it.”

            My apologies – I implied from your statement of “Disagree with much of it and that is as someone who has attended many, many tea party events and is on mailing lists from several organizations” that you read the article posted, about half of which covered/addressed Tea Party fave Rand Paul.

            My issue with simply using the cause of “frustrated and fed up” to join a party/movement/confederation/group-of-groups is that it puts me in company with a lot of folks that I fundamentally, with every fiber of my being, disagree with. “Frustrated and fed up” is a great slogan to build a tide of generalized hate and resentment and fear – exactly as I feared – I think it is being used by a cadre of scumbags (the GOP) to hijack a discontent population so they can backdoor the process. If the Tea Party is a colossal dipshit like Christine O’Donnell or Sarah Palin then I’m not in it – no way, no how. If you read the RS article you’d see a clear cut example of how the poster boy Rand Paul has already been co-opted by the GOP. You do see that don’t you? In many Tea party bandwagoners I see the see quivering with religious fervor excitement that many of the current POTUS diehards displayed two years ago – they’re mad at something, they’re getting it all together, but they have no friggin clue how to run the last mile nor any understanding that the douchebag holding the timer and moving the finish line further and further back are GOP operatives and GOP money. You’ve been had before you knew it Kathy.

            • Wow, you almost sound like a conspircy theorist here, Ray!

              Again, if you are so, so paranoid about the tea party bogeymen getting you, then by all means stay home, sit on your hands and….wait better,
              yet – do what the new MSNBC logo promotes –

              LEAN FORWARD! (now wait for the bend over directive)!

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @Kathy – I’m not worried about any tea party bogeyman – any dimwitted tea partier that does strike gold in the midterm will be monied into line anyway – less they claim both Senate and House which ain’t gonna happen.

    • Bottom Line says:

      I agree with the author that Rand Paul is a fake, just as I have accused his father of being.

      I agree that there are a lot of stupid tea partiers that have been duped by allowing the GOP to hi-jack their movement.

      The rest is just a bunch of typical leftest angry cynical rhetorical BS.

      As far as the comment about the joke being on KY, I think the joke is on the whole country, no matter which candidate or party…including himself.

      What a F’ing idiot.

    • “was unwilling to reduce his own government compensation, for a very logical reason. “Physicians,” he said, “should be allowed to make a comfortable living.””

      I don’t understand the reasoning here. Per this article somehow Rand is being hypocritical because he doesn’t believe in socialized medicine so he should be okay with his government compensation being cut, to pay for socialized medicine. They use the words government compensation like it is a welfare handout to doctors. But it isn’t-they’re being paid to do a job. The government doesn’t pay the bills for a doctors practice-the government can set the amount they are willing to pay for the doctors services and the doctors have a RIGHT to refuse the work if the pay is too low. Please explain to me why it is being hypocritical to be against socialized medicine and refuse to be paid a lower wage which means you pay more than other citizens do to support medicare just because this particular safety net is tied to how you make a living.

      • V.H.

        Ron Paul gets lots of government money for his constituents too, even though he voted against the bill

        He works on JAC’s theory of government money.
        Eliminate it, but if it is going to be spent anyway, my people – whose taxes it represents – get to get it

        Rand is being consistent. Eliminate social medicine, but as long as that is the way a Doctor earns his living because there are few other ways to do it, he has a right to maximize his take, until the system changes

        Now, I’ve debated this theory with JAC before, and I also feel it is a bit hypocritical, but at the same time there is some merit to it.

        • Okay, so your saying he’s being hypocritical because he’s treating patients who are on medicare and being paid by the government to do so, while being against socialized medicine. But this article doesn’t seem to be using that argument. Actually this article in reference to Rand simply didn’t make any sense to me.

          But no, I don’t think he’s being hypocritical by treating medicare patients-he’s running a business-he has a right to treat whatever patients he wants too-and he has a right to set his own prices or to agree to set prices. It isn’t his fault we have socialized medicine. And if the patient or government will pay a price he is willing to accept. So be it. Not taking these patients would simply hurt the patients. Besides just because the government chooses to pay someone else’s bills, something he has no control over, and has to pay taxes to support, shouldn’t limit his personal ability to make a living.

  21. Ray Hawkins says:

    “Lou Dobbs Hired Illegal Immigrants”

    Way to go Lou – you hypocritical POS windbag. Increasingly the talking heads are just as bad as the politicians they talk about.


    • Time for the IRS to investigate Media Matters
      Thomas Lifson, American Thinker
      Mark Levin is calling for an IRS investigation of Media Matters for using the tax exempt funds to promote Obama and the Democrats, rather than promoting principles, which would be consistent with its status as a 501 (c)(3). He points out that because of the tax status it currently enjoys, the organization does not need to disclose its donors, alkthough it its well known that George Soros has been a major donor:

      Media Matters is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt non-profit organization. As a matter of law, it must not use its funds in any political manner. Yet, if you examine the Media Matters website, the only causes it promotes are whatever Obama and the Democrats are promoting. It is a propaganda outlet for the Democrats. That’s the sole purpose. And it attacks any person on TV and radio who disagrees with Obama and the Democrats. It is not advocating a particular principle, say, free speech. Media Matters’ entire existence is political. And I’m confident it works closely with Democrat organizations, PACs, and officials.

      So, while it attempts to intimidate and silence others, Media Matters uses tax exempt funds to promote Obama and the Democrats, and it uses the Internal Revenue Code to conceal the identity of its donors.

      This is why I call it a criminal front group. The IRS needs to audit them to determine the extent of its evasions. It’s unlawful to use tax exempt funds for political purposes and this outfit needs to be flushed out of the shadows, exposed for what it is, and subjected to all fines and penalties associated with deceiving the IRS. Transparency.

      I have not comprehensively audited Media Matters’ output, but if the group were smart, it would include token attacks on Democrats, and explications of certain principles it purportedly adheres to. However, given the sense of immunity many on the left seem to feel, it is possible that the track record of the organization exclusively consists of attacks on conservatives and Republicans. If so, it could be in trouble.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Sorta says it all right here LOI:

        Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

        Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

        • So you don’t have an issue if Soros is paying these people to lie to you and twist news reports to support his agenda?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @LOI – since you’re being very specific – then so too shall I – there is not one shred evidence I have seen that proves Soros is funding Media Matters (Bill O’Reilly claiming they are is not proof). Look at their response to the specific issue, read the documentation they provide. Then let me know where I am wrong.


            If there are specific lies to which you wish to debate then fire away (regarding their published work). As with anything, I take what they say with a grain salt, then trust but verify.

            This b.s. by Levin and others rings too much like the birther controversy b.s. – when it becomes too tiresome to debate on merits then attacks are levied on legitimacy.

            FWIW – I’d 1000% support a conservative version of Media Matters.

            • Ray, the birther controversy was started by Hillary.


              About the MRC

              The mission of the Media Research Center, “America’s Media Watchdog,” is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America’s conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public’s understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).

              The MRC, headquartered in Alexandria, VA, began modestly with a handful of employees, a black and white TV, and a rented computer. The first order of business was to organize a research operation second to none. For years, conservatives could only present the anecdotal evidence of liberal journalists’ bias — a question in this interview, a statement in that report. However, anecdotal examples of bias do not prove a liberal agenda. Only through thorough, comprehensive, and ongoing analysis based on quantitative and qualitative research can one document liberal bias in the media.

              From a $339,000 initial annual budget, the MRC has grown to be the nation’s largest and most sophisticated television and monitoring operation, now employing 60 professional staff with a $10 million annual budget.

              The result of the MRC’s work is a mountain of evidence to use in combating the undeniable bias. The key to the MRC’s effectiveness is the ability to prove bias by using scientific studies and word-for-word quotes from the media.

              Through the MRC’s successful implementation of the largest, most comprehensive media monitoring operation in the world, the MRC serves as the checks and balances on the Fourth Estate. Through its divisions, programs, and a marketing effort that never rests, the Media Research Center has become an institutionalized machine on the issue of balance in the press.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @LOI – oh for “F” sake! This shit is getting old.

                Let’s try this one more time shall we?

                From a typical “right wing retard site” (their words not mine):

                Nearly all liberals, as well as a few misguided conservatives, have sought to dismiss the “birther” movement as the product of right-wing retards barking up the wrong tree.

                However, the entire issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility was brought to the fore by lawyers acting on behalf of Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008.

                Specifically, Phil J. Berg, hardly a member of any vast right wing conspiracy, was an ardent supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and her candidacy for the presidency.

                Notwithstanding his liberal pedigree, Phil J. Berg was hot on the trail of one Barack Obama, because Berg wished to protect the American people from electing a non-citizen to the most powerful office in the world.

                In August 2008, before Obama was officially nominated by the Democrat party, Mr. Berg filed a legal challenge to Obama’s constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

                On October 23, Mr. Berg filed a Motion to Expedite Resolution of Berg V. Obama, summarized directly below:

                “This motion argues that the facts have been established that Barack Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be elected or serve as President of the United States, and that the Court should issue a summary judgment as follows:

                – That Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro is not a natural born or naturalized United States citizen.

                – That he is ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States.

                – That the Democratic National Committee be enjoined from naming Barack Hussein Obama, et al as the Democratic Presidential Candidate on the ballot.

                – That the Democratic National Committee and Barack Hussein Obama, et al are enjoined from any further campaigning on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama, et al for Office of the Presidency.

                – That Barack Hussein Obama’s, et al name be removed from any and all ballots for the Office of the President of the United States.”

                There you go! The inconvenient truth is as follows: Hillary Clinton is the mother of all birthers!

                And yes – its the same Berg who brought the RICO case against Bush among other hairbrained acts. To imply Berg was acting on behalf of Clinton is utter fantasy.

                • Calmly Ray, calmly. I didn’t mean to imply the Clinton’s have/had a political machine that dug up or made up dirt on any/all opponents. She is already being talked about as being one of the greatest SofS ever. And has no interest in running as VP in 2012. They say she talks to angles…
                  they call her out by her name….

        • Ray

          Having personally organized, chartered and run a 501(c)(3) company I must say that the mission statement you posted is a violation in and of itself of the no politicking requirement.

          I will admit it is on the edge but it should fail the test. The reason is that it admits it is a “progressive” organization, which means it has a political agenda, designed to counter “conservative” which is another political agenda. Thus its entire mission is “political” and not EDUCATIONAL. That is by the way, the designation that most such groups hide behind to get their status.

          I do have a solution however, that I think you will like.



          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @JAC – I think where your argument falls just short is that you’d have to demonstrate that Media Matters shows bias (presentation of a view at the expense of equally valid or better viewpoints) as well as the blend of public versus political subjects.

            • Ray

              As I said, they are on the edge. I personally would kick them over the cliff, along with all their hybrid relations on both sides.

              The absolute threshold is support of politicians or the advocacy for or against legislation or govt regulations.

              You don’t need to show bias one way or another. Only that their purpose is related to advocacy of one against the other.

              So in my view they FAIL to meet the SPIRIT of the law and should not be granted full blown tax exempt status. Their mission statement shows partisan bias in itself.

              There are other tax-exempt categories they could qualify for, but not (c)(3).

              Now, for the record, there are similar groups on the right that I think push the envelope to far as well. I am afraid that if I were in charge of the IRS there would be far fewer of these groups escaping the long arm of my tax collectors.

              Think tanks, like Heritage, Cato, etc, can do it because they are informing on a generalized political viewpoint, such as “free markets”. They provide research and other information supporting their “advocacy”. Thus they fall under the “education” or “public service” categories. But their advocacy can not move to “partisanship”. While the Repubs use Heritage stuff, you will not see Heritage advocating Republicans. If they do they will cross the line.

              So I go back to my proposal. Are you OK with that solution?

  22. Ray Hawkins says:

    ADP jobs report (not good) precursor to DOL Report

    (you mean the Census jobs didn’t help the economy grow again? WTF!)


  23. On How Mr. Obama Thinks, and more importantly, why.

    I have noticed an increase on “conservative” blogs in the accusation that Mr. Obama is an “anti-colonialist”.

    I heard that Glenn Beck used this term or “Kenyan Anti-Colonialist”, so I thought perhaps it started there.

    But I recently came across an article written in Forbes by a person who experienced the “anti-colonialist” mind set as a child. On the surface I couldn’t imagine why we would deride someone for being “anti-colonialist” until I read this article. It appears that the movement meshes quite well with the more populist themes of the modern “communists”, “socialists” and “progressives”. I know for certain it fits with the rhetoric and goals of the Environmental movement that I was exposed to for almost 40 years. Bottom line, the goal is not just to get the USA out of everyone’s business, but to deliberately reduce its power, influence and economic vitality. Justice is to be achieved by taking from the USA and giving to others. Making the world a more equally mundane and impoverished place. Instead of building a bigger pie, you simply redistribute the slices, cutting them smaller and smaller.

    I thought those who were also wondering about this new phrase that has been assigned to Mr. Obama might find the article of interest. So here you go.


    Happy Thursday to All

    To live free you must be free

    • “the goal is not just to get the USA out of everyone’s business, but to deliberately reduce its power, influence and economic vitality. Justice is to be achieved by taking from the USA and giving to others.”


      The large developing nations, led by China, India, South Africa and Saudi Arabia, expressed opposition to it as a matter of principle; the principle being that the developed countries are to cut their emissions while schemes that affect the developing countries are not to be part of any binding or mandatory system. China has set as one of its goals becoming the world largest shipbuilder, and wants no interference by the UN or other foreign interests in its industrial development.

      Shipping is not covered under the current Kyoto Protocol, but the developing countries want all talks to follow the Kyoto principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” which means all the burdens and expenses of combating climate change are to fall on the developed countries only. Developing countries may voluntarily undertake environmental programs, but it is their sovereign decision and must not interfere with economic growth.

    • Hi Jac,

      This was posted here a couple weeks back by Cyndi, I believe. Newt, Beck and others have picked up on it. Beck had the author of the article on his show to do a step-by-step explanation. It was very interesting. Unfortunately I missed day two. Many of us have wondered why Obama seems to be so detached and have this anti-American feeling, and just such bitterness overall. This might explain it.

      • Kathy

        I must of been off gallivanting around the country somewhere because I flat missed it.

        I think it does but I also think there is more to it than just the “anti-colonialism” that derived from Asia, India, and Africa. That is my bigger point. This same world view guides the “progressive”, “modern liberal”, “communist”, “socialist”, “green” agendas. I track it back to the “populism” that arose with these movements and then how it was popularized in this country by the “progressive movement” and the “socialist/communist movement”.

        If you think about it, the whole “class warfare” scenario fits quite well with the concept of a fixed pie and someone is getting more than their fare share. Somebody is always exploiting someone else.

        So while the “anti-colonial” mind set is real to those overseas, I see it as supported by the same philosophy of “socialism/communism”, or in the progressive’s case, “fascism”.

        And remember, Mr. Obama does not have anti American feelings, in the sense of a Nation State. What he hates is America, as in the Idea of Individual Sovereignty. He simply wants to REFORM America, the place and idea, into an America, place, with an entirely new American value system, idea.

        Remember, Altruism is not just the sacrifice of one for many. It is the requirement that one be sacrificed to the many.

        So Kathy, will the Badgers recover this week? I really need them to knock off Ohio State.

        • I have tickets to that game – next weekend. This week they play Minnesota, who is down this year.

          I don’t think we are as good as we thought we were! Hahahaha – that could be a slogan for many, don’t you think?

          Halladay (sp?) started the play-offs on a nice note last night, huh?

          • Kathy

            That is an understatement. Wish I could have seen it on the tube.

            I met Don Larsen a few times. I hope Halladay doesn’t wind up the same way. Don wouldn’t sign a ball for my young son without getting “paid” $20.00. My son did not get his autograph.

            As for football, I think all the teams but Alabama are overrated at this point. Oregon might be for real but have several tough PAC 10 games left.

            I envy you all being so close to the big college games. I’ll be pulling for ya against the Buckeyes.

            • As much as I hate to say it, my LSU Tigers are probably the worst 5-0 team…ever. We’ll see what happens with them and the Gators this weekend.

  24. Entitlements increased under Obama/Pelosi, poverty levels were declining under Clinton’s welfare reform, Pelosi reversed that in the stimulus, deliberately re-expanding their dependent class voter base.

    Graph at link,

    Graph for the Day October 7, 2010
    Janice Shaw Crouse
    “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone …” Genesis 2:18.

    “A woman needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle.” Gloria Steinhem/Irina Dunn

    Index of Change in Poverty – 1983 to 2009 :

    Change in unrelated males in poverty: 2.6 million (increase).

    Change in unrelated females in poverty: 2.3 million (increase).

    Change in families with female head (no husband present) in poverty: 877 thousand (increase).

    Change in families with male head (no wife present ) in poverty: 674 thousand (increase).

    Change in married-couple families in poverty: -406 thousand (decrease).

    Data source: U.S. Census Bureau. Calculations by author

  25. Adventures in welfare; the young and the shameless
    Phil Boehmke
    Margaret Thatcher said that ‘the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other’s people’s money.’ Runaway social welfare and entitlement programs designed by liberal politicians as means of creating a permanent voter base have brought the nations of the west to the brink of bankruptcy. Most of us have had to tighten our belts, work harder and make due with less, but even in these difficult times there are a lucky few who seem to thrive.

    The UK Daily Mail brings us the amazing tale of Kelly Marshall, a 32 year old single mother of five children (by four different fathers) and my nominee for the coveted title of ‘Miss Welfare State.’ Despite the fact that Ms. Marshall has never worked for a living she collects benefits and credits which provide her with the equivalent of a £39,000 salary.

    Miss Marshall has no plans to start working. She once went to a job centre, but quickly realized she would be financially much better off if she didn’t work.

    ‘What’s the point? My Mum worked all her life and she paid taxes so I feel I am getting what I deserve,’ she said. ‘Some people might think I am a scrounger, but I don’t think me or my children should miss out on nice things just because I have never worked.’

    Marshall’s children have the best gaming systems (Xbox 360, Wi, Play Station3) and each of the four bedrooms in their detached housing unit is equipped with a flat screen TV. At present the children ‘only have three laptops between them’ and since ‘they don’t like sharing,’ Super Mum will have to buy another laptop. Of course like any good parent Ms. Marshall understands the educational benefits of foreign travel.

    ‘I always take the kids abroad,’ she said. ‘We have been to Tenerife and Cyprus, and this year we have been to Magaluf twice.’

    ‘Each holiday costs about £2,000, but it’s good to get away, and the kids and I deserve it.’

    Last year the proud Ms. Marshall embarked upon a self-improvement program. She saved for months and used her credit card to come up with £4,500 for breast augmentation.

    She explained: ‘I have wanted a boob job since I was a teen. But it wasn’t possible until I had the five children that I could afford it-with all the extra benefits I get. Now I hope to get liposuction, a tummy tuck and regular Botox.’


    ‘I know most people will think it is wrong I am spending taxpayers’ money on my looks. But I deserve it because I am a good mum. Having children has taken a toll on my body. All mums should be able to have cosmetic surgery.’

    Showing absolutely no sense of shame Ms. Marshall defiantly said ‘I don’t care that it is at the taxpayers’ cost’ adding that ‘it’s my decision what the money is spent on.’ It might be comical if Kelly Marshall were unique, however she is merely one of the growing number of entitlement junkies who have been spawned in the murky waters of the modern welfare state. The children of redistribution are in for a rude awakening, because as Lady Thatcher observed ‘eventually you run out of other people’s money’ and that day is on the horizon.


    • There is so, so much wrong with this I don’t even know where to begin. I would hope going public will force a change? Maybe? Hopefully?

      • Stewart Varney on Fox said Europe is starting to move away from socialism, as a un-sustainable failure, while the US seems hellbent on making the same mistakes they have already given up on.


        British government outlines plans to dismantle welfare
        By Julie Hyland
        29 May 2010

        Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has set out plans for an assault on unemployment and invalidity benefits, as the precursor to a broader assault on welfare provision.

        The proposals were unveiled on Thursday as part of the Conservative Liberal Democrat coalitions pledge to slash public spending and make “radical” changes in welfare.

        Duncan Smith couched the government’s plans in the language of concern for those “trapped” on benefits. But talk of combating “welfare dependency” and “persistent poverty” is preparation for the impoverishment of ever-broader layers of the working class as the ruling elite utilises the global financial crisis to restructure social relations in its interests.

        In his “state of the nation” report, Duncan Smith claimed that the “absurd” benefit system meant that people had no incentive to work. More than 670,000 households were “eligible” for a combination of benefits and tax credits worth more than £15,600 a year, he claimed. People who gave up such benefits and tax credits to take work, which might actually leave them out of pocket, were considered to be “morons”, he said.

  26. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/07/aclu-threatens-lawsuit-nc-town-does-remove-christian-flag-war-memorial/

    Probably way off topic but this kind of thing makes me want to vomit. I think of all those who made the Ultimate Sacrifice so these idiots can protest what a small minority is offended by.

    • Open mic – all topics are on the table.

      I’m retching right you.

      • ok that would be “with” you.

        Trying to hurry to get to a new workout class – something called TRX – anyone heard of it? Kind of kinky looking in that we are suspended from ceiling and walls with stretch bands? Suppose to be especially good for the abs/core.

        I’ll report back.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @Wasabi – favoring tyranny of the majority are we?

      • Heh, heh, heh.

        🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

        Yep, that’s right. You got the five smiley award for that one.

        I do wonder why they don’t just put put flags of all religions at the memorial that are represented by those they are honoring.

        What does an atheist flag look like? For that matter, what does THE Christian flag look like? I didn’t know there was such a thing.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @JAC – I’m not always a complete dope (I hope)

        • The State shouldn’t supply any flags except the American flag. The people should donate any other flags to show their support. Any who want to show their support should donate the flags themselves instead of complaining and running to the man-but they don’t want equal representation -they want control and to not be offended.

      • No, more like 95% in favor and 5% opposed so let’s come up with a compromise that doesn’t cost $300K and clog up the court system.

  27. Ray Hawkins says:

    Colorado Personhood Amemdment


    Anyone else see this? Maybe if we elect enough Christine O’Donnell types not only will masturbation become illegal but it may be upgraded to the crime of murder. Just imagine young Johnny being popped on 1000+ counts of murder when caught masturbating – the jail cells would fill pretty quickly. Or every time a woman menstruates she could be corralled and charged with murder (or at least involuntary manslaughter?). 😉

    • Ray

      This legislation has now failed in each of the last two elections here in Montana. They are trying again this year but it will lose again.

      I am not sure the advocates have thought this through in its entirety. You can always identify a “contradiction” in first principles when they have to start listing all the “exceptions” to the standard.

  28. Austan Goolsbee has some explaining to do
    Back on August 27th, Austan Goolsbee made this statement during an on-the-record background briefing on corporate taxes:

    So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses. . . .

    The White House claims that this is publicly available information, but they can’t point to where in the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board report that the information is available.

    Mark Holden of Koch tells TWS that the White House’s response leaves a number of questions unanswered. “My primary concern is, Why does our name keep coming up, why do they single us out?” says Holden. “They don’t respond to that. That leads me to believe that it is part of a campaign against us because of our political views.”

    The White House official’s claim that “No senior administration officials have any access to anyone’s tax returns” is less than an absolute denial of wrongdoing. Is it possible that a junior administration official had access to Koch’s tax information and relayed it to a senior administration official? We don’t know for sure. White House press officials still refuse to respond to requests for comment from THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

    Holden also expresses doubt that the administration official based his claim merely on publicly available information. “The White House’s statement doesn’t cite anything particular or specific” on Koch’s tax status in the PERAB report. “And what we’ve seen in the publicly available documents thus far, we have not seen anything referring to us and our corporate tax payment issues…. Even if [experts who testified to PERAB] did address that issue, it wouldn’t make that information publicly available necessarily.”

    Politico has an email from the WH pointing to “testimony before the the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board (PERAB) and from Koch’s own website,” but neither source pans out.

    So it is publicly available information, but the White House can’t point to exactly where this data was available. Now today the WH says that Goolsbee “misspoke,” but it seems like a bit of stretch to explain that he just happened to accidentally guess how much taxes Koch Industries had actually paid. I have asked the WH about both of these points, but I have received no response back.

    This isn’t the first time that Goolsbee has done the political dirty work for Obama .

    more at,

  29. Oh, by the way Ray, I was recently laid off. Thanks Oba Mao and the Inferior Secretary Salazar. Hoping to pick up some work overseas. The Big Oil companies WILL make $$$, even if not in the US.

    To quote something we had a heated discussion about a while back…

    Shit happens

    • Wait, though, didn’t we give $$ to Mexico to drill in the gulf, that very same gulf that BO put a stop to OUR drilling?

      Perhaps you can stay put and work for them? Or didn’t we do something similar to Brazil? As I recall we gave some $$ for drilling there too. Soros was involved there somehow, I believe.

      So we are not really against drilling or saving the environment blah, blah, just against American workers doing it. Makes sense?!?

      • Absolutely, that is the plan

        This Administration is a joke
        They won’t quit ’til we’re all broke
        mmmmm mmmmmm mmmmm
        Barack Insane ObaMao

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @Wasabi – not sure what you mean by “shit happens”? Care to elaborate?

  30. Buck the Wala says:
    • Buck,

      “But using this study to attack Dems is misleading. Republicans are framing the current policy dilemma as a choice between keeping all the tax cuts or letting them all expire. But Dems aren’t proposing to let all the tax cuts expire. Rather, they would continue the tax cuts for those under $250,000, while letting only the high end ones expire. The Congressional Dem plan would also renew some temporary stimulus tax-break measures enacted last year that are set to lapse.

      As it happens, the study compared the actual Dem plan with the GOP one. And it found that for a family of four with an income of $40,000, the Dem plan — continuing the low end tax cuts, plus the stimulus measures — would cause a 7.8 percent jump in after-tax income. That jump would only be 6.8 percent under the GOP plan to let all the Bush tax cuts expire.”

      It is interesting. I thought the Republican position was about job creation?
      That those who make more than $250K were the “job creators”, and keeping the tax cuts means more people working instead of being on gov. assistance. So higher taxes means a higher poverty rate. So what’s better, having a job, or sticking it to the rich? Should I ask the guy I fired yesterday?

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I find it very funny that the GOP is highlighting the results of a study that actually finds the Dem plan is better for most Americans. Afterall, you can’t exactly criticize the results of the study yet point out what it says about your own plan!

        As for the issue of job creation, per this study, one of the reasons the Dem plan is better is due to certain small business incentives. Also I’m pretty sure I came across an article of all these businesses – the supposed job creators – using their cash reserves to buy back stock as opposed to hiring new workers. Need to find that and take a closer look at what’s actually going on there.

        • Buck

          Just like all prior recessions, businesses accumulate cash and then reduce their outstanding stock.

          This gives them the greatest leverage to survive and then raise money when good times come back. Essentially buying their stock cheap and then selling it high. Using the profit to fuel future growth without going to the banks.

          I love how the lefties think that we should be able to somehow force them to hire people they don’t need. And now of all things they are calling this Treason and Unpatriotic.

          If only I had a pass to Galt’s Gulch.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I’m not under the illusion that companies should be hiring people they don’t need just to hire people. But it is interesting that with all the talk of the job creators that they aren’t working to create all that many jobs! Again, didn’t actually read the article, but will try to dig it up again when I have some free time at work.

        • Buck,

          “The Dem plan is better for most Americans”. More people collecting un-employment is a “job creator”! I hope Wasabi
          can help me understand this one.

          “using their cash reserves to buy back stock as opposed to hiring new workers. ” Nope, hiding it under a matress until
          hurricane Obama peters out.

  31. TexasChem says:

    October 07, 2010
    Government by Favoritism
    -By Thomas Lifson

    ObamaCare is an even bigger disaster for America than previously suspected, going beyond merely wrecking the health care sector. It is changing the rule of law, the sacred principle of our political economy, into rule by government favor.

    One of the many poorly-conceived provisions of ObamaCare was one mandating the percentage of premium income which would have to be spent on medical expenses. This had the effect of making it impossible to offer low cost plans to lower wage workers. When it became known McDonald’s would drop a health coverage option for tens of thousands of its workers, ObamaCare advocates, who had bought the propaganda that “you will be able to keep your existing plan if you’re happy with it”, were seriously embarrassed.

    Now, Bloomberg brings us the news that thirty companies and organizations have been granted a one year exemption from the rule which would have forced them to drop coverage. McDonald’s and Jack-in-the-Box are the most names, but the biggest beneficiary?

    The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers.

    This approach is an outrage. Why are the politically-connected and high profile granted an exemption? What about everyone else? What happened to equal treatment under the law?

    This is a stinking example of government favoritism. It is obvious that the exemption is merely a way to make an embarrassment go away. For a year. If Secretary Sibelius is to grant an exemption, (pending repeal of the odious and unworkable provision), it should be a blanket exemption.

    The lesson being taught to American business is that you’d better hope the authorities in DC smile upon you. If so, the worst provisions of the law won’t harm you as much as they will your less favored competitors.

    Ed Morrissey is correct when he writes:

    The Rule of Law depends on an environment with clear regulation and unbiased enforcement. From the start, ObamaCare lacked any clarity in regulation. Congress filled the bill with the phrase “The Secretary shall determine” in place of establishing rules and regulations for the massive regulatory regime Congress created. Now, the White House has added arbitrary enforcement to uncertain regulation and opaque processes. This is not the Rule of Law, but the Whim of Autocracy.

  32. Today witnesses a “huge” dump of gold, silver and platinum.

    When a price steadly increases, and then “suddenly” drops – this is a sign of automatic “profit taking”. There are programs made to sell a percentage of a particular holding when a certain price level is reached.

    With little surprise, the best tool is the most popular, so =ironically= creates a “unified” sell

    Do not measure your precious ore holding by the day.

    Measure it by the uncertainty crated by the FED or your central bank.

    The daily up and own will not matter in that context.

    IF you haven’t bought gold or silver, this is your last warning…


%d bloggers like this: