Another Tuesday Night comes and that means Open Mic. Please allow me again to thank all of you for your well wishes for my family and especially for your patience over the last couple of weeks. My transition to a new career is challenging to say the least. I am learning a whole new vocabulary and a whole mess of regulatory and procedural madness. I am not out of the woods yet. I will be working both jobs, old and new, until the beginning of January. That means some long days and very few days off. Come January I will no longer work the old job and things will ease up a little bit. But the new job will still have plenty for me to learn. So my time will be limited for quite some time. I will continue to work to post here on a very regular basis. I will say that any guest commentary articles are more than welcome though! I know I have one or two to process and post but the more the merrier! I have four topics below, but there was a fifth one that I wanted to get and ran out of time to look up. I heard on the news tonight that a farmer, I think it may have been in Georgia, was fined for growing food on his own land. If someone could find that article and post it I would be very grateful (even if you just find the link I will try to jump in during the morning and put it into my format and add comments when I have a moment). I would like to have some discussion on that topic as well! As always, feel free to pull forward your discussions that you might be continuing from the last article.
Tuesday Night Open Mic for November 30, 2010
December 1, 2010 by
Advertisements
Black Flag®
commonman55
d13thecolonel
gmanfortruth
Just A Citizen
Life of Illusion
Jon Smith
USWeapon
USWeapon Topic #1
Read the rest of the Article here:
I have two issues with what is going on here. First, if a cab company wanted to appear more professional, I absolutely support them in their endeavor. They have every right, as a private company, to determine whatever appearance standards they feel are necessary. However, once you get the government involved, I (shockingly) have issue with it. The “Taxi and Limousine Commission” is little more than another government group who feels that they are there to enforce the standards of behavior that they deem correct.
And I don’t buy the Commissioner’s little BS line about the new code is nothing more than an attempt to communicate standards. If you want to communicate standards, then COMMUNICATE them. If you want to enforce your version of standards, then you pass a new code and make it essentially law. THAT is what is being done here. This is not an attempt to communicate, it is an attempt to control.
My second issue is that the new code was left intentionally ambiguous. It is my belief that any time there is a regulation put forth, it should be very specific and detailed. There should be no question in the mind of the taxi drivers what is and what is not a violation of the new code. In leaving it ambiguous, they do nothing to help the cabbie understand whether his choice of attire is acceptable or not acceptable. Further, leaving it ambiguous opens it up to selective enforcement. It essentially creates a tool to punish someone or to harass a certain company while not applying the standards uniformly across the entire industry.
I will cede, however, that I am more OK with a local group doing such things than I would be if the federal government had made such a move. The more local the better. But best would be if we didn’t have something like this at all, IMO.
If the dress code was to ensure safety on the public roads (like no ski masks) then I am all for it. But since this is not about safety and about someone elses standards of perception, it is flat out wrong to do. If a private company wanted to do this to entice consumers to using their Taxi service vs. another, then that is great! This is another big brother initiative for herding the sheeple.
So when a private company (I would assume even a private company with a monopoly) does something, it is perfectly fine. But how dare the big bad government do the exact same thing!!?
I will agree that this particular regulation is a bit overbroad, but there are tons of workplace ‘regulations’ in a private company that are similarly overbroad. But your insistence that the new code is not meant to ‘communicate standards’ but to impose greater control is ridiculous – the exact same thing can be said to every single thing written in an employer handbook at a private company.
Although the TLC may be a government agency, it is a government agency acting more as a private company in this regard – no one is forced to work for the TLC and they can quit (or be fired) at will.
Buck, are you saying that it is not fine for a private company to have dress code standards and that it is okay for the government to tell you how to dress as a private citizen? Did you forget that you choose to work at said company and that you can choose to quit if you dont like it but if it was government enforced, you have no choice?
The same holds true for taxi drivers.
NYC is not dictating how its citizens dress. The TLC is developing a dress code for its drivers, much like I must wear a suit and tie to work. I don’t go around screaming ‘evil office managers’ in this situation, nor should you go around lambasting the ‘evil overreaching government’.
Nowhere did I say it is not fine for a private company to impose a dress code. Of course its fine. But it is also fine for the TLC to do it. Be consistent.
Who gave the TLC their authority? Again, this is another step into regulating peoples lives using government regulations. Since this is a government authority, guess is paying them to waste their time with this? This could of been done for free (to the tax payer) if a Private company wanted to step up their game. Again, do you like all these silly regulations that tax money is paying for?
Would you also argue that the IRS cannot tell its employees to wear professional attire? (They do).
Would you argue that the President cannot tell his aides and staff to dress professionally? Mandate suits and ties if he so chose? (He can and he does).
This is not some silly regulation – we have tons of those. This is an employer (albeit a government funded agency, but still an employer) coming up with a dress code for its employees. Let’s not make it into something more than it is.
The IRS employs people, those people are under its authority for dress code just as if the IRS were a private company. The President has direct control over his staff. TLC does NOT have direct control over cabbies, as they are NOT employees of TLC. So no, this is absolutely not an employer coming up with a dress code for its employees. The issue is not that it is government doing it, it is that government is setting dress codes for people who are not employed by them. So lets not make this into something less than it is.
Should the FDIC be able to dictate all bank employee dress codes?
Should the FDA be able to dictate supermarket employee dress codes? Sure, they have regulations for food prep, such as hairnets, sterile gloves, etc., but not dress codes for appearance and professionalism.
Should the FCC be able to tell all people in media what they can wear to work? Maybe they can set standards for what is seen on camera, but not what is worn.
These are not slippery slope examples, these are equivalent examples.
Buck,
What kind of penalties are there, if your boss/partners decide to not require you to wear a suit and tie to work?
What if the BAR all of a sudden required you to comb your hair a particular way?
I’m guessing that there is something in the BAR standards that mentions a professional appearance…so what if they pulled your license because you weren’t wearing top of the line Armani suits?
Again with the slippery slope?
Not sure I understand your question about penalties if my boss decided to not require me to wear a suit and tie…but let’s say they did require me to and I repeatedly refused – I would be fired.
As far as the bar, in the UK barristers wear wigs when arguing before a court. I don’t have a problem with this. I think I would look rather dashing with a wig.
Buck – “Again with the slippery slope?”
BL – Yes, government has once again chose a slippery slope.
Buck – “Not sure I understand your question about penalties if my boss decided to not require me to wear a suit and tie…but let’s say they did require me to and I repeatedly refused – I would be fired.”
BL – I’m trying to equate the cab world to the attorney world as it relates to government regulation.
If you refused to wear a suit and tie to work, against the requirement of your office, you’d be fired.
Key phrase – “against the REQUIREMENT OF YOUR OFFICE”
It’s up to your office to decide…NOT the law.
But what if it WAS required by law?
What if your office decided on casual dress while at the office and a suit and tie when appearing in court, but was fined because the law decided that they have the right to regulate office attire?
Would it be right to tell a PRIVATE firm how THEIR employees are to dress?
And when I said “I’m guessing that there is something in the BAR standards that mentions a professional appearance…so what if they pulled your license because you weren’t wearing top of the line Armani suits?”…
I was demonstrating ambiguity of the language of standards.
If you are required to wear professional attire with no definitive understanding of exactly what that attire is, it leaves it wide open to individual interpretation…which is a slippery slope.
While a decent suit is just fine, someone could subjectively decide that anything less than a top of the line Armani is sub-standard.
Any time the law requires something, there is a penalty for non-compliance. This is called COERCION.
So by requiring something that isn’t specified, it’s setting the regulated up to be penalized as in the case of the cabbies.
I am a skilled tradesman. Being a professional painter, I wear “painters whites”, because it’s the industry standard. It identifies me as a professional.
Most companies that I will work for require it as a way to be professional, to assure customers that they’re getting a quality paint job done by skilled professionals. It is to offer quality as a way to be competitive.
When I do a job independent of any company, I wear whites for the same reason, even though it is required by no one.
Government regulation is wholly unnecessary as the free market sets a standard just fine.
Government regulation of attire is just a bullshit control tactic.
The government has a monopoly. If a private company were a monopoly (which exist only in theory in a free market), and they forced their customers to do something particular, that could be an issue as well, because then people have no choice. Altho, even then, you could just not buy the stuff. When the government does something like this, there is no way to “opt out”. So yes, it is VERY different when the big bad government does something than when a private company does it.
And what the hell business does the government have defining standards? Its not their cab company! Are they saying they can enforce standards on the roads because the own the roads? What is next? Dress codes for truck drivers? Individuals? What if you wear trunks and a tank top to work? Are lifeguards and construction workers going to have to dress up for their commute and then change when they get to work? The audacity to think that they even have the authority to do something like this is insane.
First off, the TLC is not forcing its customers to do anything. It is forcing its drivers to dress in a professional manner (and yes, I know that TLC drivers are technically not employees of the TLC but that is irrelevant for this discussion).
The government is not defining standards because they own the roads. They are defining standards for the TLC, a city governmental agency.
Why is it that you must resort to a slippery slope argument of how if we allow this to happen the next thing we know we are going to be told how to dress when we drive our own cars or walk along the city streets, etc., to make an argument? Though I did just learn (dumblaws.com) that Elizabeth, NJ has a law on the books that, on Sundays only, women must wear petticoats!
The point is that we do not need any more stupid laws and regulations. Why add another one to the pile?
I guess its how you classify this – you see this as a stupid government regulation (hence evil and wrong). I see this as a stupid workplace standard (hence just stupid).
Ok, skip the slippery slope. It is still an over-reach. A commission should not have the ability to set dress code standards for all companies and employees of businesses that are regulated by the commission. Commissions like TLC are there to make sure businesses are not defrauding people or being unsafe, not to make sure that people dress nice.
Buck the Wala
My dear lawyer friend, you are way off the track this morning. The Drivers are NOT employees of the Commission. The cabs are NOT owned by the Commission. The cabs are not PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. The Commission is just another onerous government regulatory and licensing organization. Following is from their web site home page:
“Welcome
Welcome to the official web pages of the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC). This site contains useful information for both the TLC’s regulated industries and the riding public. Our industries can obtain access to TLC regulations, download TLC forms, apply for health insurance and auto-insurance discounts, as well as up-to-date information about current events and business opportunities by viewing industry notices. Passengers can file complaints, compliments and report lost property, as well as view information about licensed services, rates of fare, and their rights.
What is the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission?
The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), created in 1971, is the agency responsible for licensing and regulating New York City’s medallion (yellow) taxicabs, for-hire vehicles (community-based liveries and black cars), commuter vans, paratransit vehicles (ambulettes) and certain luxury limousines. The Commission’s Board consists of nine members, eight of whom are unsalaried Commissioners. The salaried Chair/Commissioner presides over regularly scheduled public Commission meetings, and is the head of the agency, which maintains a staff of approximately 400 TLC employees assigned to various divisions and bureaus. The Hon. David Yassky was nominated by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg as his designee to the Chair of the TLC in March 2010 and was unanimously confirmed for a seven-year term by the New York City Council on March 24, 2010.
The TLC licenses and regulates over 50,000 vehicles and approximately 100,000 drivers, performs safety and emissions inspections of the more than 13,000 medallion taxicabs three times each year, and holds numerous hearings for violations of City and TLC rules and regulations, making it the most active taxi and limousine licensing regulatory agency in the United States.To find out more about the TLC, or to review the agency’s procedures, rules and regulations and programs, you may review the constantly updated information available throughout this web site, or you may call the TLC’s Customer Service Hotline at 311. ”
Under employment opportunities they list “Inspectors” but nothing for “drivers”.
So they should NOT be dictating dress codes for drivers who are not their employees. In fact, they should not be dictating anything that isn’t related directly to public safety. Government controlled “licensing” is one of the most corrupt ideas ever invented by the guilds to protect their markets. Like all Govt controlled protections, it eventually bites the guild in the butt along with everyone else.
If the cabbies were actually employed by the Commission then your arguments would be valid. Government or not, an employer has the right to demand a certain appearance in its employees.
I freely admit that taxi drivers are not employees of the TLC. However, that still does not change my analysis.
Look – is this stupid? Yes. should the TLC be focusing on this? Probably not. However I just don’t see this as some huge government overreach, especially when others here argue with a straight face that if it were a private company (also where the drivers are not technically employees) this would be perfectly fine.
Buck
If it were a private company whose drivers were EMPLOYEES then YES, they would have that right.
If it were a govt agency whose drivers were EMPLOYEES then YES< they would have that right.
They DO NOT employ the drivers Buck. They have no authority to dictate how the drivers dress. Or at least they should not have any such authority.
Your argument has more holes than Swiss cheese.
To add on, how are these poor taxi drivers going to afford the new standard if the drivers have very low income? Is this a war on the “Poor”?
In your opinion, would a private taxi company have the authority to dictate how its drivers dress, if those drivers were likewise not considered employees?
Keep in mind, as Ray points out below, there is a difference between maintaining standards and imposing a uniform.
If they were contractors, there is still a transactional relationship. If they were a taxi company that rented their taxi’s to private drivers, then there is still a transactional relationship. The TLC is a regulatory commission, there is no transaction and there is no choice but to deal with them.
Buck
NO and YES!
If they are NOT employees then they are not the company’s drivers.
But the rub is they own the cabs and supposedly rent them out to drivers. So in this sense they could exert some control on how the contractor/renter dresses. It would be a condition of the rental/contract agreement.
In one case the company owns the cabs and employs the drivers. This gives them direct authority.
In the other, the company owns the cabs and rents them to individuals. This gives them indirect authority via the contract. The same would apply if they were contracting for both the cab and driver.
The Taxi Commission does not fit either of these examples as I understand it. It is a Regulatory and Licensing Agency. And using Govt Power to force licensing and then claiming contract relationships to force licensees to act/behave/dress in some manner not directly related to public safety is a violation of government’s role and proper authority.
“So when a private company (I would assume even a private company with a monopoly) does something, it is perfectly fine. But how dare the big bad government do the exact same thing!!?”
That is exactly what I am saying. A private company is setting the standard for IT’S OWN property. A private company is enforcing control on IT’S OWN property. Government is doing the same on SOMEONE ELSE’S property. That is a gigantic difference Buck.
All – just a repost from the NYT blog – interesting read…..
Driving a taxi in NYC has become de-professionalized such that the majority of current drivers represent a fairly desperate segment of NYC’s population, who are willing to put up with an horribly exploitative & abusive system. When I drove taxi in the 70’s, fleet drivers were unionized workers with various benefits, who worked on a commission basis for their garage. These former “employees” are now “independent contractors” who must rent their vehicle at ridiculous rates, must buy their own gas and have no benefits. Many drivers rent vehicles from owners who rent the vehicle on a 7 day (weekly) basis only, forcing the drivers to work 7 days, or to absorb the extra expense since he cannot “sublet” the vehicle to another driver. I could go on, but I believe the riding public, and most middle class New Yorkers, (judging buy the other readers’ comments, as well as my observations) generally does not care about the plight of the taxi drivers, just as they care little for the legions of exploited, largely foreign, workers in the service sector here, who cater to their comfort & convenience. We could have a professional taxi industry here, as in London or Paris, but that would mean making working conditions attractive enough to attract people who would would want to make a lifetime career of it. (Isn’t that the definition of professional?) This would also entail addressing the taxi industry fat cats who profiteer from the over-inflated value of the taxi medallions, as well as the banks and politicos who enable them. The medallion is nothing more than a permit to do business, like those issued to food vending vehicles, tow trucks, etc. The artificial scarcity of medallions caused by their limited number has led speculation, further driving up their cost. Due to pressures from their artificially high price, all industry members must bear unreasonably high costs that are then passed along to the drivers, and ultimately to the public. This has also spawned an apartheid taxi system for New Yorkers. Since the need to maximize profit forces the yellow taxi to service the upscale districts of Manhattan, the majority of New Yorkers, city wide, are forced to rely on “lightly regulated” car services, (a.k.a “Gypsy” cabs) who must break the law while picking up the majority of their passengers via illegal street hails. I know of no other (non third world) city which has to sets of taxis, one set serving the affluent areas, the other operating largely illegally, serving the rest of the population.
There should be one type of taxi serving the entire city. The status of limousines should be clearly defined, since many “Gypsy” cabs masquerade as limos. As long as the majority of New Yorkers are silent on these issues, no real solutions, addressing causes and true benefits to all, will be found.
From Bronx Bob at http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/nyregion/26dresscode.html
Personally I think they are reaching here – should be far bigger fish to fry. I used to work in NYC – cannot say I ever noticed what the cabbies wear.
I agree that there are far bigger fish to fry and, constantly being in NYC, this is a non-issue and I could care less what the drivers wear.
But where do you stand on whether the government has or should have authority to come up with dress code standards for the TLC and the drivers?
Buck
They should have NO such authority, based on my review.
See my comment to you above.
@Buck – for me Dress Code Standards and Uniform are not necessarily the same thing. I have no issue with standards being issued. I
Let’s just all go to work naked.
Sorry but there are too many people in my office I would prefer NOT to see naked.
Interesting. Last year, because of the issues pertaining to small companies and employees, we went to contract basis and independent conractors. They are own their own, however, in our contract with the independents, we have a dress code and if they violate said dress code, we have the right to terminate their contract on the spot. They read it…they sign it. Pretty simple. (Buck, before you ask, the contract passes the smell test according to law and the dress code does not represent an “employer” relationship).
The Texas Department of Health regulates our licensing requirments in order to have massage, cosmotology, and antiaging services. BUT…the Texas Health Department does not have nor should have any regulation over the dress of the licensee. However, if I have the space and the protocol and I lease to independents, I do have the right and do so dictate the dress of the individuals in our contract. It is a contract item.
Of course, everyone on here already knows that we decided on independent contractors as a result of Obama Care and the tax items we felt the dems were going to institute. But, in the dress items and control, this is how I see it.
What anit-aging services do you offer?
USWeapon Topic #2
Read the rest of the Article here:
I have so many things that I want to say about this….
But I am going to say a very little and then hopefully take part in the discussions as everyone else offers their thoughts.
I agree with Jindal. I have long said that one of the primary differences between Congress today and the members of Congress during the time of the founders was this aspect. Members of Congress in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s were PART TIME representatives. They then went back to their farms, their medical practices, and their lawyer duties. They lived under the rules they passed. Congressional members today will NEVER return to the professions that they held prior to being in office. They are paid that salary for the rest of their lives. Once elected to Congress, they are never again going to have to live under the rules that they pass. Heck, most of them don’t bother with the taxes even while they are still serving.
But what do all of you think? Is moving the role of Congressman or Senator to a part time gig possible at the federal level. I know it can be done at the state level. Several states already do it. If I recall, Texas is one of them. North Carolina is another. And the pay in both of those states, if I recall correctly, is nowhere near what it is at the federal level. So it can work at the state level. Is it even possible at the federal level.
If you support the idea of the federal government relinquishing much of its power to the states as put forth under the tenth amendment, do you think that then the states would have to be full time as well? I look forward to your thoughts.
Well, USW, you had to ask . . . so here is what I had posted on my website recently – To be honest, I have long held this belief but short of a total make-over of DC I do not think anything near this would ever happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
However, I can still hope and pray . . . . . . .
Here is an idea to prevent our currant political disaster from ever happening again . . .
Congressional Reform Act of 2010
1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
On #1 – A for the Senate and B for the House.
You have my vote for all your proposals!
Now this is a plan I am willing to vote for! Well put together and it makes complete sense. The power belongs to the people.
I concur.
Great porposal but you are 1999 pages short of a bill.
PapaDawg – perfect!
Yesterday in the news there was a big splash about McCain drooling over Feingold’s leaving and how unfortunate(?really?) it is for such a good man to be voted out. Local online paper comment section was full of crying libs (remember, this is Madison), saying how wrong this is blah, blah. The paper asked “What should Feingold do now?”. Many were the “please stay in politics to continue to serve us” type of thing but the best comment was “I’d suggest he get out and get a real job in private industry so he can see and feel firsthand the damage he has inflicted on us”.
Of course, given his 18 years there, he now has lifelong benies (although PD says all null and void – nice!), so he will never be a regular private citizen.
I’m hoping he makes a bid for President! The guy was a progressive powerhouse!
Coincidentally, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe he was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. Anyone know if this is true?
I’m hoping he makes a bid too – in fact I’d like to see him go against BO in the primaries.
The country shows what it thinks of the Progressive agenda last month. Would love to see him kicked to the gutter once again.
From my reading of the data, the ones in the Democratic party that lost the most were the Blue Dogs. Hardly a vote against the progressive agenda. Feingold was one of the exceptions for whatever reason. A real shame…
Well of course it was the Blue Dogs that lost big. What makes them Blue Dogs is that they are from moderate areas. Their votes, however, were not moderate – especially voting for the Stimulus and O-Care. Thus, their moderate electorate said, bye bye!
The far left wackos that made the cut were from far left wacko areas, California for instance.
Feingold was too Progressive for the entire state of WI – he’d do fine in inner city Madison and inner city Milwaukee but that’s it.
I’ve heard your take before – must be a common talking point to diminish what is really happening in the country. That’s OK Buck, you keep believing that the Progressive Agenda is where it’s at.
Be honest – there are a myriad ways of looking at and analyzing the recent election and determining the ‘take away’.
From my own perspective: The Blue Dogs votes were moderate – as I’ve said before, Obama did not put forth a thoroughly liberal agenda. The health care bill is much closer to what the GOP put forth in the 1990s than what the progressives were looking for. Already on tax cuts Obama is trying to compromise with the right, who have made it abundantly clear that it is their way or the highway.
What progressive agenda do you see happening here?
Been over this a thousand times. The healthcare bill was written by the Apollo Alliance, an offspring of George Soros. When Daddy Warbucks speaks they listen.
And Obama’s only taking the bait on the tax cut issue to save his own ass otherwise he’s already on record as saying “at some point you’ve made enough”.
That’s progressive agenda!
They already work part time. 128 work days per year/52 weeks = 2.5 days a week. That’s 1/2 week so let’s cut their pay in half and their ‘work week’ in half then they can only create half as much chaos.
Let’s pay them double, but make them give a dollar back to the treasury every time they do something self-motivated rather than civic-minded.
By the end of the year, I have no doubt that they’d all be deep in debt.
Yea, I was thinking that too. They spend too much time in Washington, yet still manage to be gone when they should be there.
I was wondering when we’d get a quote from Piyush Amrit Jindal – I mean – even though he’s Governor and all of Louisiana he did somehow manage to write a book which he needs to promote and drive sales on.
But I digress….
Let’s see if Jindal self-selects and does not run for Governor in 2011.
I’d be very curious where the “128 days or less / 7.4 hours a day” comment comes from. I think the issue is more so their productivity – I highly doubt the 128/7.4 numbers are remotely accurate.
Let’s also remember that not all members of Congress are Gazillionaires – many have to maintain two residences (one in DC-area and one back home) – some actually do pay that from pocket rather than relying on “donors”.
Ray
I wouldn’t be that surprised if the Congress critters themselves worked only 128 days, if your only counting time in D.C.. Much of the rest of the time they are “campaigning”, er I mean, meeting with the voters to brief them on what is going on.
What is not mentioned is the ungodly hours put in by their staff, without financial compensation. Go to D.C. House or Senate offices and count the number of folks over 40 working in staff jobs. It won’t take many fingers. It is a YOUNG persons game due to the pace and stress.
Which of course leads to the connected question/concern. We have KIDS running the legislative branch of government.
Best to you and yours this morning
JAC
Oh, poor congressmen and women. They only make, what over $100k a year! How can they ever afford to live!
@JB – ever looked at real estate in DC?
Ray
While I am with you on this in a general sense, the fact is that most of them still maintain substantial incomes from other sources once elected. The salary is much more than what is needed to cover the D.C. living expenses.
But go back to my comment of last night. Govt employees and their pay makes for great “class warfare”. We can now thank the President and Republicans/Democrats for further fueling that fire.
@JAC
“the fact is that most of them still maintain substantial incomes from other sources once elected”
Care to elaborate?
Ray
Senators and Congressmen are able to continue making money from various business and investment mechanisms.
As long as they conform with their own rules regarding conflict of interest. Following are those for the Senate:
http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXXXVII
As I understand it, most use a “blind trust” to comply with the rules yet continue to receive additional income.
There are some true “working class” folks in Congress who have trouble keeping a home there. But most are pretty well off financially before they get there. And they continue to earn an income from their prior life while there.
Perhaps we should make Congressional Pay a “means tested” compensation. Boy would that be funny to see the howling.
Also remember that their base pay does not include their franking privileges, travel, or other budget allowances for their office operations. And neither of these include money gained via the fundraising efforts with their party.
There is plenty of office space that can be converted to Barracks that Congress could stay in when in DC. That would save an aweful lot of money.
Another great idea and would certainly make them want to get the heck out of there!
Assign each member of Congress a row house of the standard and quality provided to military families to live in. Spread them out around the different military bases and assign housing no more lavish than a mid ranking officer or NCO would get. The services can manage and maintain the units to the same standard they do now for military housing. That would solve the housing expense complaint and give them a true idea of what service families deal with.
Now THERE’S an idea!
Ray,
If you’re going to bash Jindal, let’s make it on issues.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/bobby_jindals_downside.html
Louisiana’s last budget was balanced with numerous accounting tricks, one-time funding sources, and massive cuts to health and higher education. Jindal has been criticized for pushing hard decisions down the road to avoid offending anyone in preparation for a presidential bid, and it is well-known in Louisiana that Jindal is preparing to run and campaigning across the country on trips funded by Louisiana taxpayers.
Louisiana is a populist state that tends to overspend in flush times and flail in lean times. In Louisiana, health and higher education are not constitutionally protected from budget cuts and are routinely savaged when the economy dives. To be fair, there is a great deal of waste in higher education that needs to be eliminated, and LSU professors are not helping their cause by threatening to unionize in a state where unions are not looked on favorably. Also, LSU System President Dr. John Lombardi, Louisiana’s highest-paid state employee, recently refused to trim his salary for the good of the school and further exposed the hypocrisy in Louisiana higher education.
During Jindal’s administration, Louisiana has added over 3,100 new employees, and its budget has increased from $12 billion in 2008 to $24 billion in 2010. The governor seems to think this surge in state government will somehow conquer the budget in the long run.
When it comes to cutting spending, the governor can’t cut even his own travel budget. One of Governor Jindal’s favorite Louisiana campaign tactics is local church attendance by helicopter in rural areas rarely visited by any governor.
Jindal’s celebrated ethics legislation promoting transparency in Louisiana government has backfired (see also here): it has been revealed that enforcement powers were stripped from the Ethics Board, resulting in several resignations in protest, and Jindal has zealously guarded the records of the governor’s office from the light of day
@LOI – wow – thanks for the info/link.
My pleasure sir, well, not really. I had hoped he was
as portrayed, an ethical person out to reform corrupt government. Seems he’s a new face to the same old game.
Think I’ll work out to the Who tonight, “We won’t get fooled again”.
Good choice of music LOI
And Michael Chertoff and George Soros are making millions if not billions of $$$ selling porno scanners to the TSA, but that’s okey-dokey because the president, the HSA and TSA are all run by people with “D” after their title. So let’s all be sure to focus on the guy with a stupid book becuase he has an “R” after his title.
Divide and Conquer.
@Cyndi – no – you are incorrect. I was merely pointing out that Jindal is as slimy as the people he tends to point fingers at.
meanwhile, back in DC, the looting and pwer grabbing continue unnoticed and uninterrupted. Good job.
Cyndi – so you’ll ignore the damage that can be done even closer to home? Brilliant!
You’re right. Bobby Jindal’s book is much more damaging than than the Patriot Act, HSA, TSA, TARP, Stimulus,Frank-Dodd FinReg, CoinIntel, FUSION centers, EPA regulation, SEIU influence, etc.
@Cyndi – I was not referring to only his book. Try again.
Do the Texas thing….Our legislature meets wvery two years and they are not salaried. Works for us.
By salaried, I mean to say, they are only paid for the time worked during legislature.
USWeapon Topic #3
Read the rest of the Article here:
I will go on record and say that I want to applaud the President on this move. Of course the unions are going to be pissed about this. They don’t care a bit about the country. They don’t care a bit about the industry that they operate in. They don’t care a bit about anyone or anything. They care only about using whatever leverage they can get to make their members more money for the least amount of work possible. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that this is the union’s purpose. But I still think they are bad for everyone.
Chris Van Hollen’s statement is pure idiocy. He says that this move runs the risk of reinforcing the myth that government employees are unproductive and overpaid. First and foremost, it isn’t a myth in the grand scheme of things. Government employees are overpaid, for the most part (soldiers are not overpaid, FTR, and were exempted). And unproductive is a vast understatement. Although at least 50% of the lack of productivity is due to the outrageous bureaucracy that is ever present in everything they do.
But Van Hollen really misses the point. Whether you want to claim it is a myth or not, I fail to see how this move by the White house in any way works to reinforce that belief in American minds. What does a pay freeze have to do with the perception of unproductive? Nothing. Why does a pay freeze reinforce the thought that federal workers are overpaid? It doesn’t. These perceptions from Americans about the typical government worker are formed from OUR INTERACTIONS WITH GOVERNMENT WORKERS. A trip to the DMV or any other government agency is all it takes.
What I see in this move is a move from the White House to lead from the front for a change. While I am not nearly naive enough to believe that the White House has suddenly become fiscally responsible, I am willing to acknowledge when they take an action that goes down the right path. The federal government needs to do some serious cost cutting. This is a step in the right direction. Their next move, in my opinion, should be to start evaluating every single position in the government and ensuring that the pay being offered is in line with where it should be. Freezing someone’s pay at $75,000 a year to administer Driving tests is not efficient or fiscally responsible. Cutting that pay to something more reasonable is. Just my two cents.
USW
I give Mr. Obama credit for trying, but in my view he fumbled the handoff. In fact, this latest ploy further validates my view that his Administration either has no idea what to do or what they want; or they know exactly what they want and are lying through their teeth.
Facts: If implemented the savings will run as long as COLA’s are not done in future years that exceed the amount lost in the freeze. If you do not get a 1.5% raise in years 1 and 2 then the future amounts will be reduced after adjustment as well. BUT, the reduction in more for show than effect.
Congress can reinstate the COLA retroactively, just as they have done in the past. Congress sets the wages.
Virtually all jobs affected fall below the 210,000 cut off for the Middle Class Tax Cut proposed by the President. You know, the middle class that has been the target of the Wealthy’s war. The middle class who need to spend to fuel the economy. So, if all happens per Mr. O…..tax cuts will remain but the cost of living adjustments will be lost.
Confusion: What the hell is the Administrations priority? Jobs, economic growth, inflation, deficits? What???????? You hand out Stimulus to one group then freeze pay raises for another? WTF Mr. Obama?????
Real Issue: At least relative to the whole damn debate over Federal pay, or all Govt pay for that matter.
How do you establish the VALUE of the labor provided?
This will just play into a different type of “Class Warfare”.
I have more to offer but getting tired, so will come back to this tomorrow.
By the way USW, your formatting is all messed up on my end.
Best regards,
JAC
I am a DoD Employee stationed overseas (Information Technologist, No Union). So this does directly affect me. What gets my goat is not that there is a “freeze”. But that the freeze is applied only to us. If the POTUS came out and put forth a comprehensive plan for cutting all costs to include government programs, earmarks, etc…, I would be all for it. Most of the Federal employees are middle class. While this is not a “tax hike”, this is a hike in our cost of living as products go up in price and our pay does not (COLA). If this was equally applied across the government, then it would be fair.
This was a knee jerk and it will prove to be so (it will also be ineffective). The POTUS should put forth a comprehensive plan, but that will require some actual thought and sacrifice across the entire Federal government (yes that includes Congress).
@Truthseeker – just remember – as USW stated – you are overpaid to begin with so you have nothing to bitch about.
Look USW – anyone has worked for the Feds or knows people that have/do (I fit into both)knows that it is utter bullshit and flat out false to claim that all/most Federal Government employees are overpaid. I spent years overcoming being in a lower public sector salary band once I went private sector. I know there are tradeoffs for the lower pay (better job security) but not all those tradeoffs can easily be assessed and combined to base salary. You need to rethink your thinking here sir.
There are people who are not overpaid, and people who work very hard in the Federal government. It might even be a majority of people. The problem is twofold:
1) There are people working very hard and being paid fairly for their amount of work to do a task that is not needed. Or to do a task that they cannot do well because of bureaucracy. Or to do a task that could be done better by a private firm if only the government were not being a monopoly. Or to do a task that they could do better or would not even require a person if the government would just keep up with basic technology.
2) Even if only 1 in 10 government workers are actually lazy and overpaid, that is still 10%, a very high number versus most private firms (with the exception of government subsidized ones, like CSX). Also, it does not take many lazy overpaid persons to get the reputation established. When those lazy overpaid people are at the top, it is even more noticed. Congress anyone?
So is this just for show? Maybe, but every little but helps. And pissing off the Unions is something I like, especially the federal workers union.
TS – agree, absolutely all areas should be cut. This is at least a first step in the right direction, something we’ve not seen previously from this president.
Agreed. TS, this directly affects all of us, except for any of us not paying any federal taxes.
The federal government has paid over 250,000 dead people $1 billion over the past decade, with $18 million from Social Security, $92 million in Medicare claim, and $8.2 million for medical supplies prescribed for dead patients.I fail to see how this is good business practice from the government and I believe it helps to point out the discrepancies and ignorance of our representatives.The lack of some form of watchdog on these people is insanity year after year.
Government Workers Make 45 Percent More Than Private Sector Employees
ChrisBanescu.com | by Chris Banescu | Feb. 9, 2010
A new report from the Bureaus of Labor Statistics that was released today, shows that almost 15 million Americans are currently out of work and unable to find jobs. Worse still, those with jobs have not seen their wages increase much in the last 10 years. However, government workers are enjoying a boom in hiring and generous salary increases thanks in large part to very cushy pensions and other benefits.
The pay differential between public sector employees and the private sector shows a troubling trend. Government workers have benefited greatly, even during the severe recession, and their wages now outpace the employee compensation in private industry. According to recent research done by Mark J. Perry, professor of finance and economics at the School of Management of the University of Michigan government employees make on average 45% more than private sector employees.
state and local government employers spent an average of $39.83 per hour worked ($26.24 for wages and $13.60 for benefits) for total employee compensation in September 2009. Total employer compensation costs for private industry workers averaged $27.49 per hour ($19.45 for wages and $8.05 for benefits). In other words, government employees make 45% more on average than private sector employees.
According to another BLS report, compensation for private industry workers has increased by 6.9% between December 2006 and December 2009, compared to a 9.8% increase for government workers (state and local) over the same period.
Meanwhile, the unemployment situation in the US progressively deteriorates with few signs of improvement. Finding a job for ordinary Americans has gotten much harder. Forbes summarizes the many problems workers still face:
Finding a job got much tougher last year, as the number of available openings fell by nearly one quarter.
At the same time, the unemployed population soared by more than one-third, leaving more laid-off workers competing for fewer jobs.
All told, there were 6.1 unemployed workers in December, on average, for every available position, according to Labor Department data released Tuesday.
That’s a sharp increase from 3.4 jobless workers per opening in December of 2008, and much worse than the 1.7 unemployed people per opening in December 2007, when the recession began.
That may seem like a lot given the severity of the recession, but that’s down from 3.2 million in December 2008. And it’s way below the 4.8 million openings that existed in June 2007, the peak reached before the recession.
The U.S. economy has lost approximately 8.7 million jobs since November 2007 when a high of 146,483,000 jobs was reached. As of January 2010 the U.S. had barely over 137 million private sector jobs. From the CyberEconomics blog we get this depressing information:
The number of employed (total jobs) dropped by 589,000 from Nov to Dec. Most did not move to unemployed but dropped out of the labor force. In the past year, (December to December) 5,390,000 jobs have been lost–that is drop in the number of employed. However, there is some good news–the October unemployment rate was revised from 10.2% to 10.1%.
The labor force participation rate has dropped from 66.5% in December 2008 to 64.6% in December 2009. As people lost jobs, many left the labor force. If they had stayed in, being counted as unemployed, the unemployment rate would be 11.6%.
Given the lack of real economic leadership and no free-market policies, coupled with aggressive taxation and anti-business policies from the Obama administration and the Democrats in Washington, there is little hope that job losses will abate any time soon. Things may even get worse. Dark clouds are on the horizon for the American workers.
Given the lack of real economic leadership, virtually no free-market policies coming from the White House, coupled with aggressive taxation and anti-business policies from the Obama administration and the Democrats in Washington, there is little hope that job losses will abate any time soon. Things may even get worse. Dark clouds are on the horizon for the American workers.
On the other hand, government workers are enjoying their amazing good fortune, richly rewarded with our tax dollars by career politicians who seem to have forgotten their oaths of office and constitutional responsibilities. We get to sacrifice and they get all the benefits of power. The political elites in DC keep thinking they can have their cake and eat it too, while the American taxpayers have to make do with the crumbs left over from the government lavish feasts and perpetual bailouts of the unions, failed car companies, failed banks, failed programs, etc..
Tex Chem
Here is a perfect example of statistics don’t lie but liars always use statistics.
“According to another BLS report, compensation for private industry workers has increased by 6.9% between December 2006 and December 2009, compared to a 9.8% increase for government workers (state and local) over the same period.”
The inference is that “individual” govt workers gained 9.8% in pay over three years. That is absolute Bull Dookey. What happened was that the Govt increased expenditures for total employees by that amount. It hired more people at higher grades, thus driving up the averages.
Please show me the numbers.
Also explain to me how the definition of compensation=hiring more workers.
Federal workers earning double their private counterparts
Updated 8/13/2010 10:53 AM |
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
At a time when workers’ pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees’ average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.
Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.
Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years.
“The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison,” says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Chris Edwards, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks otherwise. “Can’t we now all agree that federal workers are overpaid and do something about it?” he asks.
Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4% across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes.
Congressional Republicans want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion.
“Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector,” says Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House.
Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., says a pay freeze would unfairly scapegoat federal workers without addressing real budget problems.
What the data show:
•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government’s contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.
•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.
•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.
Tex Chem
Here is the source for the 2004 numbers. Please look closely at figure 4 and table 4 where the distribution by Grade and the average base salary are shown.
From other sources about 71% of all federal employees were under the GS system in 2004.
Federal benefits include govt contributions for retirement (caped at 31/2% of wages up to 5% contributed by the employee for FERS, and 0% for those under the old CRS system) and about 50% contribution towards health insurance. Last I saw this runs around 10,000 per employee.
Assuming an average salary of 100,000 then the total benefits would be $13,500 for a total compensation package of $113,000.
Please note where an average base pay of $100,000 falls on the GS pay scale. Somewhere around a GS-14 step 5. Yes, that is ABOVE the average base pay scale for all employees in all areas under all pay systems.
So the ONLY way for the average compensation to have grown so rapidly was to increase the number of employees at the higher pay scales, basically GS-14 and above. These pay grades are for high end managers and specialized professionals.
But here is the thing Tex. As I said last night, this is all B.S..
The issue is not whether a Federal employee has done better or makes more. The question is whether they are paid a fair value for their work. The problem is that because it is govt there is no way to easily determine what that value is to the Government.
Tex
Sorry, forgot to post the link.
FEDERAL CIVILIAN
WORKFORCE STATISTICS
PAY STRUCTURE OF THE
FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE
AS OF MARCH 31, 2004
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/html/paystructure/2004/2004paystru.pdf
Where does it prove the government hired more people at higher grades, thus driving up the averages?
Where does it prove the government didn’t place employees into a higher pay grade?
Where does it prove actual compensation for each individual pay grade did not increase each year?
Oh and the benefits packages were anywhere from 18k to 43k in addition to salary on the figures I found for various government employees.
Most of the GS14’s and higher all reside in DC (go figure). DC has a very high cost of living so looking at the GS pay scales, you have to add what is called “locality” pay. DC and other places have the highest rate which is 28% of your base pay. So if the averge GS level in DC is GS14 (this includes SES), then on top of the 100k yearly, you add 28,000 and you will come up with 128000 per year not including other benefits. Over the entire country, I would guess the average GS level to be 11 when it comes to pay. Overseas (where I am), the average level is GS11 and mostly consist of people in the technology field which we get a special pay of about 10,000 to compete against private markets. The government does have to pay this for technicians as the governement does need good knowledgable people running its networks. There is much more costs involved that will skyrocket these numbers but I am not going to shoot myself in the foot. I am not going to cry over the pay freeze.
I just hope this is 1 step in a series of other steps to greatly reduce our budges. Personally I would start by closing DHS.
USWeapon Topic #4
Read the rest of the Article here:
I thought about making this into its own article and really getting into it again. As many of you know, I am 100% opposed to any and all earmarks being added to bills. I think that it is a dirty way of doing business. I have always thought so. It was one of the primary reasons many years ago that I turned against the Republican Party. They had shown themselves to be as greedy and corrupt as the Democrats in terms of earmarks, so their claims of being fiscally different no longer held water. It was the first crack in their armor for me. I found so many other cracks later!
But back to earmarks. I believe that the earmarks should be banned. I don’t want to hear this nonsense about Congressional members believing that they have to bring home that bacon. Bullshit. That is not their job. They have done their best to make it a part of their job. They pretend they are slaves to the whims of their constituents who demand that they do earmarks. The reality is that they created that demand because earmarks became yet another way that they were able to exert control.
I believe that an earmark ban is right for several reasons. First, I think that they are completely outside of the realm of ethical behavior in the way that they are used. Adding earmarks for some pet project as a way to buy the vote of someone has become the norm, and buying votes for something that someone would normally oppose is just a legal form of bribery. Second, I think banning earmarks would be one step in a series of steps that would begin to reduce the power of lobbyists. It is step one in moving towards getting our representatives to represent us for a change. Perhaps an article on reducing the power of lobbyists and corporations would be an interesting topic if anyone wants to tackle it!
However, it is because of the power and control that earmarks help Congressional members wield, that NO ONE in Congress REALLY wants to ban them. Pay attention to this game. The GOP is pushing this as though they are serious. They are saying what they believe voters want to hear. But they don’t mean it. Banning earmarks will NEVER happen. Remember that the GOP was just as guilty of using them as the Democrats in recent years. Now they have tasted that forbidden fruit. They cannot give it up. Mark my words…. this is a game they are playing, and the two sides are playing it together hoping that the voters will go back to sleep.
This whole earmark nonsense comes from those that feel entitled to the “extra” tax money left over from paying all the other bills. Here is my problem with that, if there is “extra” money left over, then we are simply paying to much in taxes! There should be a refund once the bills are paid. It should be illegal for states to take money from the federal government unless it is a national disaster. If the Federal government is taking to much money, it needs to be given back. IF the states need more revenue for their own projects, they need to appropriately tax its residents.
USW – “As many of you know, I am 100% opposed to any and all earmarks being added to bills.”
BL – As many of you know, I am 100% opposed to any bills.
USW – “I think that they[earmarks] are completely outside of the realm of ethical behavior in the way that they are used.”
BL – I think that they[laws] are completely outside of the realm of ethical behavior.
🙂
Caught a clip of McCain last night where he said earmarks, beyond anything else, are the beginning of corruption in Congress. I would agree.
even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then. Tho they might not be the beginning, they are a starting factor. If the R’s don’t follow the tea Party on this one, they will lose any Tea Party support they had and fall apart completely.
Hey there, USW,
Here’s a link for you on the food growing fine:
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/georgia-farmer-fined-5k-for-growing-too-many-veggies/
Another one:
http://theintelhub.com/2010/09/14/georgia-man-fined-5000-for-growing-vegetables/
Stuff like this is ludacris. There are starving people in the USA and the World that this stuff could go to. These laws need to be looked at. I imagine they came about because someone preffered another farm over another and made this stupid law.
A wolve in sheeps clothes! This is Agenda 21 in action if you ask me. Call me crazy or a conspirarcy theorist all you want. The goal is total control right up to and including population control. What better way to control us but thru our food. If we can’t sustain ourselves we’ll be forced to move to the cities where (some) food is available making it all the easier to control us. This Agenda 21 business scares me to death.
Conspiracy theorist!!
🙂 – couldn’t resist.
I call these type laws “snob laws”. They are many and varied. Example from one town: If you own a pickup truck you can’t leave it in your driveway, it must be parked in your garage. These laws are common and just tick me off. When I hit the lottery I will hire Buck to start an effort to have them repealed or ruled unconstitutional. 😉
There are some doozies out there!
http://www.dumblaws.com
Yup, there sure are!
When I was a kid – yeah, I know, that was way back when JC was a private – there was this law in the town that stated that on Sundays you could not spit into the wind while walking on a wooden sidewalk. I think that law is still in effect.
Anybody from Tacoma, Washington care to confirm that?
Food Safety Bill Will Not Make Food Safer, Will Increase Food Costs and Budget Deficit
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/food-safety-will-not-make-food-safer-will-increase-food-costs-and-budget-deficit_519740.html
One group these requirements would be burdensome for is small farmers, which include most organic farmers.
from John Lott,
A food safety bill that has burned up precious days of the Senate’s lame-duck session appears headed back to the chamber because Democrats violated a constitutional provision requiring that tax provisions originate in the House.
By pre-empting the House’s tax-writing authority, Senate Democrats appear to have touched off a power struggle with members of their own party in the House. The Senate passed the bill Tuesday, sending it to the House, but House Democrats are expected to use a procedure known as “blue slipping” to block the bill, according to House and Senate GOP aides.
The debacle could prove to be a major embarrassment for Senate Democrats, who sought Tuesday to make the relatively unknown bill a major political issue by sending out numerous news releases trumpeting its passage.
Section 107 of the bill includes a set of fees that are classified as revenue raisers, which are technically taxes under the Constitution. According to a House GOP leadership aide, that section has ruffled the feathers of Ways and Means Committee Democrats, who are expected to use the blue slip process to block completion of the bill. . . .
I ‘thought’ I heard last evening, it has been amended to exclude ‘small’ farms. I will check later when I have more time.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_e4fba66a-fcdf-11df-9b1c-001cc4c002e0.html
Puritan
Senator Tester has reportedly made his fortune in “organic farming”. His family operation would be considered small farms as I understand the wording.
This doesn’t mean his amendment wasn’t an honest and heart felt effort on behalf of his constituents. It just means that he will personally benefit from the amendment himself.
Of course by adding the amendment, he got to vote FOR a bill that hurts the competition and further segregates our society into winners and losers with respect to Govt Power Interventions.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/01/food-safety-bill-passes-senate-but-dead-in-the-water-because/
Anita
Sorry my dear but today I can’t give you shit…………
This is actually in CONTRADICTION to Agenda 21.
The Smart Growth policies that come from Agenda 21, and its subsequent agreements, actually call for small truck farms like this within residential areas.
This farmers problem is the result of antiquated zoning laws designed to prevent any commercial activity within residential areas. These types of conflicts are cropping up all around the country. Although it is usually a babysitting or beautician business that creates the stir.
This is how govt regulations fail based on the goal. My research into these has shown that in most cases the goal was to prevent “excessive traffic and parking” caused by a business. So instead of regulating that portion, they banned ALL commercial activity. Thus making it illegal to conduct an internet based business within your home, or in this case selling your veggies to others.
Best wishes and 🙂 for you.
JAC
That ok JAC I’m used to it! But this time I disagree with you.
In Federal Food Police Coming Soon To A Farm Near You, Tess Pennington points out the risks of letting the government oversee
individual food production methods under HR Bill 875 and The FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act, which specifically target agricultural goods,
including crops and livestock on personal, non-commercial farms:
What is to stop the government from defining a small home garden as a food facility? Because of the vagueness of this bill,
it is not only the micro farmers that are affected by this. Anyone who
has a garden, or shares their produce with neighbors or even owns a
local restaurant that supports local farmers and buys their produce
could be affected. We could all be affected and pay the price dearly
for not speaking up. . Many say that this bill is unconstitutional in
that state rights will be stripped away. If passed, the state cannot
go in and take care of the problem. It is a federal issue, thus will
have federal repercussions.
Slowly but surely, the federal government is moving towards eliminating the ability of individual Americans to produce their own
food – a direct attack on our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
For an administration with so much focus on “sustainability” it is ironic that they are attacking the very core of the sustainability
movement – the individual. As more restrictions on the public are
cemented through use of Congressional mandates and Presidential
Executive Orders, the rights of individuals to take their well being
into their own hands is further impeded.
All of these proposed changes aimed at our ability to produce our own food seem to fall, in part, under the United Nations’ Agenda 21 initiatives which are touted as “sustainability development” programs.
http://www.paganspace.net/forum/topics/food-security-threat-ban?commentId=1342861%3AComment%3A7004802
You know its bad when you start having statements like “You can have my garden hoe when you pry it from my cold dead fingers”. And people thought Gun Control was not a slippery slope? Now they want to have the power to control food production?
This agenda 21 stuff and a lot of other things on the government agenda will be ignored by me, just like the Health Care bill will be. I will not be purchasing insurance whether the thing gets repealed or not. I do not recognize the authority of the government to force such things. Same applies with this farming stuff and a lot of other things. The basis of government authority is the Constitution. If they are in violation, then their authority is nnull and void.
Jon, Anita,
I’m with you guys.
I posted an article and a set of videos under my section 404 comment that is currently “awaiting moderation” as it has a couple of links.
I’m not sure how much of it you can see at this point, but it’s worth checking out.
Section 404 says that it has to be consistent with the WTO regs…and if you dig into what the WTO regs are, you begin to see what this bill is really all about.
Bill Summary & Status
111th Congress (2009 – 2010)
S.510
All Information
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN00510:@@@L&summ2=m&
Ouch! I need a nap now…..
(Sec. 404) Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
Congress.org
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=51210&letter_id=6148862321
S510 Illegal grow, share, trade, sell homegrown food.Gangsta Govt will put U in JAIL
To:
Sen. Jim Webb
Sen. Mark Warner
November 29, 2010
S510 Illegal to grow, share, trade, sell homegrown food
S510 – Illegal To Grow, Share,Trade, Sell Homegrown Food
SB S510 Will Allow Government To Put You In Jail ….
By Steve Green
S510 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd… the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd… )
“If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.” It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food.” ~ Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower.
Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto’s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create without judicial review if it passes.
S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food AND FARMING.
History
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry. Clinton’s HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization “WTO”) meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control. Monsanto promoted HACCP.
In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president. Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto. Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510.
S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.
1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. It resembles the Kissinger Plan.
2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security. It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection. Instead, S 510 says:
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.” Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced.
4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.
5. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds How to criminalize them, for more details.
6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease. Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents. Animal diseases can be falsely declared. S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.
7. It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.
8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer. The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.
9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil- based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe. The five items listed the Five Pillars of Food Safety are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger.
10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied. It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review.
Codex Alimentarious & Nutricide Dr. Rima Laibow Part 1 of 5
Codex Alimentarious & Nutricide Dr. Rima Laibow Part 2 of 5
Codex Alimentarious & Nutricide Dr. Rima Laibow Part 3 of 5
Codex Alimentarious & Nutricide Dr. Rima Laibow Part 4 of 5
Codex Alimentarious & Nutricide Dr. Rima Laibow Part 5 of 5
Ok BL, we get the point – this is an important clip that we should watch! But wouldn’t one (or maybe two) postings be sufficient!? 🙂
OK, Buck needs more coffee – didn’t realize it was a 5-part clip!
I’m on #3 – was listening in the background and it’s so riveting, I’m not getting anything else done.
Thanks for sharing BL.
Now that you mention coffee…
I heard that you can do a coffee enema once a month and the caffeine relaxes the muscles that control the flow of liver enzymes to get rid of all the built up toxins in your body…
🙂
oops! Meant to post this in reply to Bucks need for more coffee…LOL !
I’d prefer to drink my coffee, thank you very much!
Just blow some smoke up your arse and it’ll no doubt do the same thing. It’s what Washington does to us all the time and look at the shit that comes out.
TexasChem – you seem rather toxic at times – perhaps an enema is in order for you. Perhaps there is a friendly TSA agent that can assist. 😉
Ray – My wife is a nurse and handles it well, no need for a TSA agent! 🙂
COFFEE: THE ROYAL FLUSH
From The Cancer Chronicles #6 and #7
© Autumn 1990 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
This is a two-part story on the history of the coffee enema.It has been reprinted often around the world. –Ed.
——————————————————————————–
The most controversial alternative procedures has to be the coffee enema. Along with other detoxification routines, the coffee enema is a central part of both the Gerson and the Kelley programs. It is always good for a laugh: “with milk or sugar?” This bizarre-sounding treatment can also be used to scare people away from alternatives in general. No quackbusting article these days is complete without a reference to “enemas made from roasted coffee beans.” So what’s the story? Is the coffee enema crackpot faddism or is there some rationale behind this procedure?
An enema is “a fluid injected into the rectum for the purpose of clearing out the bowel, or of administering drugs or food.” The word itself comes from the Greek en-hienai, meaning to “send or inject into.” The enema has been called “one of the oldest medical procedures still in use today.” Tribal women in Africa, and elsewhere, routinely use it on their children. The earliest medical text in existence, the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus, (1,500 B.C.) mentions it. Millennia before, the Pharaoh had a “guardian of the anus,” a special doctor one of whose purposes was to administer the royal enema.
The Greeks wrote of the fabled cleanliness of the Egyptians, which included the internal cleansing of their systems through emetics and enemas. They employed these on three consecutive days every month said Herodotus (II.77) or at intervals of three or four days, according to the later historian Diodorus. The Egyptians explained to their visitors that they did this because they “believed that diseases were engendered by superfluities of the food”, a modern-sounding theory!
Enemas were known in ancient Sumeria, Babylonia, India, Greece and China. American Indians independently invented it, using a syringe made of an animal bladder and a hollow leg bone. Pre-Columbian South Americans fashioned latex into the first rubber enema bags and tubes. In fact, there is hardly a region of the world where people did not discover or adapt the enema. It is more ubiquitous than the wheel. Enemas are found in world literature from Aristophanes to Shakespeare, Gulliver Travels to Peyton Place.
In pre-revolutionary France a daily enema after dinner was de rigueur. It was not only considered indispensable for health but practiced for good complexion as well. Louis XIV is said to have taken over 2,000 in his lifetime.Could this have been the source of the Sun King’s sunny disposition? For centuries, enemas were a routine home remedy. Then, within living memory, the routine use of enemas died out. The main times that doctors employ them nowadays is before or after surgery and childbirth. Difficult and potentially dangerous barium enemas before colonic X rays are of course still a favorite of allopathic doctors.
But why coffee? This bean has an interesting history. It was imported in Arabia in the early 1500’s by the Sufi religious mystics, who used it to fight drowsiness while praying. It was especially prized for its medicinal qualities, in both the Near East and Europe. No one knows when the first daring soul filled the enema bag with a quart of java. What is known is that the coffee enema appeared at least as early as 1917 and was found in the prestigious Merck Manual until 1972. In the 1920s German scientists found that a caffeine solution could open the bile ducts and stimulate the production of bile in the liver of experimental animals.
Dr. Max Gerson used this clinically as part of a general detoxification regimen, first for tuberculosis, then cancer. Caffeine, he postulated, will travel up the hemorrhoidal to the portal vein and thence to the liver itself. Gerson noted some remarkable effects of this procedure. For instance, patients could dispense with all pain-killers once on the enemas. Many people have noted the paradoxical calming effect of coffee enemas. And while coffee enemas can relieve constipation, Gerson cautioned:
“Patients have to know that the coffee enemas are not given for the function of the intestines but for the stimulation of the liver.”
Coffee enemas were an established part of medical practice when Dr. Max Gerson introduced them into cancer therapy in the 1930s. Basing himself on German laboratory work, Gerson believed that caffeine could stimulate the liver and gall bladder to discharge bile. He felt this process could contribute to the health of the cancer patient.
Although the coffee enema has been heaped with scorn, there has been some independent scientific work that gives credence to this concept. In 1981, for instance, Dr. Lee Wattenberg and his colleagues were able to show that substances found in coffee—kahweol and cafestol palmitate—promote the activity of a key enzyme system, glutathione S-transferase, above the norm. This system detoxifies a vast array of electrophiles from the bloodstream and, according to Gar Hildenbrand of the Gerson Institute, “must be regarded as an important mechanism for carcinogen detoxification.” This enzyme group is responsible for neutralizing free radicals, harmful chemicals now commonly implicated in the initiation of cancer. In mice, for example, these systems are enhanced 600 percent in the liver and 700 percent in the bowel when coffee beans are added to the mice’s diet.
Dr. Peter Lechner, who is investigating the Gerson method at the Landeskrankenhaus of Graz, Austria, has reported that “coffee enemas have a definite effect on the colon which can be observed with an endoscope.” F.W. Cope (1977) has postulated the existence of a “tissue damage syndrome.” When cells are challenged by poison, oxygen deprivation, malnutrition or a physical trauma they lose potassium, take on sodium and chloride, and swell up with excess water.
Another scientist (Ling) has suggested that water in a normal cell is contained in an “ice-like” structure. Being alive requires not just the right chemicals but the right chemical structure. Cells normally have a preference for potassium over sodium but when a cell is damaged it begins to prefer sodium. This craving results in a damaged ability of cells to repair themselves and to utilize energy. Further, damaged cells produce toxins; around tumors are zones of “wounded” but still non-malignant tissue, swollen with salt and water.
Gerson believed it axiomatic that cancer could not exist in normal metabolism. He pointed to the fact that scientists often had to damage an animal’s thyroid and adrenals just to get a transplanted tumor to “take.” He directed his efforts toward creating normal metabolism in the tissue surrounding a tumor.
It is the liver and small bowel which neutralize the most common tissue toxins: polyamines, ammonia, toxic-bound nitrogen, and electrophiles. These detoxification systems are probably enhanced by the coffee enema. Physiological Chemistry and Physics has stated that “caffeine enemas cause dilation of bile ducts, which facilitates excretion of toxic cancer breakdown products by the liver and dialysis of toxic products across the colonic wall.”
In addition, theophylline and theobromine (two other chemicals in coffee) dilate blood vessels and counter inflammation of the gut; the palmitates enhance the enzyme system responsible for the removal of toxic free radicals from the serum; and the fluid of the enema then stimulates the visceral nervous system to promote peristalsis and the transit of diluted toxic bile from the duodenum and out the rectum.
Since the enema is generally held for 15 minutes, and all the blood in the body passes through the liver every three minutes, “these enemas represent a form of dialysis of blood across the gut wall” (Healing Newsletter, #13, May-June, 1986).
Prejudice against coffee enemas continues, however. Although this data was made available to Office of Technology Assessment it was largely ignored in their box on the procedure. They dismissively state “there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that coffee enemas detoxify the blood or liver.”
No medical procedure is without risk and OTA is quick to point out alleged dangers of the coffee enemas. For instance, they cite one doctor’s opinion that coffee “taken by this route is a strong stimulant and can be at least as addictive as coffee taken regularly by mouth.” This may indeed be true. Yet one wonders where the data is on this, and whether OTA would issue a similar warning about the perils of coffee drinking.
Another potential danger, they say, is physical damage to the rectum—”fatal bowel perforation and necrosis” which have been associated with “various other types of enema.” The risk of perforation comes from the insertion device used. At the Gerson clinic, for instance, they use a short nozzle which couldn’t inflict much harm; Gonzalez uses a soft rubber colon tube. In neither case would this caveat seem to apply. On thin evidence, OTA also suggests enemas can cause colitis.
The agency also cites the case of the two Seattle women who died following excessive enema use. Their deaths were attributed to fluid and electrolyte abnormalities. One took 10 to 12 coffee enemas in a single night and then continued at a rate of one per hour. The other took four daily. As OTA points out, “in both cases, the enemas were taken much more frequently than is recommended in the Gerson treatment.”
In general, coffee enemas are an important tool for physicians who try to detoxify the body. This is not to say they are a panacea. They certainly require much more research. But coffee enemas are serious business: their potential should be explored by good research—not mined for cheap shots at alternative medicine or derisively dismissed as yet another crackpot fad.
Kathy,
I also provided an article from Congress.org that was sent to Senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner too, but it is currently awaiting moderation.
I posted about this Codex Alimentarious stuff in here a while back(maybe a year).
It’s not exactly new.
But that’s how they do it. Bit by bit, they let it slowly creep up on us, happening in the background, away from mainstream media attention.
The next thing we know, we’re scratching our heads while getting fined for having a garden.
I think something is going on with the “Reply” button today. Posts are all over the place.
I must have missed your previous posting. This speech was from 2005. What has happened since then?
Kathy,
Q: What has happened since then?
A: S.510 (as posted above)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN00510:@@@L&summ2=m&
(Sec. 404) Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
Buck,
Perhaps not.
One might skip over the rest, or would have to dig through youtube to find parts 2-5.
I just did the work for y’all, and made it easy.
🙂
BL
I have to tell you, listening to this lady brings back awful memories. Its like flashbacks of arrogant, condescending granola environmentalists that I had to deal with. I kept wanting to strangle her, or at least throw tomatoes.
Her message may be true and her cause righteous. But she really needs to be coached in how to portray her message to those who are not already on her side.
Agree! Her information was great; presentation was terrible.
JAC, Kathy,
I can’t disagree.
I just thought it was worth posting as it has some good info.
Take it for what it is, …just simply informative.
Monsanto=The Devil!
Hrmmmm and here I was under the impression that someone had already given Man the rule as to the right to use plants for food…silly me what was I thinking…
Genesis 1:29 And God saith, ‘Lo, I have given to you every herb sowing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree sowing seed, to you it is for food;
JAC, sorry I did not respond when you first posted this, other irons in the fire.
Just A Citizen said
November 29, 2010 at 12:01 am
What goes on between Governments is often NOT what we think, based on the News coverage.
I urge everyone to read the following NY TIMES article on revelations from the Wikileak files.
Very, very interesting stuff about Iran, the Arab World, N. Korea etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html?_r=1&hp
The cables, a huge sampling of the daily traffic between the State Department and some 270 embassies and consulates, amount to a secret chronicle of the United States’ relations with the world in an age of war and terrorism. Among their revelations, to be detailed in The Times in coming days:
¶ A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”
¶ Thinking about an eventual collapse of North Korea: American and South Korean officials have discussed the prospects for a unified Korea, should the North’s economic troubles and political transition lead the state to implode. The South Koreans even considered commercial inducements to China, according to the American ambassador to Seoul. She told Washington in February that South Korean officials believe that the right business deals would “help salve” China’s “concerns about living with a reunified Korea” that is in a “benign alliance” with the United States.
¶ Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.” Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”
¶ Suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government: When Afghanistan’s vice president visited the United Arab Emirates last year, local authorities working with the Drug Enforcement Administration discovered that he was carrying $52 million in cash. With wry understatement, a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul called the money “a significant amount” that the official, Ahmed Zia Massoud, “was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.” (Mr. Massoud denies taking any money out of Afghanistan.)
¶ A global computer hacking effort: China’s Politburo directed the intrusion into Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese contact told the American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported. The Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government. They have broken into American government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002, cables said.
¶ Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December. Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals,” the cable said.
The NY Times is happy to publish the illegally obtained Wikileaks information.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29editornote.html
Once leaked, they are out there for the world to see. Doesn’t matter that the NYT is publishing. And they are not the only paper doing so.
“Once leaked, they are out there for the world to see.”
Except in China, where the government has blocked it.:lol:
I can agree with you except for the Climategate thing, why did they refuse to report that? With all the stories and editorials they have done on global warming, how could it not have been newsworthy? Reality, it does not fit their agenda.
LOI,
They reported it ad nausium until they realized that there wasn’t really much of a story there.
And let’s not forget that their reporting put a major dent in the number of people who believe in global warming.
It was absolutely a media firestorm. What? Do you think they should still be talking about it? I think this is the basic takeaway:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0707/Climate-scientists-exonerated-in-climategate-but-public-trust-damaged
You and I disagree on the whole climategate thing to begin with, so not going to get into it. For more info, please see Mathius’ post below.
I would agree however that the rationale used by the NYT to not publish the climategate emails goes directly against their decision to publish in this case.
You dispute the hockey stick scandal and CRU Director Phil Jones scandal ever happened then?
I dispute the imputed meaning of climategate as ‘proof’ that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the scientific community as a whole.
Shoot the messenger?
Shoot the messenger? Only if he resists arrest.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/29/104458/obama-weighing-criminal-action.html
If one needs further proof that today’s WikiLeaks document dump is really a propaganda operation, one need only contrast how the media is treating these documents compared to other genuine leaks in the past.
The Climategate emails were a real leak, one which exposed the reality that the push for carbon taxes and a global environmental authority was built on a massive fraud, one that is rather obvious as we head into our second record setting winter in a row. But the New York Times refused to cover that story on the grounds that the source documents were illegally obtained. Even at the time this seemed a strange editorial position to take, since the New York Times had not hesitated to report on the Pentagon Papers, even though they too were leaked.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/es/content/ny-times-refused-publish-climategate-emails-and-software-because-they-were-illegally-obtaine
The ClimateGate leaks were overblown and received plenty of media attention. One or two emails about “using tricks” or “hide the decline” in the face of thousands of leaked emails is not evidence of a massive conspiracy. I’m sure you could find similar “conspiracies” if you went through my email as well.
In fact…. Yea, here is a snippet taken out of context..
“[…]we just need to make sure it shows what we want it to show. I’ll rework the data[…]”
OMG! Proof of massive widespread fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in the hedge fund industry! I bet Fox will pick this up within the hour.
I too have plenty of emails with similar language. Gotta watch out for those attorneys and their fraudulent conspiracies…
@ Mathius and Buck,
You two guys are a hoot I tell ya’!
When you both can’t come up with a logical retort to factual statement you resort to making light of a post!
Your Appeal to Ridicule gives me such a chuckle!
Reductio ad absurdum is my favorite arguing tactic 🙂
Mathius
As usual from you lefties, you miss the point and thus divert the discussion. This issue is NOT whether climate gate was Big News.
The issue is that the NY Times used the “its stolen information” as their reason for NOT publishing the climate gate stuff.
Yet now they are willing to publish “stolen information”.
WHY???????????????
WHY was it not OK then and it is OK now?????????????????
And the fact of the matter is that the NYT has been a conduit for releasing desired information by Democrat Administrations for decades. Thus it is in fact a legitimate question to ask if this Administration wants it released, doesn’t care, or figured it couldn’t control it anyway.
No, I agree with you that a reason (“it’s stolen”) should be applied equally whether it’s stolen emails or classified materials. I think Bunky agrees with you on this point as well.
However, I just have to reject your implication that climate gate was under-reported or suppressed. It wasn’t.
Mathius
I didn’t say it was under reported or suppressed.
Although you must admit it was primarily blogs, internet sites and the cable shows that covered the story in the beginning.
Whether you agree with the claims or not, the fact is that the Main Media was basically forced to discuss the issue due to the coverage in the New Media.
And I am not saying the New Media is that great at getting its facts straight. Just that it has tremendous power in driving the news these days.
That is exactly what I was trying to get across – if the NYT has a policy to not publish stolen info, then it should be applied equally across the board.
As for TC’s belief that we are imposing ridicule and derision – I dont’ think we are. At least I am being very serious about how easy it is to take statements in my own professional emails to prove that there is a massive conspiracy afoot.
Buck
We agree on how the policy should be applied.
So when it is not equally applied is it not legitimate to start asking WHY NOT.
Yes. If you have a policy, apply it evenly across the board.
Yes, JAC it is legitimate to ask.
WHY would this be OK this time and why is the Adm. acting so ho-hum about it?
Matt & Buck,
Do you ever question why you believe as you do on issues? Could you have be deceived on AGW? (Not is it true or not, but could you have been lied too?)
Is it possible Palin is a better candidate than you believe? What if the media is portraying her in a negative way, deliberately?
from John Lott,
Thus, in major news outlets, 194 news stories over the last month from Oct. 28 to Nov. 27 talked about Sarah Palin in the same paragraph that they used the words “extreme,” “dishonest,” “unpresidential,” “stupid,” “incompetent,” “gaffe,” or “dumb.”
Of course, Democrats are virtually immune from such coverage in the mainstream media. Barack Obama’s intelligence is never questioned,
Take him telling supporters on May 9, 2008: “I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii . . . .”
But a Google news search shows only
six news stories
mentioning the “57 states” mention over the first three days (virtually all in conservative publications) and only 14 after a week.
(194 against Palin, who ran for VP two years ago, compared to 14 on the Presidential candidate. Face it, you are being brainwashed. The Times, ABC, NBC & CBS tell you what you think)
I’m surprised there were only 194 stories about Palin.
I’m also surprised there were only 6 stories that mentioned Obama’s ’57 states’ remark – I could have sworn I had read more at the time, but who knows.
In all seriousness though, do you really believe that Mathius and I are brainwashed by the media and have no idea what is actually going on? That we don’t read up on both sides of an issue and reach our own conclusions?
Buck and Matt,
The Progressive Left is a type of cult. Like all cults, members need to believe even when the truth is staring them in the face.
Apostates from this Leftist cult are ex-communicated and demonized. Without being armed with the truth, your only weapons become degradation, especially towards conservative women such as Sarah Palin.
Whether or not you realize this, your soul has become sick and warped.
I am not saying this to be snarky, but because it is true! You see, we are born with a life force, which the Chinese philosophers called “Chi.” Buddhists dub this life force, “Buddha Nature;” Christians call it, “Christ Consciousness,” or “The Body of Christ.” People of faith need to protect and preserve not just their body, but the Divine Body.
I don’t know your belief system…you may believe in a creator…or not.If you do then disregard the next paragraph.
Perhaps you’re sure there isn’t a God. But then again what if you are wrong?
In the end, as we breathe our last breath, we will be judged by our character and our behavior. You don’t have a minute to waste, my friend; start breaking free from the darkness that engulfs you. I pray that you can braille your way to the Light since it’s been obvious you have been blind to the truth of the Right!
🙂
I am just joking guys so don’t get too offended by this! 🙂
Not Funny-good grief Tex I’m not a Progressive and I was offended. Was mulling over a response when I saw your kidding post. Glad I saw it first.
@ – VH,
Yeah I put the joking part in there knowing the politically correct brainwashed folks might be offended for no reason other than a white christian man speaks his mind using dark comedy to make a point…were not supposed to do that ya know…
I am very curious as to that response you were mulling over though.
I’m curious about her response, too. Mine would have been far shorter and gone something like this: Go ::explicative:: yourself.
But since I know it was a joke, I kindof have to admit that it is pretty funny. 🙂
Buck,
“do you really believe that Mathius and I are brainwashed by the media”
(on some issues, yes)
“and have no idea what is actually going on?”
( I’m not sure any of us really know what’s going on, EX they have been fixing the education and economy for how many years now? And it’s worse than ever & they want more $$$ to continue fixing it? Tell me with a straight face, you know how they will fix anything?)
“That we don’t read up on both sides of an issue and reach our own conclusions?”
(Not sure you are asking the right question. My question, have you ever been lied too? Has someone you trusted told you a lie right to your face, and you fell for it? Take the 194 negative Palin stories and the 14 negative Obama stories. The news sources that reported both with near equal time might meet the Fair & Balanced description. Those that will only take shots at Palin are, in my opinion, trying to influence how you think, not report news. So you may study an issue, but that does not mean you see both sides(or that I do).
Consider also, as a lawyer, you could write a contract that I would sign, and deceive me. I am not a lawyer, and could be tricked easily by someone with your special knowledge.
Give the same credit to reporters, who are also professionals. They can deceive you. And they have.
Personal story. Years ago the MSM reported all summer about the number of child abductions. My reaction, buy gun, get CCP. They did the same thing on shark attacks the next year. I learned later neither was on the rise, just the media hype. About that time the NRA called, asking me to join, I responded that I did not think everyone should be able to go out and buy a machine gun, and the NRA rep. agreed.
I had fallen for another MSM lie. And as a result, am a NRA LifeMember.
I’d be curious – on what issue, specifically, do you believe Mathius and I to be brainwashed? How so?
It just seems that so often we hear how we must be brainwashed, or are being tricked by the media, or do not get it, or some other variation when we disagree. This is a pretty condescending attitude to take in the face of disagreement on a given issue.
Now excuse me while I go enjoy my kool aid. Ah! So Refreshing! You really should try some.
Buck
How about the philosophy of Altruism and its impact on individual freedom and Liberty?
Hell, how about the meaning of freedom and Liberty themselves?
I agree, the brainwashed comments might be harsh and are certainly easily taken as arrogant in a way. However, when one has come to a logical conclusion based on evidence, and another who has similar evidence, or at least cannot offer evidence that affects your conclusion, your tendency is to be incredulous about why. You and Matt are obviously intelligent, but it seems that your thinking process changes or stops when it crosses certain of your own premises. That is understandable, mine does the same thing. It used to do it a lot worse. The way I used to think WAS the result of a sort of brainwashing and/or a lack of willingness to question certain things. At the very least there are certain things I will give the benefit of the doubt to. So when a comment like that comes out, consider that it might very well be based in personal experience.
Just because we reach a different conclusion does not mean that we are the ones in the wrong or that we are brainwashed; it just means that we reached a different conclusion.
Jon,
You seem to always forget that Buck and I use a different starting point and then derive our logical conclusions. You reject the premise that we have an obligation to others and then call it illogical that we conclude (based on the same evidence) differently. We could easily draw the same logic about you. “Oh, they must be brainwashed because they think taxes should be lower on the upper 0.5% of top earners. They must just have hit a mental block.” We’re using binary, adding 1+1 and getting 10 and you’re saying we’re narrow minded. We could easily look at your 1+1=2 and say, wow, they just made that makes no sense, they must be nuts.
But we don’t.
Buck, response on #24
I remember the kidnapping and shark attack stories. I also remember that my mother fell for them completely (added an alarm system to the second story windows, tried to stop me from going surfing). I also remember seeing right through the hype. I was, what? A teenager? When was the “kidnapping spree”? 2000-ish?
I see both sides. I work hard to see both sides. That’s why I’m here. I simply disagree.
A closet conservative, maybe? 🙂
The House of Representatives approved a decades-old settlement worth $4.6 billion Tuesday that resolves two class-action suits filed against the federal government by black farmers and Native Americans.
The thousands who joined the suit argued that the government discriminated against them as they applied for loans for agricultural ventures.
The House approved the package 256-to-152.
Black farmers would receive $1.2 billion, after they alleged they were cheated out of loans from the Agriculture Department. The government will direct $3.4 billion to American Indians who say the Interior Department swindled them out of royalties from natural resources like gas and timber. The Senate has already approved the package, but some lawmakers objected.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., opposed the settlement. She says that many of the programs designed to accommodate black farmers are easy targets for fraud.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, tried to delete money from the program with an amendment but was blocked by the House Rules Committee.
“By cutting off consideration of my amendment, and by refusing to investigate serious allegations of Pigford fraud prior to voting on legislation allocating an additional $1.15 billion to the program, the lame duck Congress is, in effect, enabling Pigford fraud and this calls for an investigation by the 112th Congress,” King said in a statement.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised the settlement’s passage as did several administration officials.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/30/house-approves-billion-settlement-indian-black-farmers/#ixzz16s4yknmI
Reparations.
Moving this topic from Kathy over to open mic…
Kathy posted:
Wikileaks. Just read this comment by BJ (within Atlas’ posting). This is what I’ve been thinking as well. Obama isn’t reacting to this because he is in on it.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/11/impeachable.html
Herewegoagain replied:
Any evidence whatsoever? Or just more baseless accusations from the right?
On another note, DailyKos highlighted three interesting stories today. Curious as to everyone’s thoughts on this site:
1) Steve King — Obama is seeking to provide for slavery reparations through his support of a settlement in a discrimination case between the USDA and black farmers from the 1980s and 1990s.
2) Judson Philips (Tea Party Nation) — only property owners should vote as they are the ones with a real interest/stake in the nation
3) Celebrations in the South for the 150th anniversary of secession
TexasChem replied:
Herewegoagain,
1. Reparations-Reparations for injustices committed against our ancestors is ridiculous. I’m from German descent. The Romans oppressed my ancestors. I don’t whine about it to Italians.If anything we see more reverse discrimination taking place against whites today in our “politically correct” world.Is it just me or does it seem as if it is fine to promote the advancement of your ethnicity and religion unless you are a white christian?Then you are considered a racist bigot.
The main issue I have with this discrimination case is that the number of black farmers claiming issue far exceeds the actual number of black farmers!
2. Property owners only-Citizen only.Nothing else to be said about this issue really.JaC said it all and I am in firm accord with him.
3. Celebrations in the South-Send me your address and I will send you an invitation from the Sons of Confederate Veterans to ours!
Why would anyone have an issue with celebrating an action to stop an oppressive out of control government? Abraham Lincoln was the worst president this country has ever had.At this point of time in American history slavery was what we’d consider today a social wedge issue: much like we have today with abortion, healthcare reform, gay marriage, taxation and global warming.Slavery was an issue pounced upon by Northern politicians to justify their lust for the control of the Southern economy.
I will never understand why folks say the Civil War was about ending slavery in this country. It did indeed end slavery of black males, but 52% of the country was still treated like property. Women were not given the right to vote until 50 years after black males, and even then they were not given full autonomy.
Even after the Civil War it was still legal to deny women the right to vote, to own property, to be paid for their labor, to make certain purchases for themselves, to press charges against certain males for raping and beating them, etc. How is this not slavery?
Looking at this from Above, one would conclude the entire Agriculture department were all ran by racists. With the sheer amount of cases, that would be a logical conclusion. I am all for legitimate claims but it needs to be followed by people losing their jobs if they were indeed being racist. I am not fully sure why the American People are on the line to paying for this since only a handful of people perversed this process? The bottom line is that the American People are paying for this, not the government, and I do not want to pay for this since I had no hand in it.
Sure there should be some system of identifying legitimate vs. false claims and removing the latter from the settlement. But to take it a step further and argue that Obama’s support for the settlement itself is because he wants to provide for slavery reparations? I just don’t see any valid reason/proof for making this gigantic leap. Do you?
Buck
I think it played a role in his support. That is based on comment he made, and that I heard, regarding the reparations issue and social justice. I have not been able to find those comments on the YOU TUBE but I did hear them myself.
It did not create the issue nor cause it to be ripe for action. That was a legal matter. But there is no doubt in my mind that reparations played a role in his personal views on whether to settle NOW or kick it down the road like all other Administrations.
The more egregious issue, in my mind, is that the Democrat Party Leadership has used both of these settlements as a way to LOCK in future votes. And the sad part is that if the Republicans had orchestrated the payoff, it wouldn’t have significantly affected the tendency of these two groups to vote Democrat.
I’d be interested in hearing the comment. Until then, this all seems like a ‘gut impression’ type of thing (or worse, a play by King simply and solely to make news) which doesn’t sit well with me.
Buck
For the record, I didn’t hear King’s remark and place no value on it. It comes from a politician after all.
I will continue to look for video/audio of the comments I heard. But it fit with his other commentary about positive vs. negative rights, flaws in the Constitution, etc. Taken in entirety I think it gave a good picture of his values and beliefs.
I am curious from your view however, as to the whole idea of compensating someone for a loan they did not get, especially in the context of class action. How do you know whether that loan actually “cost” the person anything in the way of damages?
It seems this settlement is based on some preconceived “value” placed on civil rights violations. Am I wrong on that?
As for the Indian Settlement, the Indians were flat our ripped off. The Govt agents actually took their money and could never account for it. Different type of case all together.
I’m not all that familiar with the specific aspects of the case or the overall settlement. It does seem that there is some (I wouldn’t say ‘preconceived’) value being placed on civil rights violations, but don’t really see any way around that either – do you? In any case that is not purely, 100% economic recompensation there must be some prescribed ‘value’ attached.
I agree the Indian Settlement is a different situation and I believe the damages are keyed to the actual money taken, which makes things much ‘neater’. But that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be some prescribed value and some settlement granted. Again, need to research more on the specifics.
Getting a loan is not an entitlement. Nobody is entitled to getting a loan. Even if the reasons are racist, you do not have the right to sue somebody for not lending you money. It is crappy, I fully agree and wrong. It is up to the company / agency to deal with the racist in question. In this case, the American people are being forced to pay for something that wasn’t an entitlement in the first place. I fell bad for those that were treated wrong, but you were not entitled to that money.
I would like to add that the Indian settlement is quite different and what I am saying above does not apply.
Research the number of claims vs the number of black farmers in America.That will aid you in your search for reason.
500% of black farmers have applied for reparation money.
Really? No, not one, white farmer was treated poorly by the USDA?
I grew up here and I’ll tell you one damn thing right now.This is Reparations trying to buy democratic votes in 2012 plain and simple.The tribe already has numerous wells on their reservation and have bought up thousands of acres of land in our county with their minerals royalties and casino revenues.The tribe is about to re-open a casino here in Texas as well soon as the legislation passes.They already have one in Louisiana.Do you have any idea the amount of revenue a casino takes in?The government already pays full and partial on their home mortgages depending upon the amount of Native blood they have.Free healthcare,dental and vision.Wouldn’t it be great if each and every American had this advantage in life?I do not see how contributing my tax dollars to give someone else an unfair advantage over me and my kids in life makes this a level playing field for all.Cmon people what the hell…is their a belief that the white man has an unfair advantage over other races for some reason?Should all white people feel guilty for the sins of men long dead and gone?
East Texas tribe ‘optimistic’ but ‘realistic’ on compensation prospects
Alabama-Coushatta waiting since 2002 for Congress to act on court’s recommendation to pay $270.6 million.By Ralph K.M. Haurwitz AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Published: 8:48 p.m. Friday, Nov. 26, 2010
When President Barack Obama met with leaders of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes last November, he vowed that “you will not be forgotten as long as I’m in this White House.”
He plans to meet again with leaders of the 565 federally recognized tribes on Dec. 16 at his second White House Tribal Nations Conference.
Carlos Bullock, tribal council chairman of the Alabama-Coushatta Indian tribe, sees the president’s interest as an encouraging sign. With about 1,000 members and a reservation between Livingston and Woodville in East Texas, the tribe has been waiting since 2002 for Congress to act on a federal court’s recommendation to pay it $270.6 million.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims said the money is owed for oil and gas production, timber harvesting and trespassing by non-Indian settlers on the tribe’s ancestral lands. The court ruled that the federal government breached its legal duty by failing to object when the State of Texas doled out land grants to such settlers.
In the eight years since the court’s recommendation, no member of Congress has introduced legislation to compensate the tribe. Nor did President George W. Bush include a sum for the tribe in his budget requests to Congress. And thus far, neither has Obama.
Alabama-Coushatta representatives have been in touch with the U.S. Department of the Interior and with U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, whose district includes the tribe’s reservation.
“We’re optimistic, but we’re also realistic,” Bullock said. “Politics plays a large role in it.”
A major wrinkle is that the claims court also concluded that the tribe’s ancestral land rights have never been terminated. In other words, the tribe still holds so-called aboriginal title — the right to occupy and possess homelands — to 5.5 million acres, a vast stretch that includes all or portions of 11 counties. Recent federal court rulings involving other tribes cast doubt on the ability of the Alabama-Coushatta to assert that right.
Asked whether the tribe would give up its aboriginal title in exchange for the $270.6 million, Bullock replied: “We would seriously consider it. But until the dollars are paid, we wouldn’t give it up upfront.”
The Interior Department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment. Members of the Texas congressional delegation also didn’t have much to say regarding the case.
“While there has been no new movement on this issue, we continue to stay in contact with the tribal leadership,” said Brady’s press secretary, Tracee Evans.
Kevin McLaughlin, a spokesman for U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said, “In January, Sen. Cornyn said that the court’s decision should be respected and not ignored. He still believes that today.”
The office of the state’s other U.S. senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, also a Republican, did not respond to requests for comment. In the past, she has said that she does not favor payment of “reparations” to the tribe.
Gavin Clarkson, an associate professor of law at the University of Houston and a scholar of tribal finance, criticized the state’s congressional delegation for not pursuing a payment for the tribe.
“This is compensation for taking land,” Clarkson said. “When people are talking about reparations, they’re generally doing it in the context of slavery. To morph the two together is an attempt to intellectually hijack the discussion.”
Clarkson noted that the Alabama-Coushatta lost their land despite assurances from some of the most important figures in Texas history that they would be secure.
Sam Houston, who led Texas forces to victory in the war for independence from Mexico and became the first regularly elected president of the Republic of Texas, declared that “Indian lands are the forbidden fruit in the midst of the garden.” He also instructed a representative to inform the Alabama-Coushatta that “they are under the protection of the government.”
“I’m sure everybody in the Texas delegation reveres Sam Houston,” Clarkson said. “They need to get off their butts, channel their inner Sam Houston and do the right thing.”
Tex
The Indian Settlements are not about reparations in the true sense.
It is about compensation for money stolen from tribal members by federal agents.
Then the feds that stole the money should be held accountable and criminal charges filed on them, not repaying with the taxpayers money…oh wait they’re all dead.
Tex
They didn’t steal it for themselves.
They put the money in the General Fund or spent it on other Federal projects.
Yes they should be prosecuted, although most are probably retired by now. But WE THE PEOPLE are liable in this case. Our representatives took the money and used it for things WE used.
When did the representatives take the money and what did they use it on sir? You seem to be well informed of this case and privy to some information.
Tex
It happened over a long period of time. The original suit was over oil royalties by a single tribal member.
But that caused others to start looking and behold they found money missing from various programs.
I got involved over missing money from “timber harvest” on privately owned Indian land.
In some cases the money seems to have been used on work projects, using non-Indian Govt employees, not related to management of the lands where the money was “harvested”. As I said yesterday, it appears that much of it just went to the Treasury.
I recall that some “personal” theft was involved but I also recall those folks going to jail. Remember, the Indian case has been going for a couple decades now. In some sense, it is a continuation of the corruption of the old “Indian Agents”, as so often portrayed in old movies.
What was found was that the Govt was taking money in trust and returning less than 100% to the beneficiary, but COULD NOT account for WHY there was a difference or WHERE the money went. At least this was their claim in court.
During the litigation it was discovered that Govt records had disappeared and in some cases outright destroyed. At least two Secretaries of Interior were found in contempt of court (Clinton and Bush) over the inability/refusal to produce records the agencies should have had.
In defense of the agencies, I think some of the problem stemmed from “centralized” record keeping procedures. The DOI accounting system probably couldn’t deal with tracing money by individual tribal member. But since they were the Trustee they should have had a system that would do exactly that.
Tex, the key point here is that this case is entirely different than the farm loan case. The decision to settle actually predates the Obama Administration. The sticking point has been the dollar amount.
Did you catch this video?
http://anotherblackconservative.blogspot.com/2010/11/video-nigel-farage-mep-euro-game-is-up.html
Kathy
Now that is what I call a take down.
Notice that he recognizes the natural tendency of people to associate with a particular national identity.
I do love watching the Brits school everyone on basic economics and Liberty. Who would have ever thunk it?
🙂 🙂
LOVE IT!!!!!!
Now that is straight up honesty which is missing in most Politicians.
Cool…..Wonder what it would be like to have out spoken Congressmen/women here.
When I win the lotto I am going to run for congress…then you will see outspoken! ! ! ! !
ooooo! Can’t wait! Oh wait..it won’t work TC..Congressman Humble is an oxymoron! Damn!
🙂
haha! 🙂
The humble Congressman from Texas, Senator Humble. Nice!
Need our resident economists to step up and help explain this:
US Ready to Back Bigger EU Stability Fund: Official
The United States would be ready to support the extension of the European Financial Stability Facility via an extra commitment of money from the International Monetary Fund, a U.S. official told Reuters on Wednesday.
Entire article:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40454469
Kathy
I do not have numbers to prove my comment but here it is.
If other countries go into default, they will start calling in or selling the Sovereign Debt (Treasury Notes/Bills) to raise cash. This would make funding of more debt by other countries near impossible.
I still think this was a major reason we bailed out the big investment banks. They held too much Federal Debt to allow them to start dumping it into the market.
Otherwise, it is just “spreading the wealth” from you and me to the Global Elite.
For now, I choose to believe the first hypothesis. 🙂
Why Does the Media Love to Pick On Palin?
By John Lott
Published November 30, 2010
FoxNews
The media just loves to hate Sarah Palin. And, if polls are to be believed, the constant media bombardment has hurt her standing among many independents.
Unfortunately, over the last couple of weeks, even conservative media pundits such as Mona Charen, Peggy Noonan, George Will, Joe Scarborough and Matt Labash see these attacks and warn that she can’t win the presidency. They even buy into the attacks on her judgment, intelligence, and competence. But what these conservatives don’t appreciate is that Palin is being attacked because she is smart and effective, not because she is dumb.
For just how far off base her coverage by the media has been, consider the reaction when Sarah Palin, a Fox News contributor and former Alaska governor, last Wednesday accidentally referred to North Korea as an ally. It was an obvious slip of the tongue and she corrected the trivial gaffe immediately in her very next sentence. The local, national, and even international news coverage was massive, making the trivial error front-page news. A Google news search finds 834 separate news stories run just that day alone.
This is just the surface of the attacks. The media started attacking Palin as soon as she was nominated by John McCain to be vice president and they have continued ever since. Tina Fey’s performances on “Saturday Night Live” got people to actually believe that Palin really did claim she could see Russia from her house.
The attacks have continued unabated. On Nov. 19, just days before the media coverage about the North Korea slip, she was being inaccurately attacked for supposedly being unable to name her favorite founding father, with one MSNBC commentator sarcastically pleading with Republicans to nominate Palin for president. In fact, Palin said that her favorite founding father was “George Washington,” for his ability to give up the trappings of power and not making himself a king.
No other Republican gets even remotely similar treatment. One can systematically go through news coverage on this. A Factiva news search covers only a fraction of the news sources covered by Google news, relying more on major news outlets, but it does a much better job of linking different words in a story.
Thus, in major news outlets, 194 news stories over the last month from Oct. 28 to Nov. 27 talked about Sarah Palin in the same paragraph that they used the words “extreme,” “dishonest,” “unpresidential,” “stupid,” “incompetent,” “gaffe,” or “dumb.” Fox News recently identified eleven other contenders — in addition to Palin — who will likely vie for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Those 11 candidates, combined, garnered 27 percent more news coverage than Palin, but had just 144 negative stories written about them.
Of course, Democrats are virtually immune from such coverage in the mainstream media. Barack Obama’s intelligence is never questioned, even though he refuses to disclose his college or law school grades, but the list of his gaffes are almost endless. Obama uses a TelePrompter for a reason. Take him telling supporters on May 9, 2008: “I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii . . . .” But a Google news search shows only six news stories mentioning the “57 states” mention over the first three days (virtually all in conservative publications) and only 14 after a week.
Since becoming president, Obama has called Europe a country. He misspelled the city of “Syracuse” twice, even though the word was spelled correctly next to where he was writing it. And he said that the Constitution was written “20 centuries” ago, the FBI was founded “100 days” ago when he meant 100 years, “Austrian” is a language, breathalyzers are used to treat asthma, and that he is working hard to “halt the rise of privacy,” not piracy. None of these cases got more than a few minor mentions in news stories in the months after the gaffe.
But slips of the tongue demonstrate neither a person’s intelligence nor their understanding of issues. Obama’s knowledge of economics is abysmal – his emphasis on higher tax rates and spreading wealth make the economy smaller. His health care regulations will cause people to be thrown off of private health insurance, raise costs, and lower quality.
Sarah Palin has been pointing out many of these problems before anyone else. On health care, she coined the term “death panels,” and the press attacked her mercilessly for it. But after Obamacare has become law, even Democrats, such as Paul Krugman, are now using the term, acknowledging that Obama care will empower government panels to make decisions on who will be allowed to get medical care.
Palin’s analysis of the economics of health care would make an economist proud. Take how Obamacare creates an incentive for people to wait until they needed care before they purchased health insurance. Banning any higher premiums for those who wait until they are sick to get insurance may be very bad public policy, but it is one part of Obama care that is extremely popular. Other Republicans have seen the polls and refused to discuss the problem, but Palin ignored the polls and made the right economic argument.
What Palin’s conservative critics need to recognize is that any other candidate who posed the same threat to Democrats would also be attacked as viciously. The desire to give up on Palin and move on to another potential Republican presidential nominee is understandable. But there is a reason why the media wants to take Palin out.
John Bolton is considering a run in 2012.If he does he gets my vote.
TC, I am on board with you. I REALLY like John Bolton’s straight up honesty and approach. I actually trust him.
He has this quality about himself that when he speaks…I just…get this tingle up and down my leg! LOL
Seriously though, what I like about John Bolton is that he tells it like it is with no white-washing and does not back down from his beliefs and values.The man is a genius when it comes to foreign affairs.
I like Bolton too. But do we really want someone for President who is THAT focused on FOREIGN affairs? I’d rather focus on our own country’s affairs for a while. Bolton for Secretary of State under…here ya go Cyndi..
PALIN/BACHMANN 2012! 🙂 🙂
Aaaaaaaagggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Head pounding in pain……………………
It’s worth a shot! God knows the men have gotten us to this point.. Time for the females to clean up the mess! 🙂
Anita
It is not women that worry me.
It is THOSE women.
Anita
I don’t want to be nothing but a stick in the mud so let me offer up a woman I would prefer over either of the other two:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lingle
I admit she’s not perfect but I would sure like to see her hit the campaign trail to see what she is made of.
No, no, you’ve tried to get us on her bandwagon previously, but I think there’s some trash in her closet that doesn’t quite sit well. Can’t remember it right now.
BTW – look again at “her” pic on that site. What the heck JAC – don’t try to “offer up a woman” that looks more like a Linda who used to be a Larry.
Kathy
ROTFLMAO………..
I think the heartburn with her before was over her Pro Choice view points.
I also don’t like her pro Israel at all cost view but she shares that with the other two.
As I said, she’s not perfect and may not even be acceptable. I do prefer her to the other two just based on listening to all three talk.
Not a bandwagon I assure you. Just preference.
Quite frankly I would support Mad Mom over all three.
🙂
Woot! Woot!
(here comes angry Ray in 3……2……1……!)
U.S. Passes Most Restrictive Legislation Yet Against Health Freedom
The United States Senate has passed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S.510) yesterday by a vote of 73 to 25 demonstrating a clear mandate to destroy health freedom in America….
http://www.infowars.com/u-s-passes-most-restrictive-legislation-yet-against-health-freedom/
Rigged Food Safety Bill May Die in House –
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 1, 2010
It looks like the draconian FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S.510) may be killed in the House, according to Roll Call, a newspaper covering Capitol Hill…
http://www.infowars.com/rigged-food-safety-bill-may-die-in-house/
When measuring the success of economic policies, the baseline metric is a policy’s spending-to-growth ratio – how much economic growth is created by spending (or not taxing) one dollar? Keyensian economics is premised on the notion of an economic multiplier. Each dollar the government spends creates more than a dollar of economic growth as the money circulates throughout the economy.
New research suggests the Keyensian theory is bunk, and that fiscal austerity combined with tax relief is a much more effective way to stimulate growth. Stanford University economist and former White Housre economic advisor Michael Boskin explained in Wednesdday’s Wall Street Journal:
My colleagues John Cogan and John Taylor, with Volker Wieland and Tobias Cwik, demonstrate that government purchases have a GDP impact far smaller in New Keynesian than Old Keynesian models and quickly crowd out the private sector. They estimate the effect of the February 2009 stimulus at a puny 0.2% of GDP by now…
Former Obama adviser Christina Romer and David Romer of the University of California, Berkeley, estimate a tax-cut multiplier of 3.0, meaning $1 of lower taxes raises short-run output by $3. Messrs. Mountford and Uhlig show that substantial tax cuts had a far larger impact on output and employment than spending increases, with a multiplier up to 5.0…
Mr. Uhlig estimates that a dollar of deficit-financed spending costs the economy a present value of $3.40. The spending would have to be remarkably productive, both in its own right and in generating jobs and income, for it to be worth even half that future cost. The University of Maryland’s Carmen Reinhart, Harvard’s Ken Rogoff and the International Monetary Fund all conclude that the high government debt-to-GDP ratios we are approaching damage growth severely.
The complexity of a dynamic market economy is not easily captured even by sophisticated modeling (an idea stressed by Friedrich Hayek and Robert Solow). But based on the best economic evidence, we should reject increased spending and increased taxes.
Any thoughts on these studies? What are the odds this gets any media play?
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2010/12/01/open-thread-new-studies-highlight-failures-stimulus-spending#ixzz16tML9gNa
Well, Well, Well-it seems that Arab countries are more concerned about Iran than Israel-It is rather sad that they for some reason feel they can’t be honest in their beliefs-if they were maybe, just maybe there would be less extremist in the world.
WikiLeaks builds case against Iran
By David Frum, CNN Contributor
November 29, 2010 12:38 p.m. EST
Washington (CNN) — Some say that the WikiLeaks document dump has embarrassed the United States government.
Agreed — it is probably no fun to be the U.S. official in charge of calling Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi to admit that our government noticed his Russian business dealings.
But here’s who really should be embarrassed:
• Those who pooh-poohed George W. Bush’s “axis of evil.” WikiLeaks confirms that Iran and North Korea have for years been sharing weapons technology.
• Those who suggest that it’s some “Israel lobby” or Jewish cabal that is driving the confrontation with Iran. WikiLeaks confirms that the region’s Arab governments express even more anxiety than Israel about the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
• Those who have condemned Israel for inspecting or impeding Red Crescent ambulances. WikiLeaks confirms that during the 2006 Lebanon war, Iran smuggled weapons to Hezbollah in Red Crescent vehicles, including ambulances.
• Those who have appeased Red Crescent demands that Israel’s Red Magen David be excluded from international Red Cross organizations. The Red Crescent has been thoroughly penetrated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and is regularly used as a tool of Iranian foreign policy.
• Those who lamented that Israel’s interception of the Turkish blockade-runner Mevi Marmara would alienate Turkey as a key U.S. ally: The U.S. government itself has for years regarded the Turkish government as trending on its own impetus toward anti-Western Islamist radicalism.
• Those who look blank-faced at the origin of cyber-attacks on Google and other crucial U.S. networks. WikiLeaks documents U.S. awareness that at least one cyber-attack on Google was ordered at the highest levels of the Chinese government.
This is not to deny that WikiLeaks has done enormous harm. The leakers or hackers or whoever it was who obtained and published this information have put individual lives at risk. Toby Harnden of the Telegraph notes that one of the released documents names a U.S. informant in the region. The document identifies him as a U.K.-educated engineer from a prominent pre-revolution Isfahan family who once owned a large factory in Iran and is a former national fencing champion of Iran, a former president of the Iran Fencing Association and a former vice president of an Azerbaijan sports association. Harnden aptly asks: How many such persons do you think are out there?
But here’s the ghastliest irony of the leak. If it was Julian Assange’s intention to use information hacked from U.S. computer systems to protect Iran from U.S. military action, he has very likely massively failed at his own purpose.
The leak makes military conflict between Iran and the United States more likely, not less. The leak has changed the political equation in ways that reduce the restraint on U.S. policy.
Public opinion in all U.S.-allied countries can now see that the dread of the Iranian nuclear program is not some artificial emotion whipped up by Israel, but a widespread fear among Arab and European governments. It’s Iran’s Gulf neighbors who have begged most urgently that the United States hit Iran’s nuclear sites.
Iranian recklessness and duplicity has been widely publicized — as has Iran’s contemptuous rejection of all diplomatic approaches.
President Obama’s hand has been strengthened inside the United States. Members of Congress can see the intimate details of the administration’s determined effort to restrain Iran by peaceful means. And they can see in equally intimate detail that the effort has failed, and failed entirely because of Iran’s obduracy.
If any doubt remains that a nuclear Iran would massively destabilize the region, WikiLeaks alleviates it: It’s there in black and white, according to Israeli sources, that Saudi Arabia would seek a nuclear weapon. And it’s a good question whether an increasingly anti-Western Turkey would likely soon pursue a nuclear weapon too.
I am not saying that a U.S. attack on Iran has suddenly become likely. Just that it has become more politically feasible than it was 72 hours ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/29/frum.wikileaks.iran/index.html?hpt=Sbin
Sidestepping your comment a little..I’m against all this Wikileaks stuff since you never know what more kind of trouble can get stirred up because of it. But in this case it could really benefit everyone in the world since it seems that every government is just as crooked as the next on. Who in the world is going to trust anyone anymore? Just wait til all the bankster’s wikileaks come out.That’s when it’s going to hit people personally. This could be the tipping point..a real paradigm shift..where people demand control of their own lives…big sigh..I’ll keep daydreaming now.
Anita
AGREED!!!
There you go…….you got shit right out of the starting blocks this morning.
🙂 🙂 🙂
And you didn’t shit on me! AAAAHHH ! ***hummming along*** It’s a beautiful morning….
There are so many on this blog that believe that Wiki leaks is the cat’s meow when in reality they are not worthe the steam of a Private’s piss in the early morning cold…..that said…..
I believe that I have saying all along that the Saudis, Egyptians, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, and even Syria have all privately asked the USA to bomb Iran. They are willing to ally with Israel to get it done, and Israel, while a thorn in the side, is not the pariah. They will allow Israel and USA airspace and then, of course, condemn it in the open media. We know this. Anyone with half a brain knows this…..the Arab world is scared to death over Iran and it DOES NOT WANT Iran to be the new IMAM.
I commend Israel and the USA for not bombing and leave it to the region. Everyone knows that Iran is the hegmonic power of the East….almost greater than that of China….economics aside. Russia benefits greatly in an Iranian domination of the East. China cannot stop it…..and unless the Arab world in general stops Iran…..you will see that I was right. AND…..I am still forcasting a military takeover in Iran.
This is one thing that Wiki leaks HAS done….I dislike them…..but they have proved me correct so far…both on N Korea and Iran.
A little humor.
http://rightnetwork.com/posts/1001642388
I have exciting news to report! Apparently my little website is such a hit that I’ve acquired my very own trolls! And to think that up until recently, I didn’t even know that trolls were progressives who write nastygrams on conservative websites. I had always had a positive association to the word because I adored my little troll dolls as a child!
Generally, I just trash trolly comments. But I couldn’t resist responding to this “dude,” whom I’ll call Roger. I attempted to do the impossible: offer him a “teaching moment” — free of charge. Not surprisingly, Roger did a quick adios.
As you’ll see, Roger’s comments showcase the number one weapon in the progressive arsenal: shame. Leftists use ridicule as a type of stun gun, to try to immobilize conservatives into submission. This shaming has been on full, abhorrent display lately with the degradation of new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, for simply having human emotions.
Of course, Leftists’ Alinsky-like tactics are simply a smokescreen for the fact that Their Emperor Has No Clothes. Given that progressives themselves can’t explain or defend Obama’s behavior, they resort to schoolyard bully attacks.
Things that make ya go hmmmm…
On Stand Up For America – Open Thread for December 29, 2009 Post #15, there was an interesting discussion where BF was trying to explain to a reluctant Judy about how when you support the law, you support violence against yourself.
~Black Flag: – Judy, All Law is Violence. It is violent force to compel a person to obey an edict. There is no law in existence that does not use violent force to compel its obedience. Thus, whenever someone cries “There ought to be a law…” they are saying “We must use violence to stop that…”
~Judy: – But, you didn’t answer my question Flag, What would you do if anything happened to you or your family that required law to step in? I’m sure you wouldn’t take the ” Law ” into your hands would you? You once said, that if a person did anything to you or family, that you would let them be dealt with by the law. Are you changing your mind? Now you have me confused. No one is saying you have to use violence to enforce the law Flag, if there is, then by all means show me who they are. Not all people are violent.
~G-Man: – HI Judy! I got all your emails and will reply to them soon. I’ve been reading along all day today, and think I can help with you and Flags little discussion. First, when you read BF’s words, you must understand that he is sending a message. He uses the word “violence” different that most people could understand at it’s face. Go deeper into his message, and look past his words. I won’t attempt to speak on his behalf, but I do see his message rather clearly, look deeper my friend, it’s right there. G!
~Judy: – Hi G Well, maybe you can help me, because he’s a hard person to read sometimes, and I guess this is one of those times. I’m still waiting for an answer. As for those Emails, don’t worry, just when you get the time. Hope you’re doing good today.
~Bottom Line: – If you disobey the law, you are fined. If you don’t pay the fine, you are jailed. If you resist being jailed, you get shot, tazed, or just beaten into submission. Law = enforcement = Coercion = violence. Supporting law is supporting violence. Laws apply to everyone. Therefore, if you support the law, you are supporting coercion and violent acts against yourself. Does that help Judy? Like G-man, I don’t like speaking for someone else, but I think that’s what he meant. Sorry if I overstepped BF.
~Black Flag – No apology necessary. That is precisely what I was trying mumble 🙂
That is how and when my whole “Government = Law = Enforcement = Coercion = Violence” thing was born…which, as some of you already know, I have repeated many times since then(here and elsewhere). Flag, Kent, and myself have drilled this very concept into others on countless occasions, as well as the whole theft by proxy of government idea.
Not that this concept is unique to us, of course…It’s a common understanding of most Libertarians that government is coercive and entitlement programs are supported by theft of others. Maybe I’m nuts, but IF I DIDN’T KNOW BETTER, it seems to have made it’s way to those in the mainstream media. What I saw the other day on TV prompted me to wonder if we haven’t been an influence.
Saturday, I was watching the “Cashin’ In” segment of FOX’s show “The Cost Of Freedom” when something caught my attention. FOX Contributor “Jonathan Hoenig” was speaking in a manner that very much resembles the same message, ALMOST as if he’s been reading SUFA.
JONATHAN HOENIG: – “…Call it a universal care, call it whatever you want, it’s socialized care. They believe that you have a right to care. That right is paid for by someone else. And Mark, you’re right, it is force, that is the use of the government, that institutes that care…”
“…What unions do is appeal to government and use coercion and force…”
” …Lift your bottom line as interest rates rise. Buy (TBF)…”
(I especially liked that last comment, …not that it has anything to do with it, but I had to include it. lol)
Here is the link to the video of the segment and transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/cost-of-freedom/transcript/cashin/code-blue-private-care
Oh for crying out loud not this again. You and your thinking Fox News is reading SUFA. Right back to Gretchen’s skirt aren’t you?
Kathy,
Honestly, I could care less about her skirt. I just think it’s funny how the camera man always angles the camera at just the perfect angle so that if there’s gonna be a shot, he’s gonna catch it. And being a man, of course I’m going to notice the camera angle. And you know she knows he’s doing it. Do you remember that video I posted of her busting him?
Also, I notice that she tends to keep her legs crossed and avoids changing positions since I posted that panty-shot youtube video.
As for FOX folks reading SUFA…
When they’re reporting on the same topics as we’re discussing here, I don’t even consider it as evidence that they’re reading along. I just dismiss it as the national conversation, typical of what EVERYONE is talking about. And half the time, USW uses FOX as a reference, so OF COURSE it’s gonna be the same topic.
That’s not what catches my attention.
What gets me is when, during the dialog, they’ll say something that closely resembles a point made in here, and sometimes it’s almost word for word. But it’s usually so subtle that it’s hard to really say whether it came from SUFA or not.
I’m usually pretty attentive, and have an excellent memory…photographic at times. I will read something here, then a week later, hear someone on FOX say almost the very same thing. I can’t help but to wonder.
And here’s another thing, I don’t watch FOX a lot. Well, I do, but it’s[TV] usually muted or turned down real low, and on just for background effect. I don’t really even like TV. I just like the scenery of all those beautiful, intelligent, exquisite women. The only time I turn it up is usually when I see something interesting on. I admit though, I do turn up the volume when Shannon Bream is on air. I dunno why, but I just like her voice. I guess it’s because it’s very feminine and has a soothing effect.
Anyway, I don’t watch them all of the time, and if I am able to make notes of them echoing SUFA with such frequency(every couple of weeks), then it only supports the notion that some of them are reading. It’s somewhat consistent, almost pattern-like.
Most of the “personalities” at FOX are probably pretty busy people and may not have time to read SUFA all day. It could be that some of the support staff is reading SUFA and relaying it somehow. Perhaps one of them reads, sees a good point being made, and decides to incorporate it into what’s being aired. I’ve worked in broadcasting. I know people that work in broadcasting now. I know how it operates. It’s not so hard to believe if you think about it.
And as I understand it, some here are connected to some influential circles. It’s a small world and there are a lot of people that visit SUFA. Hell, even little ol’ nobody me is indirectly connected to famous people. Someone I’ve known all my life happens to have two household name rock stars for parents. I won’t say who, but you’ve heard of them, I’m sure. And my name is uncommon enough to where if I share it with someone, they’re definitely a relative, …which means I have a distant relative who’s a former member of congress. Imagine that! And I’m an absolute nobody.
Other than what I read here, I don’t know you from eve, Kathy. For all I know, you ARE Gretchen Carlson. I’m not saying you are, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Like I said, it’s a small world.
Then again, you do exhibit the same ambiance’ of propriety as she does. I notice how you’re the one that usually reacts/responds when I talk about FOX. I notice how you got all annoyed and called me arrogant when I called them FAUX and got critical about them being unfair and imbalanced. You almost sounded defensive…as if I were being critical of YOUR professionalism.(joke) 😉
And if FOX people ARE reading, then they know I’m catching it. If I were them, I wouldn’t be able to resist messing with me.
I should just shut up now, before I dig myself any deeper into a hole of ridiculousness. I could easily be wrong.
Alright, you caught me!
I’m actually Megyn Kelly.
😎
Well then, I must compliment you on your recent GQ photo shoot. It turned out REALLY nice.
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&expIds=17259,18167,25907,26428,27642,27744,27797&sugexp=leprodeca4&xhr=t&q=megyn+kelly+gq&cp=14&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=vi&biw=1280&bih=575
I don’t suppose you could convince your colleagues to follow suit could you?
They should do a FOX news women calender and sell them, give the proceeds to charity.
🙂
Yep, that’s me. Can you see my baby bump there? (or the little parasite if you are Matt)
Nope. Not at all.
Of course, even I could,(Just in case she’s reading)I’d say…
Nope. Not at all.
That’s like the “Do I look fat in this?” question.
I know better.
ALRIGHTY THEN! Kathy is really Gretchen! Coool..and so it begins
Actually Kathy should be Greta..big cheesehead and all…. 🙂
Anita,
Of course she isn’t, hence the use of “(joke)”, …but for all we know, she is a relative, family friend, former classmate, etc. It could happen.
Are you familiar with the concept of Six degrees of separation?
From wikipedia: Six degrees of separation (also referred to as the “Human Web”) refers to the idea that everyone is on average approximately six steps away from any other person on Earth, so that a chain of, “a friend of a friend” statements can be made, on average, to connect any two people in six steps or fewer.
It’s a small world. I’ve seen stranger things.
I’ll tell you a little story…When I was in the service years ago, I was walking out of a store with a girl I was dating at the time, and one of my shipmates from Ft. Wayne, In.. He was telling her that his dad went to high school with actress Shelly Long. I remember my aunt mentioning the same thing once while watching an episode of “Cheers.” So I told him this, and we naturally wondered if my aunt knew his dad.
About two weeks later on Thanksgiving, I called home to say hello to family. They passed the phone around, and when I got to my aunt, I discovered that not only did she know his dad, but had dated his uncle.
It is indeed a small world after all. We’re all connected within a chain of association of six people or less.
Cool story..Closest I come to fame is sharing the neighborhood with 3 NBA stars..John Long and his nephews Grant Long and Terry Mills. I can say I personally pressed shirts & pants for John. 🙂 Still see them around today..Nice family!
See, you know celebs.
It’s not so strange when you put it into perspective.
My grandfather used to hang out with Muhammad Ali at the boys club in Louisville where he got his start. He was a little younger than my grandfather, so it’s not like they were close, but they did cross paths.
For several years, I went to school with a girl that grew up next door to Tom Cruise.
She sat behind me and I could hear her talking all about some guy she knew named Tommy one morning. Then I heard her mention that it was Tom Cruise.
I turned around, gave her a look of disbelief, and called her out as being full of it. She adamantly stuck with her claim that she knew him personally in spite of my ridicule.
I about shit when she came into class the next day with a big stack of photos of her and her family with the Cruise family hanging out together.
Imagine that. Small world.
🙂
RAY HAWKINS
Re: Congressional Income….outside sources. I found the following posted on Google Answers to a question in 2002. Thought you would find it interesting.
“The 2002 pay rate for members of congress is $150,000 per year. Rate
for Leaders is $161,200 per year; Rate for Speaker is $186,300 per
year.
In addition to their salary –
“Members of Congress are also allowed to make an additional maximum 15
percent of their salary from outside sources, like speaking, legal
practice and consulting. In addition, they are allowed unlimited
income from book royalties.”
They also receive retirement and health benefits the same as any other
government employee.”
The value of the retirement and health benefits should be about the same for high end federal employees. The only difference is that Congressmen get to access their retirement much sooner than regular employees.
I also found a story about the number of millionairs in the Senate. At the time, also 2002, there were about 20 Republicans and 18 Democrats, although the wealthiest were two Democrats. John Kerry being number one.
If you have any doubt they have access to additional income just think of the Ketchup queen living on a Senator’s salary and her fees from charity boards of directors. 🙂 🙂
any sci-fi fans out there? well this one is interesting. In the odd world of web-comics (comic strips printed exclusively on the internet with varying degrees of fan bases) an idea was born. What if a machine could tell you how you would die and nothing else, no details at all, and no date or time.
“But the machine was frustratingly vague in its predictions: dark, and seemingly delighting in the ambiguities of language. OLD AGE, it had already turned out, could mean either dying of natural causes, or shot by a bedridden man in a botched home invasion. The machine captured that old-world sense of irony in death — you can know how it’s going to happen, but you’ll still be surprised when it does.”
So the book is a collection of stories made by normal people like us that submitted their chapter over the internet. The intention of the book is just to share the story, they even put up a free download so people don’t even have to buy the book. So the book launches and they are excited it made #1 on Amazon that day.
Except someone else released a book that same day GLENN BECK. Apparently he threw a little hissy fit on the radio that his book wasn’t #1 and mentions that he thinks it is a message from the left.
Glenn Beck:
“And then, the #1 book — TODAY, at least — is Machine of Death. And it’s a — collected stories about, you know, people who know how they’re gonna die. Haowww!
So you have DEATH — I know it’s called Life(Life was the name of another book ahead of his), but what a life it is, really! It’s a culture of death! OR, “How do we restore ourselves?”
These are the — this is the left, I think, speaking. This is the left. You want to talk about where we’re headed? We’re headed towards a culture of death. A culture that, um, celebrates the things that have destroyed us. Not that the Rolling Stones have destroyed us — I mean, you can’t always get what you want. You know what I’m saying? Brown sugar. I have no idea what that means.”
Just pointing this out because I know our friends on the left will think that it is funny Beck would have thought this. Anyway, I have been reading the free download, pretty good stuff. http://machineofdeath.net/about
Buck the Wala said
December 1, 2010 at 7:25 pm
I’d be curious – on what issue, specifically, do you believe Mathius and I to be brainwashed? How so?
It just seems that so often we hear how we must be brainwashed, or are being tricked by the media, or do not get it, or some other variation when we disagree. This is a pretty condescending attitude to take in the face of disagreement on a given issue.
Now excuse me while I go enjoy my kool aid. Ah! So Refreshing! You really should try some.
Buck,
Sorry if I am coming of wrong, I do not mean to disparage you or our other left leaning friends. I have strong feelings on how the MSM is using it’s power and position to advance an agenda. Maybe brainwashed is the wrong term, would it be better to say you are being played? Above I asked if you have ever been lied to?
Have you ever watched a news report that stated something as being true or a fact, and later found it to be false? Remember all three networks “reporting” scientist predict an ice free North Pole this summer? It didn’t happen, again.
Specific issues I think you have been played on:
Palin (194 to 14)
AGW
The issue with both is not if you are correct or me, but if both side have been given balanced reporting by the media. First, why was the media constantly comparing Palin to Obama? They kept talking about his/her experience and skipped over McCain, the guy running for President. Do you know about Obama getting his opponent disqualified to win his seat in IL? If you did know this, it didn’t come from any of the coverage of the presidential race. The media controlled the debate. They talked about Biden’s experience on foreign policy, but didn’t mention how many times he was wrong(check his voting record).
Global warming, where have you gotten most of your information from? Al Gore recently admitted his support of ethanol was to get re-elected by TN farmers, not that it would have any positive impact on reducing greenhouse gasses.
Have I been lied to by the media in the past? Sure. I’ve never argued that the media is not slanted in its coverage. Its just a question of degree.
But I don’t get my information from the MSM and then say, ok, now I’m done! I read up on what I hear, much as I’m sure you do. I think and analyze, much as you do. Then I get to a different conclusion from your own.
On your specific issues where you believe I have been played – not at all.
Take Palin for instance: just because there have been a ton more stories on her than Obama does not mean that is the reason why I do not support her. I do not support her because 1) I do not agree with her on the issues and 2) because I seriously doubt she has any real grasp on what the issues are nor the ability to analyze the issues. This is not because the media told me so, but because I have heard her speak, listened to her interviews, etc. etc. etc.
Once again, reaching a different conclusion does not make me ‘played’ or ‘brainwashed’ or a product of the lies you believe I’ve been told. It just means I reached a different conclusion.
Buck,
What are your main issues? Can we compare Palin and Obama on a few of them, and see how that comes out? I would suggest healthcare & the economy(abortion if you feel lucky).
This should be interesting – would love to play along as well…..
Definitely could be very intersting. At the moment I’m under a pile of work, so unfortunately this may be very slow in the making.
Choose your weapon (topic), sir! I would be fine with abortion as that is always a hot-button issue, so long as people can keep emotion out of it.
Before we begin though, on an aside to Truthseeker below, I have never argued that Obama was the most qualified to be President. The media didn’t tell me otherwise. Palin may have more governing experience in the loosest sense of the word but come on, its Alaska for crying out loud! 🙂
Leaving emotion out of it-May well be the problem 🙂 but I am going to shut up now and get my popcorn.
Don’t eat microwave popcorn as the paper has been treated with perfluorooctanoic acid to not allow oil seepage and it has been identified in the human bloodstream! Don’t cook your popcorn in a non-stick pan either as it has been treated as well!
Read that too. What next?
Don’t mess with the Jiffy Pop..Please!
Buck,
Will try to keep this short as well.
Topic #1 Abortion
Palin is personally pro-choice but has both shown and indicated she would not use her position to force her beliefs on others.
Obama has used his position to try to expand abortion. He has been a strong supporter of partial-birth abortion, has opposed laws requiring medical treatment of babies born alive after PBA.
I give points to Palin for not trying to force her beliefs on the public.
Thanks for keeping it short. And I really do apologize about not having nearly enough time to spend to this today, as it promises to be a hell of a lot more fun than drafting some corporate documents…
Regarding Palin and abortion:
1) She is pro-life, not pro-choice
2) She supports the repeal of Roe v. Wade
These are her positions on the topic. How do you then reach the conclusion that she would not try to force her beliefs in this arena on the public? She would clearly support legislation limiting the reaches of Roe v. Wade and limiting women’s free choice. This would have the impact of ‘forcing her beliefs on the public’.
No candidate, Obama nor anyone else, who is pro-choice could possibly force their beliefs on the public, as no one would be forced into obtaining an abortion. Pro-choice is just that: choice. However, pro-life (and Palin) in either eradicating Roe v. Wade or supporting legislation to further limit the availability of abortion would necessarily be forcing their beliefs by imposing on another individuals’ choice.
Damn. Faulty memory needs to be re-booted or something.
“She is on record as favoring the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which would send the issue back to each state.”
And that’s were I usually end up, wanting each state to decode. Let people vote with their feet.
And I agree, Obama is not trying to force anyone to have an abortion. He has/will try to expand abortion. Planned Parenthood gets fed funding and only councils young girls to have abortions. This has been exposed by whistleblowers. PPH does not make money on adoption, so they, and our government push abortion.
Obama wants more of this.
@LOI
“He has/will try to expand abortion.”
I guess when we lack facts we make shit up?
Has Obama expanded abortion? No.
Will Obama expand abortion? Can you please explain to the audience how, with a GOP-controlled House, this will happen?
Ray, you do me a disservice. I may be wrong, but I am not making up stories. Back on you to show where I am wrong.
Seems your usual tactic is to discredit my source? Sorry if I have pre-judged you.
Ray is completely right on this one — where is your ‘proof’, your ‘evidence’, to reach the conclusion that Obama is expanding abortion in this country?
As far as repealing Roe and letting each state decide for itself: do you really believe this to be a real solution?
Topic #2, the economy.
Obama pushed TARP, & the Stimulus, saying they would help the economy and increase employment. It has not worked. He has stated he would impose more taxes on the rich, even though it would result in less revenue for the government, because it would make things more fair. Very plain and simple, he values income redistribution(buying votes) more than he values jobs and the economy.
Palin as governor was a fiscal conservative, and improved Alaska’s economy and jobs. She has advocated policies nationally that would stimulate both.
@LOI – try some Googleness on Palin and oil companies up in Alaska. In her limited time in office she championed an increase in taxes on the oil companies so that income could be directly re-distributed to Alaskan residents. I guess it isn’t Socialism if a Republican/Conservative does it eh?
uhh, Alaska owns that land from which the oil is taken. Thus the citizens of Alaska share in the rewards of their state.
Big difference.
@Kathy – let me make sure I have this right – land that is owned by the Government (Federal, State or Local) is the same as land owned by the citizens. Any revenue generated from that land is taxable and should be, at least partially, returned to the citizens in the form of a check. Did I get that right?
SO WHERE THE HELL IS MY CHECK? I’d venture a guess there are billions of dollars in revenue generated from both Federal lands and the State of PA – how come I haven’t seen a check yet?
The Alaska deal was still income redistribution no matter what.
Ray
Alaska, like many western States, is dominated by Federal lands. Lands that were presumed would be transferred to the States just like happened with all the other states when they became States.
Because the Feds decided to keep most of Alaska it failed to meet its obligations of the statehood compact. The US had demanded Alaska sustain itself economically. Then it locked up the land base they needed to sustain itself.
So in some respects, Alaska is like a great big Reservation with the Feds acting as trustee over much of it.
I don’t understand your claim of redistribution but I hope I shed some light on why Alaskans, and other States get royalties and PILT payments from the Federal Govt.
You must also remember that much of the money given Alaskans comes from State land receipts, it is not just the Federal lands.
@JAC – the taxes levied on the oil companies are merely passed down the value chain so Alaskans get cut a check. Its just a different way of re-distributing income and unseen elsewhere as far as I am aware. I most certainly do not get a check from the State of Pennsylvania or the Untied States Government for fees collected from State and Federal Parks for example.
Understand that my major gripe here is a former Governor-elect pointing and screaming “Socialism” when her own back yard isn’t exactly clean.
Have you read Going Rogue? An entire chapter is devoted to the behind the scenes shinanigans of the Murkowski administration’s relationship with Big Oil. Palin’s camp came up with this proposal.
From the book:
I(Palin) presented ACES Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share. It presented a major philosophical shift in the role of government. The proposal would provide more value to Alaskans when the price of oil was high but would provide substantial relief to the oil companies when the prices fell. Of course I took political hits as the oil companies launched a smear campaign that we were raising taxes on industry.
I thought you said you had read her book? If you did you would know where she is coming from.
I have read the book Anita – nice try at a slam.
How about you explain to everyone here who really pays for the net profits tax that puts money in the pockets of Alaskans?
The fact is that production post-ACES is still in decline. So even though the limited tax credits in ACES were trumpeted by the Gorilla from Wasilla as helping the industry – the fact is they have not had the impact promised.
Its ridiculous that you’d quote Palin as the justification as to why this was not the very Socialism this dipshit decries.
Bah humbug!
I’m not going to play blow for blow Ray. You won’t quit no matter what so I did my best to answer you..now I’m done.
Have a good one!
Thanks Anita – please don’t fill my stocking with coal ok?
Ray,
I have some issues with Palin, but if you compare her economic policy with Obama’s, who comes out looking better?
How many things has Obummer got wrong or lied to us about that affect the economy? Are everyone’s health cost staying the same or going down? Has he stopped lobbyist and Wallstreet insiders from commanding key positions?
The issue here is does the American public see Palin as unqualified because the media
portrays her so, and Obama as a savy money manager because Katie Couric says so?
LOI – how much have you read about ACES (as an example) in the MSM? Little to none I would expect.
Does the American public see Obama as a savvy money manager because of something Katie Couric said? I think the answer to that is a resounding NO. Most every poll I have seen or heard tells us the complete opposite.
Does the American public see Palin as unqualified because of the media. Most certainly most do – but that’s like saying does the American public see the sky as blue because the media says so – something are too smack-you-in-the-face obvious.
Next point please……
😉
Ray,
Are you OK with being played by the media? As posted above, they reported 194 negative stories on Palin’s N/S Korea slip. Obama got 14 negatives for his 57 states.
I have not researched ACES, nor read Rogue. I think an apple to apple comparison of Obama and Palin will show she has a better grasp of economics. You have posted some negatives on Palin, but skip how her state’s economy performed under her. And how is the US doing under Obama? Dazzle us with his play!
I call foul! Sorry but I decry the use of Alaska as an example of how a state’s economy performes under anyone – Dem or GOP – due to such things as ACES and its citizens getting paid a check by the oil companies to live there.
LOI
I know Ray is a big boy and can defend himself, but in his defense he has repeatedly criticized Mr. Obama.
I seem to recall he even admitted being fooled by the guy.
@LOI – let me help you out here – neither one has a very good grasp of economics. Fair enough? And to be fair – comparing the Alaskan economy to the U.S. or Global economy is like comparing Community Organizing to the Presidency of the United States. 😉
Buck: “because I seriously doubt she has any real grasp on what the issues are nor the ability to analyze the issues. This is not because the media told me so, but because I have heard her speak, listened to her interviews, etc. etc. etc.”
Using your logic, didn’t you support Obama? Can you please tell me how you new he had any real grasp and ability to analyze the issues? Palin has more experience than Obama does when it comes to managing and governance yet Palin is made out to have less credentials. Obama didn’t run anything. But the media told you otherwise. Who do you think writes what he says?
Please forgive me “new” (knew) typo.
DANGIT!
Since propoganda is distributed information used to sway and coerce a persons thought process would it be feasible that we are all brainwashed to some degree since Man can only form opinion based upon the knowledge he is exposed to?
Throughout American history the democrats and republicans have played good cop/bad cop with our society.Both seemingly working towards the same end goal, albeit at different rates.Have you ever asked yourself: “What is their common purpose?”
I research a lot of topics that most people find boring or of no consequence since they are not directly affected…yet.
I have been struggling as of late with a dilemma.The American media is owned, ran and therefore seemingly manipulated by people of Jewish heritage.All of it.In fact the majority of the worlds media is.Now if politicians play good cop/bad cop with the minds of our society wouldn’t another tool of this manipulation be the media?
With the media playing to both the interest spectrums of left and right then the moderate thought process is brought into the picture by proxy and you have the ability to expose the majority of society to an issue…such as terrorism/Islam/homosexuality.The determination of right/wrong of an issue can then be determined if an incident occurs (or is staged) that sheds that issue in a negative or positive light in order to accomplish some given goal. (9-11) (Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan engagement)
You can’t help but wonder whats going to happen next in the chain of world events.I am no conspiracy theorist by any means and I could possibly be just playing with your minds but – hopefully this can allow some of you to think out of the box in a different manner than what you are accustomed to!
Tex,
What I have found on the media is they are strongly influenced by socialist/marxists. Some of it pre-dates WW2.
Unholy Alliance by David Horowitz cover some if it. They are openly operating in our universities, and have influenced much of our media.
To Buck,
I agree that just because your conclusion is different does not mean you are wrong, but when it is opposite of my conclusion, it means that one of us has to be. 🙂
To Matt,
I am not forgetting you guys start from a different place, in fact, that is my point. It is that starting place that I call in question, and it is that starting place that people are referencing when they ask if you are brainwashed. I know you and Buck are way above being brainwashed by the MSM on specific issues. I would be more likely to ask if you were brainwashed by the education system to buy into things like Altruism, Keynesian economics, Socialism, etc.
For instance, I care a great deal about other people, in a way, I do feel an obligation. However, I find that my obligation is to create the best possible situation for people. I see the effect of Altruism and I see the effect of Freedom and freedom is better for people. It is actually, for me, a result of starting from the same point of caring about all people, including myself, and finding that freedom is better, even tho it is more risky. Freedom is not better for all individuals, because freedom comes with risk, but Altruism is definitely worse for all individuals, because it comes at such a heavy cost on the resources and the minds of people.
JAC, I am looking forward to You and Buck’s game also. 🙂
Re your comment to Buck:
Not necessarily. Is chocolate better than vanilla? You and I might disagree, but that doesn’t make one of us wrong. We have the same data, different starting points, different conclusions, but we can both be right. (adding, chocolate cake is better than vanilla, vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate).
Re your comment to me:
You allege that “freedom is better.” While I reject the implication that my system is not “free,” but rather just a little less free, I disagree with your conclusion (of course I do). Better for whom? Better for you? Better for me? Maybe, but is it better for those who are the most needy and vulnerable? Probably not. You acknowledged this above. So by what metric is “freedom” better?
And can we call it something other than “freedom”? It’s somewhat unfair to name your system after something we all support. I will call my (progressive) system “caring about the less fortunate”, thus arguing against it, you must argue against caring about the less fortunate. Minor point, I know, but definition of terms is important.
You are correct on chocolate and Vanilla in some cases. For instance, you might say Palin is incompetent. Others might say Obama is incompetent. In fact, both are incompetent, it is not one or the other.
However, in cases of opposites, such as:
“Free markets are worse for the poor” vs. “Free markets are better because it is a rising economic tide that raises all ships”
or
“Progressivism is more caring of people because it looks out for the less fortunate” vs. “Progressivism is uncaring because it kills the human spirit and creates dependency while slowing economic growth, in the end all are worse than before, despite a smaller rich/poor gap, and it passes the buck of caring to the government from the individual”
Those things are not chocolate and vanilla, they can not both exist as true. They could, perhaps, both be wrong, but most likely there would be some truth of one of those statements.
Per your argument about “freedom”, that is a fair criticism. I can agree that your ideas are “less free”, just as mine are “less free” than, say, Black Flag’s. And I also see your point about naming something in a way that makes it impossible to argue against without demonizing yourself. So, let us call it something else. I don’t want to say “capitalism” because that has associations and was coined as a criticism. “Free market system” works but includes that whole “free” wording. I would say that in general less regulation is better, what can we agree on to call what I support? Libertarianism?
Now, I DO think that my system is better for those less fortunate as a whole, because the overall impact benefits the most people, even among the poor. Of course, that is theory, just as your ideas are. The application of my ideas has rarely been implemented on a large scale, and when it has it was done badly. Same with your ideas, the USSR, for instance, was an extreme and badly done version of looking out for the little guy. Still, I think what application I do have of my ideas beats yours. 😀
Jon: “However, in cases of opposites, such as:
“Free markets are worse for the poor” vs. “Free markets are better because it is a rising economic tide that raises all ships”
or
“Progressivism is more caring of people because it looks out for the less fortunate” vs. “Progressivism is uncaring because it kills the human spirit and creates dependency while slowing economic growth, in the end all are worse than before, despite a smaller rich/poor gap, and it passes the buck of caring to the government from the individual”
Those things are not chocolate and vanilla, they can not both exist as true. They could, perhaps, both be wrong, but most likely there would be some truth of one of those statements.”
Nope, sorry. It is not most likely there is some truth to one of the statements. There is some truth to BOTH of the statements, because statements like that are completely biased and open-ended to begin with.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Fox News has given a reporting gig to Doug McKelway, a former ABC anchor for the network’s D.C. affiliate.
McKelway took heat from higher-ups after accurately reporting on President Obama’s ties to oil giant BP and on the inevitable effects of the president’s proposed energy policies (higher electricity rates). McKelway was fired after a confrontation with the ABC affiliate’s news director Bill Lord.
As the Post reported it:
WJLA fired McKelway after a verbal confrontation this summer with the station’s news director, Bill Lord. The run-in followed McKelway’s coverage of a Capitol Hill protest by environmental and religious groups that were protesting oil-industry contributions to elected officials.
McKelway focused his coverage on Democrats, reporting that the protest “may be a risky strategy because the one man who has more campaign contributions from BP than anybody else in history is now sitting in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama.”
Lord questioned McKelway’s reporting and asked to meet with him. A shouting match between the men ensued, leading to McKelway’s suspension. He was eventually terminated for what the station called insubordination and misconduct.
McKelway has been critical of what he views as liberal favoritism in TV news reporting. When he left WRC/Channel 4 after nine years to join WJLA in 2001, he said in a newspaper article that the station’s reporting often lacked “balance.”
And the station went right ahead and proved him right by reprimanding him for reporting the truth. McKelway’s comments about BP’s contributions to Obama’s campaign were right on, and Obama himself had admitted that under his cap and trade plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
Hopefully Fox lets McKelway report facts like these without reservation.
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/12/01/fnc-picks-former-abc-anchor-fired-after-noting-obama-bp-connecrtions#ixzz16xxGEQME
@USW………Adrenaline rush Tuesday….several of us in a five helicopter flyover of remote regions on the Texas border….low level flights covered by higher level flight of…well, let us just say….we were covered. The front three choppers have a total of 64 holes in them fired from Mexico into US Airspace. My own chopper hit four times….return fire silenced the ambush…but the fact remains….Mexico has lost control. We can easily see the lines of the cartels vs the Mexican Army. Anti armor weaponry, anti aircraft weaponry, helicopter assets, automatice weapons and bunkers….all for the CARTELS. Entire towns on the border evacuated and residents have left their homes. THe Mexican Army has attacked several areas only to be repulsed. They have lost armored vehicles and had two helicopters shot down already. The cartels shot at us and we were on the US side. MAN….what a rush and wishing I was not 62 years old…my helicopter crew was a well trained combat veteran crew and easily dodged more hits… But what a rush….greater than a Red Bull 40 ounce chug followed by a DP I.V. Just the combat DNA in me getting a small lift. Closest round was about 18 inches away but was sitting on armored plating and flak vested.
The Mexican Government did file a protest over our return fire into Mexico. We, of course, told them to go to hell, do not pass go, and do not collect $200. We are turning the refugees back at the border by the tens of thousands and insisting the Mexican Government take care of their own and Mexico is filing protests over that. So, Texas is doing our own thing and a Federal judge has indicated that she will have to become involved and Gov Perry said…go ahead…we will not listen to that either. So, the gauntlet has been thrown…….come on Feds.
Our Gov is also the main speaker at the Gov convention and he is a very strong states rights advocate.
SOOOOO…WIKILEAKS…..are you reading? Where are the documents that have been written to the government concerning the Texas border? Or is your agenda that same as………………………….BO? The destruction of the United States, as we know it?
Will be going back down there in a couple of days.
OMG! That’s Awesome but very scary! YOU CONTINUE TO BE MY HERO D13! Best of luck to all of you warriors down there. Don’t come up missing without our permission or you’ll have a pack of SUFAS on an amber alert for our very own D13! Now that’s a good reason for a SUFA gathering!
Glad to hear you made it out alive! I hope you took a few of them out on your fly-by 🙂
Hmmmmm….took em out……we are not allowed to cross the border…I can report that the area that the firing came from….stopped abruptly.
Oh man, be safe D13! You have my heart pumping now…..
😉
You will be going back-I will be praying!
Did you have to let anyone touch your junk before you got in the helicopter?
Inquiring minds want to know…..
Only Matt…could come up with that question….only Matt….but there are several things that Colonel’s do not have to do and unauthorized touching of my junk is one of them.
@D13 – what do you mean that the Mexicans filed a protest? Reason I ask is that at some point there has to be enough of a bread crumb trail that the dipshits in the media have no choice but to report it. I just don’t get it.
Be safe sir!
And kick some ass please.
Buck the Wala, Mathius, LOI, and all other victims of BRAINWASHING.
I would like to explore the proposition that Mathius and Buck, or anyone here for that matter, have been “brain washed” with regard to their general value system or on particular issues. I think the rabbit is worth chasing because I see the arrogant intellectuals on the Left throwing this accusation at the right, especially the tea party, far more than in the past.
So in this respect, Buck’s response yesterday, and again today, that “coming to a different” conclusion is not evidence of “brain washing” is appropriate. And of course, it applies to everyone equally.
Lets take a look at what the term means in the world of academia. The following is a definition and discussion from Wikipedia.
“Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual “systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated”.[1] The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual’s sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making.
Theories of brainwashing and of mind control were originally developed to explain how totalitarian regimes appeared to succeed in systematically indoctrinating prisoners of war through propaganda and torture techniques. These theories were later expanded and modified, by psychologists including Margaret Singer, to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions to new religious movements (NRMs). A third-generation theory proposed by Ben Zablocki focused on the utilization of mind control to retain members of NRMs and cults to convert them to a new religion. The suggestion that NRMs use mind control techniques has resulted in scientific and legal controversy. Neither the American Psychological Association nor the American Sociological Association have found any scientific merit in such theories.[2]
The Oxford English Dictionary records its earliest known English-language usage of “brainwashing” in an article by Edward Hunter in New Leader published on 7 October 1950. During the Korean War, Hunter, who worked at the time both as a journalist and as a US intelligence agent, wrote a series of books and articles on the theme of Chinese brainwashing.[3]
The Chinese term 洗腦 (xǐ năo, literally “wash brain”)[citation needed] was originally used to describe methodologies of coercive persuasion used under the Maoist regime in China, which aimed to transform individuals with a reactionary imperialist mindset into “right-thinking” members of the new Chinese social system.[4] To that end the regime developed techniques that would break down the psychic integrity of the individual with regard to information processing, information retained in the mind and individual values. Chosen techniques included dehumanizing of individuals by keeping them in filth, sleep deprivation, partial sensory deprivation, psychological harassment, inculcation of guilt and group social pressure.[citation needed] The term punned on the Taoist custom of “cleansing/washing the heart” (洗心, xǐ xīn) prior to conducting certain ceremonies or entering certain holy places.
Hunter and those who picked up the Chinese term used it to explain why, unlike in earlier wars, a relatively high percentage of American GIs defected to the enemy side after becoming prisoners-of-war. It was believed that the Chinese in North Korea used such techniques to disrupt the ability of captured troops to effectively organize and resist their imprisonment.[5] British radio operator Robert W. Ford[6][7] and British army Colonel James Carne also claimed that the Chinese subjected them to brainwashing techniques during their war-era imprisonment.
After the war, two studies of the repatriation of American prisoners of war by Robert Lifton[8] and by Edgar Schein[9] concluded that brainwashing (called “thought reform” by Lifton and “coercive persuasion” by Schein) had a transient effect. Both researchers found that the Chinese mainly used coercive persuasion to disrupt the ability of the prisoners to organize and maintain morale and hence to escape. By placing the prisoners under conditions of physical and social deprivation and disruption, and then by offering them more comfortable situations such as better sleeping quarters, better food, warmer clothes or blankets, the Chinese did succeed in getting some of the prisoners to make anti-American statements. Nevertheless, the majority of prisoners did not actually adopt Communist beliefs, instead behaving as though they did in order to avoid the plausible threat of extreme physical abuse. Both researchers also concluded that such coercive persuasion succeeded only on a minority of POWs, and that the end-result of such coercion remained very unstable, as most of the individuals reverted to their previous condition soon after they left the coercive environment. In 1961 they both published books expanding on these findings. Schein published Coercive Persuasion[10] and Lifton published Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism.[11] More recent writers including Mikhail Heller have suggested that Lifton’s model of brainwashing may throw light on the use of mass propaganda in other communist states such as the former Soviet Union.[12]
Mind-control theories from the Korean War era came under criticism in subsequent years. According to forensic psychologist Dick Anthony, the CIA invented the concept of “brainwashing” as a propaganda strategy to undercut communist claims that American POWs in Korean communist camps had voluntarily expressed sympathy for communism. Anthony stated that definitive research demonstrated that fear and duress, not brainwashing, caused western POWs to collaborate. He argued that the books of Edward Hunter (whom he identified as a secret CIA “psychological warfare specialist” passing as a journalist) pushed the CIA brainwashing theory onto the general public. He further asserted that for twenty years, starting in the early 1950s, the CIA and the Defense Department conducted secret research (notably including Project MKULTRA) in an attempt to develop practical brainwashing techniques, and that their attempt failed.[14]
The U.S. military and government laid charges of “brainwashing” in an effort to undermine detailed confessions made by U.S. military personnel to war crimes, including biological warfare, against the Koreans. (The United States and Biological Warfare: Secrets From the Early Cold War, by Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman at York University, Toronto; Indiana University Press, 1998).
An expanding concept
Mind control is a general term for a number of controversial theories proposing that an individual’s thinking, behavior, emotions or decisions can, to a greater or lesser extent, be manipulated at will by outside sources. According to sociologist James T. Richardson, some of the concepts of brainwashing have spread to other fields and are applied “with some success” in contexts unrelated to the earlier cult controversies, such as custody battles and child sexual abuse cases, “where one parent is accused of brainwashing the child to reject the other parent, and in child sex abuse cases where one parent is accused of brainwashing the child to make sex abuse accusations against the other parent”.[43][44]
Stephen A. Kent analyzes and summarizes the use of the brainwashing meme by non-sociologists in the period 2000-2007, finding the term useful not only in the context of “New Religions/Cults”, but equally under the headings of “Teen Behavior Modification Programs; Terrorist Groups; Dysfunctional Corporate Culture; Interpersonal Violence; and Alleged Chinese Governmental Human Rights Violations Against Falun Gong”.[45]”
Here is a discussion about how brainwashing works. From Discovery Health.
“Brainwashing Techniques
In the late 1950s, psychologist Robert Jay Lifton studied former prisoners of Korean War and Chinese war camps. He determined that they’d undergone a multistep process that began with attacks on the prisoner’s sense of self and ended with what appeared to be a change in beliefs. Lifton ultimately defined a set of steps involved in the brainwashing cases he studied:
1. Assault on identity
2. Guilt
3. Self-betrayal
4. Breaking point
5. Leniency
6. Compulsion to confess
7. Channeling of guilt
8. Releasing of guilt
9. Progress and harmony
10. Final confession and rebirth
Each of these stages takes place in an environment of isolation, meaning all “normal” social reference points are unavailable, and mind-clouding techniques like sleep deprivation and malnutrition are typically part of the process. There is often the presence or constant threat of physical harm, which adds to the target’s difficulty in thinking critically and independently.
We can roughly divide the process Lifton identified into three stages: breaking down the self, introducing the possibility of salvation, and rebuilding the self.”
Here is the reference for the entire article which is a good description of the theories and application process. I urge everyone to read the entire article.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/perception/brainwashing4.htm
JAC’s conclusion: In the way that most people use the term brain washed I think it is fair to say that we ALL have been victim to the process at one time or another. However, the scientific, or clinical, term for what we mean is not clinically considered “brain washing”.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe it as “conditioning”, “manipulation” or “indoctrination”. As indicated in the following paragraph from the Discovery Health article, we are being subjected to some form of “social manipulation” on a daily basis.
“In psychology, the study of brainwashing, often referred to as thought reform, falls into the sphere of “social influence.” Social influence happens every minute of every day. It’s the collection of ways in which people can change other people’s attitudes, beliefs and behaviors. For instance, the compliance method aims to produce a change in a person’s behavior and is not concerned with his attitudes or beliefs. It’s the “Just do it” approach. Persuasion, on the other hand, aims for a change in attitude, or “Do it because it’ll make you feel good/happy/healthy/successful.” The education method (which is called the “propaganda method” when you don’t believe in what’s being taught) goes for the social-influence gold, trying to affect a change in the person’s beliefs, along the lines of “Do it because you know it’s the right thing to do.” Brainwashing is a severe form of social influence that combine¬s all of these approaches to cause changes in someone’s way of thinking without that person’s consent and often against his will.”
In summary and plain talk, the critical thing is that we do not keep open or closed minds but ACTIVE minds. It is only by the continued hard work of THINKING that we can guard ourselves against being manipulated by others, or of trying to live our lives filled with CONTRADICTIONS that can be destructive.
Now back to our regular programing.
Happy thoughts, happy thoughts, happy thoughts……………
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.
Mathius
And which Raymond Shaw are you referring to here?
The Google is your friend.
Mathius
Like I said, WHICH Raymond Shaw?
Obviously you didn’t know the movie character.
That leaves a landscaper and a physicist on the first page.
Ah…
No wait, you lost me.
Mathius
When I Googled Raymond Shaw, the first on the list was the character from Manchurian Candidate. That fit the discussion but I figured there is no way you know the guy personally.
The next on the list was a landscaping outfit owned by Raymond Shaw.
Next was a physicist, named Ramond Shaw.
These were the only three on the first Google page, I didn’t go further.
1. Assault on identity
2. Guilt
3. Self-betrayal
4. Breaking point
5. Leniency
6. Compulsion to confess
7. Channeling of guilt
8. Releasing of guilt
9. Progress and harmony
10. Final confession and rebirth
Sounds like a description of bootcamp!
Naaaahhhhhh..the only tactic I used as a TAC officer in OCS was number 4…..nothing else is needed.
Retracting brainwashing, insert being played.
Interesting thought I came across the other day.
When mankind was considered “uncivilized” all of us were equal in our rights and freedoms. We were relatively the same with respect to our “wealth” and condition of living. We existed in groups in order to improve our living conditions and survival.
When mankind became “civilized” the world was divided into those groups called wealthy and poor. For the first time we existed in groups based on our condition rather than our shared goals of accomplishment. For the first time in human history, we became either rulers or the ruled. Also for the first time, one group of humans lived in starvation and squalor so that the other group could live in luxury and comfort.
And what was the criteria used by historians in determining the break point between the “uncivilized” savage and the “civilized” man? It was the creation of “government”.
Now for 100,000 :)’s , who can identify the person that published this idea?
Knowing you JAC..probably Ayn Rand!
Anita
Sorry my dear, but NO!
🙂
Marx?
John Dryden?
Ghandi?
Sorry guys, nope, nope, and nope.
Lewis Henry Morgan?
Nope
Charles Dickens?
Giambattista Vico
Paul Gauguin?
Jesus?
Wolfi Landstreicher?
Henry David Thoreau?
Leo Tolstoy?
Elisee Reclus?
Henri Zisly ?
Emile Gravelle?
Federico Urales?
John Zerzan?
Derrick Jensen?
Kevin Tucker?
I’m getting “The Ten Commandments” and “the Mayflower Compact” up when googling……
Socrates? Yes, I’m guessing.
LOI,
That’s okay, I’m guessing too. But I think I may have given a list of many who have published such things.
I cheated and used a bunch of names from Wikipedia’s Anarcho-primitivism page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism
🙂
Rand or Ron Paul
Palin
EUREKA !!!!
Black Flag !
I’ll go with Jon Stewart Mill.
Man oh man, Bottom Line is sure a name dropper……….LOL.
BL…..The author wouldn’t be considered an Anarchist of any kind. But now I have a list of new people to research based on your guessing.
I paraphrased the idea considerably just to prevent The Google from being useful.
Anita: Good guess but wrong. But when I read the comment Black Flag immediately came to mind as well.
Hey JAC-Are you gonna give us the answer ? 🙂
V.H.
YES!
Okay one more guess-Kent
No wait-you said it wasn’t an anarchist
Did a Native American write the article?
V.H.
No……….he was a naturalized American, as well as a Brit and Frenchman. But he did refer to the Native American Indians as a prime example of “uncivilized” people who did not suffer the poverty of “civilized” people.
Thomas Paine
When I return from lunch I will try to post a more detailed account and explanation at the bottom on a new thread. Will be easier for everyone to find.
Until then
🙂
Can anyone show where ‘Codex Alimentarious’ prevents gardens or seed production? And not from a regurgitated secondary source.
Pse don’t take me wrong, I want no part of the Food Safety Bill. Maine already has enough problems with pesticide notification laws on top of all the other regulations that have shut Maine down and made Maine the worst state to do business in.
You may be able to find something at the official Codex Alimentarius site:
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp
I’m not sure, but I don’t think there’s any direct or specific ban on seeds, but rather broad power and much regulatory control over them, that they are essentially gonna regulate the hell outta farming and food production so that even the smallest of farmers cannot bypass regulation.
So if you turned your backyard into a small farm and tried to sell your excess to the local produce stand or neighbors without first clearing it with the federal government, you’d be committing a serious crime.
I think there is something about seed production that allows the big dogs to monopolize the market. I’m still researching it myself and will let you know if/when I find anything specific.
This is interesting.
Seed Industry Structure 1996 – 2008:
https://www.msu.edu/~howardp/seedindustry.pdf
That’s Capitalism at it’s best 🙂
OK Tnx!
Puritan,
I keep finding articles like the one I posted above, that all seem to say the same thing, that Monsanto is monopolizing the global food supply by patenting Genetically Modified seeds and making them the only ones available so that farmers have to buy new seeds every year.
I have yet to find a specific regulation stating that we can’t produce our own seeds.
I did find what seems to be a well written report full of good information. I haven’t read all of it yet. I only browsed through it.
The future of seeds and food under the growing threat of patents and market concentration:
http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/images/documents/report_future_of_seed_en.pdf
Tnx that is interesting. Especially where farmers have tried to replant the patented seeds. I would have thought they would not have been reliable to grow true to seed where they have been so altered over time. I saved many seeds from my heirloom garden crops this year. It will be intersting to see next year if they all grow true to seed or not. I know that apples don’t grow reliably true to seed and must be grafted onto a desirable rootstock for true reproduction. Maybe with apples there are no ture heirlooms left. Apples also do better with cross pollination while most garden crops seem to pollinate themselves just fine. I have grafted apple varieties using buds or whips with good results onto seedling rootstocks grown from seed. I had an apple nursery business but there was not enough interest to keep going.
Richmond Spitfire, Are you out there?
Talk of next Wikileak is info on “big bank” with BofA being mentioned. Can you give us any info (w/o jeopardizing job, of course) on what’s being talked about there?
Here you go Men of SUFA!
I’ve heard of the association between shoe size and ummm, well, “junk”, but never this one. Get your ring fingers out, because in the shoe/junk association, size doesn’t matter, right? But this one could have some effect on your health.
Dear Dr. Mirkin: How could finger length predict prostate
cancer risk?
Men with long ring fingers may be more likely to develop
prostate cancer, according to a study in the British Journal of
Cancer (December 2010). Researchers compared the hands of 1,500
prostate cancer patients and 3,000 healthy men and found that those
whose index finger was longer than their ring finger were 33 percent
less likely to develop prostate cancer. Finger length is set before
birth. A longer index finger is the result of exposure to lower
levels of testosterone in the uterus, which may protect against
cancer later in life.
Men with long ring fingers may be more likely to develop
prostate cancer, and men whose index finger was longer than their ring finger were 33 percent less likely to develop prostate cancer.
According to Spike channel’s show “Manswers”, a man’s index finger is generally shorter than the ring finger and a woman’s index finger is longer than her ring finger.
This is consistent with the above statement that… “A longer index finger is the result of exposure to lower levels of testosterone in the uterus, which may protect against
cancer later in life.”
So, does that mean that all/most men are likely to get prostate cancer?
Manswers – How Can You Tell if She’s Really a He? –
http://www.spike.com/video/how-can-you-tell-if/3050374
JAC – you might want to put your Linda/Larry through this Manswers test!
Kathy
I’m over Linda/Larry already.
Mad Mom for President.
CYA much..You’re just saying MadMom because we can’t argue with that choice! Now…..
Anita
I think Mad Mom would kick Palin and Baucman’s back sides in a live debate. I think she could take on Mr. Obama as well.
She was one of the most coherent and intelligent interviews I saw during this last years “political season”.
Be nice or I’ll nominate you for Sec of Treasury. I bet you got more real business experience that the Ass Clowns who run that place.
🙂 🙂
I’ll take Sec of Treasury. There wil be a sign posted on the door: GONE FISHIN! COME BACK WHEN I’M HERE. 🙂
Thank goodness for Jon Stewart!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/02/jon-stewart-food-safety-bill_n_790989.html
Saw that clip – absolutely fantastic!
Cheney and Bush may unfortunately never be arrested, tried, convicted and executed for crimes against humanity – but perhaps this is a suitable alternative.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11902489
I’m beginning to wonder if all the shit Glenn Beck cooks and stirs up should not be considered free speech but something closer to yelling “Fire” in a crowded movie theater. Maybe John Wu can help craft a legal theory around that.
With all apologies to the tin foil hat wearing crowd…….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/02/beck-wikileaks-soros-conspiracy_n_790914.html
I bought lunch today (chicken wrap), and the chicken was really chewy. It was quite disgusting, and I only had a few bites.
Soros was behind that too.
A questionable food safety bill in search of a crisis passed the Senate, but may hit a snag in the House. This power grab of the nation’s food supply may end up benefiting a certain Hungarian billionaire.
Why would the Senate take up precious time in the lame duck session considering a food safety bill?
The editorial continues discussing the process of how a bill becomes a law – at least the part we see. But the devil – and I mean the devil – is in the details and what happens behind the scenes. There has not been much transparency as we were promised and kudos to the staff at Investors business Daily for following the bread crumbs back to Soros.
One interesting feature of the bill is a bunch of new regulations regarding seeds and seed cleaning that requires expensive equipment. Smaller concerns might not be able to handle the added burden, concentrating the handling of seed production in the hands of corporate giants like Monsanto.
Curiously, George Soros’ hedge fund has just bought 897,813 shares (valued at $312.6 million) of Monsanto. His hand seems to be in anything that weakens individual freedom and destabilizes currencies and free governments, and makes him money in the process.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/democrats_give_one_more_big_fa.html
Like his investment in those TSA scanning machines?
Or, oh, you must mean his investment in that Brazilian offshore drilling company made conveniently right before BO’s moratorium?
Or, Or, Or
But hey, he’s just a nice old rich guy. Nothing here. It’s Glen Beck that is horrible!
So what is it that Beck said here that doesn’t sit well with you? Don’t you wonder if it really is about one (frustrated DADT) soldier and “one guy with a laptop” (per Gibby) that did/is doing all this? I certainly don’t buy into that.
It is creating chaos and it’s well documented that chaos (via C-P strategy) is necessary to achieve those things that you wouldn’t otherwise be able to achieve (you know, the whole crisis going to waste thing).
Have you researched Soros? I’d heard little of Soros before 2 years ago and have read quite a bit about him since – not because Glen Beck said to, but because what is happening doesn’t feel right. Not surprisingly, his name pops us everywhere. It’s amazing to me that he hasn’t been taken out, as he has had a hand in the downfall of many.
Beck recently went through a series (I only caught partial) of Soros – the guy, his organizations and from video clips of his own words, his plans for taking care of the next “problem” of meeting the goals of his Open Society. That problem is the US.
I view Beck as the closest thing to investigative journalism that we have today. He has caused me to do a lot more reading and research than I would have (see I don’t take everything as the Beck Gospel!)
You love to play kill the messenger, Ray. (Very Alinksy-like – you are a good progressive student!) Do some research and come back and report to us on Soros.
Explain to me how killing the messenger is a progressive trait.. why is it that everything bad and wrong (regardless of the fact that both sides habitually do it) is a liberal trait and everything good or right (regardless of the fact that both sides do it) is a conservative trait?
It’s beginning to annoy me.
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
7. Tactics
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon
and yes, Mathius, more and more on the right are finally catching on to these strategies and using them “back at ya”.
That’s it. SUFA is no on penalty. I’ll return on Monday and see if you’ve learned your lesson.
You can dish it out but you can’t take it? Cry me a river.
See now look what you did!? You made Mathius go away. Are you proud of yourself??
In all seriousness, its beginning to annoy me too. And for the record, he is absolutely correct about chocolate cake and vanilla ice cream.
😉 I haven’t even gotten to you yet..I still owe you for the conspiracy theorist hit..
I was hoping you forgot about that.
🙂
And Beck also tried to make the correlation between elements the current government and the “Black Flag Anarchist Movement”.
That’s like calling Stalin a Libertarian, or you(Ray) a conspiracy theorist.
Up is down.
Black is white.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Beck isn’t nuts.
Ok……someone please explain something to me….I know I am just a simple old retired Colonel who knows nothing…but..
By not extending unemployment to the unemployed will cause the loss of 600,000 jobs.
And….if the dems still control the house and senate……why is there a problem passing the tax cut issue?
Damnit D,
Quit looking behind the curtain! You are supposed to believe what they tell you, not what you see!
Good Morning America’s Claire Shipman on Thursday tried to disguise a Democratic activist as just a jobless American who would be hurt by Republican failure to extend unemployment benefits. Shipman sympathetically recounted that Edrie Irvine, who she didn’t explain spoke at a Nancy Pelosi press conference on Wednesday, “never thought her very livelihood would depend on a political debate in Congress.”
A graphic reading “unemployed” appeared onscreen as Irvine complained, “They are talking about tax cuts for the rich and are holding people like me hostage.” Who is Ms. Irvine? According to her bio on the leftist Democracy For America web page, she’s a “tree-hugging, bleeding-heart, ACLU-card-carrying progressive liberal and damn proud of it!”
On December 1, Irvine appeared with Nancy Pelosi at a press conference. Pelosi enthused, “Thank you very much, Edrie, for your generosity of spirit to share your personal story with us.” On October 2, Irvine also appeared at the liberal One Nation rally and spoke.
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/#ixzz16zNcbp1e
For a fee, of course….and probably did not pay taxes on it.
Tea Party Caucus Takes $1 Billion In Earmarks
By Reid Wilson
December 2, 2010 | 4:30 AM
Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.
According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.
“It’s disturbing to see the Tea Party Caucus requested that much in earmarks. This is their time to put up or shut up, to be blunt,” said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste. “There’s going to be a huge backlash if they continue to request earmarks.”
In founding the caucus in July, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said she was giving voice to Americans who were sick of government over-spending.
“The American people are speaking out loud and clear. They have had enough of the spending, the bureaucracy, and the government knows best mentality running rampant today throughout the halls of Congress,” Bachmann said in a July 15 statement. The group, she wrote in a letter to House Administration Committee chairman Bob Brady, “will serve as an informal group of Members dedicated to promote Americans’ call for fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and limited government.”
Bachmann and 13 of her Tea Party Caucus colleagues did not request any earmarks in the last Fiscal Year, according to CAGW’s annual Congressional Pig Book. But others have requested millions of dollars in special projects.
more,
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/12/tea-party-caucu.php
Good catch. It appears there are some slow learners or just didn’t think we were serious about the message. That will change.
The delicately balanced global climate talks in Cancún suffered a serious setback last night when Japan categorically stated its opposition to extending the Kyoto protocol – the binding international treaty that commits most of the world’s richest countries to making emission cuts.
The Kyoto protocol was adopted in Japan in 1997 by major emitting countries, who committed themselves to cut emissions by an average 5% on 1990 figures by 2012.
However the US congress refused to ratify it and remains outside the protocol.
The brief statement, made by Jun Arima, an official in the government’s economics trade and industry department, in an open session, was the strongest yet made against the protocol by one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases.
He said: “Japan will not inscribe its target under the Kyoto protocol on any conditions or under any circumstances.”
The move came out of the blue for other delegations at the conference.
“For Japan to come out with a statement like that at the beginning of the talks is significant,” said one British official. “The forthrightness of the statement took people by surprise.”
If it proves to be a new, formal position rather than a negotiating tactic, it could provoke a walk-out by some developing countries and threaten a breakdown in the talks. Last night diplomats were urgently trying to clarify the position.
The move provoked alarm among the G77, the grouping of developing countries who regard the Kyoto protocol as the world’s only binding agreement on climate change cuts.
Japan gave no reasons for making its brief statement on the second day of the talks, but diplomats said last night that it represented a hardening of its line. “Japan has stated before that it wants only one legal instrument and that it would be unfair to continue the protocol,” said one official who did not wish to be named.
Japan, which last night declined to clarify its position, has said in the past that it would not reject a new legally-binding overall agreement, but is concerned that it would be penalised if it signed up to cuts while other countries such as India and China were not legally bound to make similar cuts.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/01/cancun-climate-change-summit-japan-kyoto
I AGREE WITH MATHIUS!
People.Are.Dumb
Couple of your peeps on here that are proving your right. WTH!
http://www.therightscoop.com/dana-loesch-smacks-down-stupid-liberal-comedian
I have noticed in the past few days that the Democrats and their minions in the media are increasing the use of the words “Fair”, “Fairness”, “Care” and “Compassion”.
For those that still think there is not a very large coordinated effort between politicians and media, pleas watch how fast these terms start appearing in regular media interviews and commentary.
And YES, the Republicans do the same thing. It isn’t coincidence that some Repub. politician will make a “point” and we here the same “talking point” raised by Rush or Sean Hannity.
Ray Hawkins and Buck the Wala
Re: Mr. Obama expanding abortions.
Didn’t Mr. Obama reinstate Federal funding for abortions? Did he not reinstate Foreign Aid to be used for abortions in other countries?
Now I certainly don’t have numbers but wouldn’t logic dictate that if you reinstate Federal funding for abortion that more abortions will occur?
If not, then those crying out for Federal funding have been lying about how the money is needed to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
Thanks JAC,
I think there is still debate going on if Obamacare will provide funding for abortions.
Buck the Wala said
December 2, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Ray is completely right on this one — where is your ‘proof’, your ‘evidence’, to reach the conclusion that Obama is expanding abortion in this country?
As far as repealing Roe and letting each state decide for itself: do you really believe this to be a real solution?
Buck, do you think there will ever be a solution to abortion all or the majority of Americans agree to? I think letting each state decide it’s own course will be the best solution. Add to that, I would not favor overturning Roe vs Wade, and allowing a complete ban in any state. I realize some states would write laws that would end in a virtual ban, but that’s where voting with you feet comes into play.
I’d like to see some evidence before I necessarily believe the FRC position:
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/108757-pennsylvania-high-risk-pool-sparks-debate-over-abortion-
Ray
What is the FRC?
By the way, my post had nothing to do with the Health Care Reform law.
Didn’t the President override GW’s prior ban on spending federal dollars, via Exec Order, with his own Exec. Order?
That is what I recall. Especially regarding the authority to use Foreign Aid dollars for this purpose. Don’t remember the label on the money but I do remember the outcry from the religious right over it.
Don’t you remember any of these issues early in the Administration?
Re: Foreign Aid — this has been political football for decades. Reagan (I believe) first banned the use of foreign aid from going towards any organization that either provides/counsels about abortion. Clinton reversed. Dubya reversed Clinton’s reversal. Obama reversed Dubya’s reversal of Clinton’s reversal. I would bet big big bucks that the next GOP president reverses again.
Whether or not this is a good/bad decision though should not turn on pro-life or pro-choice. It is much more nuanced than that – many of the organizations that receive these funds, while they do provide some (or at least counsel about) abortion, they also provide vital family planning counseling and services aimed at reducing unwanted pregnancies, and thereby reducing the number of abortions performed. (e.g., education about the use of contraception, providing said contraception, etc.)
I think we can all agree that if we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies we can reduce the number of abortions while maintaining a woman’s right to an abortion.
Now, re: federal funding of abortion in the US – the only issue I am aware of is very indirect funding through insurance premiums within the high risk pool established. This is governed by the Hyde Amendment, stemming from a decades-old law. Obama has not sought to override this Amendment through an EO. From a quick Google search on the Hyde Amendment:
“Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman’s life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.”
Buck
I retracted the Exec Order thought last night. See my post below to Ray on the Hyde amendment.
It is my understanding that funding for abortions was expanded after the total Democrat takeover of congress and white house. Perhaps not but I do remember the howling in the first year about it.
Federal funding of Planned Parenthood is a big one for the conservatives, not just the Medicaid funding.
Now as to the real point: I agree with your statement;
“I think we can all agree that if we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies we can reduce the number of abortions while maintaining a woman’s right to an abortion.”
However, I DO NOT think it is the FEDERAL Govt’s job to conduct nor to fund such activities. And for kicks please explain where you think that authority lies in the Constitution.
@JAC – female soldier raped and impregnated by male soldier. Who pays for the abortion?
Or raped and impregnated by enemy combatant
IF the victim decides to have an abortion in this case, then the offender should pay. Easy. Not sure why anybody else or the tax payer should be on the hook?
The baby pays for the abortion. The baby is always the only one who truly pays for an abortion. When did right and wrong become based on whether or not something is fair or hard. Life isn’t fair-lets say a man rapes a child-I understand completely if the father of this child comes to court and blows the SOB away-but it can’t be allowed-but if in his anger he shoots the wrong man-is he not guilty of murder. So a woman gets raped she has the right to kill the innocent. Why is this okay? If your only answer is that it isn’t a baby yet-all I can say is continue to fool yourself-it’s not you you’re denying the right to life.
V.H.,
I really like your answer. That truly is the bottom line. The Baby pays. Yes it may be unfair to the woman, but there are kind humans that would take that child and raise it as their own. Why give people the excuse to kill a human being? Nobody is going to force the mother to raise that child in this type of circumstance.
Great post VH.
Ray
Paid for by her insurance. As a federal employee that falls on her federal insurance. Whatever form that health insurance takes.
@JAC – so the Federal Government is paying for the abortion.
So because the government is helping subsidize the soldiers health insurance, they are therfore directly funding abortion? That really is not a good way to link the government to funding abortions.
But that’s the exact argument that many on the right are using to ‘prove’ that federal funds are being used to pay for abortions – through the insurance premiums on the high risk pools.
@Truthseeker – so if the Feds are sending money to the States for high risk pools where Hyde exceptions may be exercised for abortions that is ok? You guys need to get your arguments straight.
Guys, you are comparing 2 different things here. #1, a federal employee can go with WHATEVER health plan and company they want. The government simply subsidizes the cost. Therefore, you cannot say the the government is funding your health choices. #2, a federally funded health plan IS linked to your choices because the government is directly paying for your health. They are not subsidizing your health care because you are not federal employees. They are actually taking over the industry and forcing THEIR standards. The federal government should not be putting funds into non-federal employees health care. Public health care places should not be funding abortions with peoples plans. That should be charged seperately like cosmetic surgery. However we all know that these places are cheating and stealing government money to fund just about any proceedure they want and thus paying for abortions. This is illegal and it should not stand.
Ray
Yes……well possibly…….depending on the arrangement.
OK, I guess since I have picked on you for generalizing about Rand and Railroads I am man enough to admit I wasn’t being “precise” in my statements today.
I do appreciate your ability to identify the fine hair when it is needed. I’m not sure now is one of those times but fair is fair.
Does anybody like the thought that their mother at any time could simply have not born you? All in the name of convienance? Imagine all the possible accomplishments the unborn could have brought and what kind of impact they may of had on the human species. Perhaps the next Einstein was abruptly aborted for whatever reason? The only time I would approve an abortion is if it would take the life of the mother and the mother wanted to live.
And believe it or not, I am Athiest.
That isn’t possible Truth didn’t you know that being against abortion is simply a matter of the religious right forcing their belief system on the rest of society-and your argument normally leads to someone saying that we also might have aborted the next Hitler-this seems to balance things out for them. They also always bring up the horrible situations and just ignore the I don’t want to have a baby right now-which is much more likely the reasoning behind most abortions. Per some people it’s much more important that a woman have a right to choice than it is for a baby to have the right to live. This road we are traveling down-a total lack of respect for life is dangerous and really disgusting. We have gone from abortions in the first couple months-to partial birth-to induced pregnancy, to late term to …..What. Really people what is the next step?
Taxing and Spending Clause. Commerce clause.
I don’t want to get sidetracked into a constitutional debate over the federal government’s authority to provide funding for Medicaid or provide foreign aid. Let’s leave that for another issue.
That being said, abortion is a legal medical procedure. There is no reason, in my mind, for a blanket ban on any and all federal money from going towards this procedure, so long as it remains a legal procedure. There are plenty of things I disagree with where my tax dollars go, so why should abortion be any different?
[quote]There are plenty of things I disagree with where my tax dollars go, so why should abortion be any different?[/quote]
This is the crux isn’t it? Should we not have a system where we all know exactly where our taxes go that we all approve? How about going back to the original Constition that layed out what we could be taxed for? Defense is one of them.
That said, why does the american tax payer need to pay for anybodies abortion?
Truth
More specifically, why does the American tax payer need to pay for anybodies “health care”, outside its own employees?
Govt provided healthcare is immoral.
@JAC – you are contradicting yourself with an absolute. Government provided healthcare cannot be immoral if it is moral to provide it for their employees.
Ray
Technically I suppose you are correct, although I think you know what I am saying and the difference between the two.
But I will take your advice into consideration regarding a better way to construct the point.
It’s also totally optional. Should all optional surgeries be covered? How about cosmetic surgery?
Option, shmoptional — what about where the mother’s life is at risk? Is it still optional?
@JAC – FRC = Family Research Council
I’d be aware of no other way that Obama supposedly “reinstated funding”
I found a recent article on this: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2010/August/Senate-Panel-Reinstate-Abortion-Funding-Overseas/
I am going to point out this line: Since then, presidents have used executive orders to repeal or reinstate the ban. President Barack Obama repealed it in 2009.
This shows that Obama used his position to push his belief on abortions. I agree with a few others that this should not be a Federal issue but a States one.
Since you used ‘ontheissues’ as a source, I will use it to. http://www.ontheissues.org/social/barack_obama_abortion.htm
There is a great read on Obama. As a senator, he voted “present” which is a cowardly ‘NO’ on partial birth abortions and other hairy pro-choice issues.
Ray Hawkins
Following is an article on the supposed new Republican agenda for abortion.
But contained within it is an explanation of the current on again/off again use of Federal funds for abortion.
When the Dems took both houses and then Mr. Obama got elected they were able to reinstate the exemption to the Hyde Amendment. So in this Mr. Obama has increased abortions. Obviously it is not him alone, it requires Congress to go along.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/republicans-abortion-hyde-amendment-defund-planned-parenthood
@JAC – I thought that even under the most current/recent Hyde exceptions whether an abortion was funded was still a State level decision and under the typical three scenarios of rape, incest and life jeopardy?
Ray
I don’t think so, but honestly don’t know for sure.
Medicaid is a jointly funded program so I think there are limits to what the State’s can ignore/reduce, etc.
As I said above, I just remember all the howling from the conservatives in Mr. O’s first year about this. Maybe it was just the foreign aid funding. I really don’t follow this issue that much as it is not a priority with me.
Best wishes today. I know first hand that single daddy/mamma job is a tough one.
🙂 🙂
It is a state level decision at the end of the day, and the vast majority (I believe) comes from state dollars, not federal dollars.
Buck
As I said, this issue isn’t that big to me. But I can tell you that the amount of funding is not relevant.
If you take a single Federal Dollar you are subject to Federal Rules for all the money you spend on that program.
I know the State’s have some large leeway in what they fund. I don’t know current rules but can tell you 6 years ago the Feds had limits or “requirement” if you will on what had to be provided.
I guess I don’t really care because the program should be eliminated in my view.
What program? Medicaid?
Buck
YES
NO! Medicaid is a pretty good program. Sure there is some waste and fraud that needs to be addressed, but overall its a solid program.
Buck
Ray, Mathius and I previously agreed that if Govt is going to provide aid to the general public it should be limited to those who are physically or mentally incapable.
Based on my experience with Medicaid it would seem more effective to abolish it and create a new agency/program. You could borrow some of the processes and even some of the people, but alter the foundation.
Medicaid has become the largest most complex program in most states. So I am not sure how you define “pretty good” or “solid”.
I would also propose a Const. Amendment actually giving Congress the Authority to establish such a program….limited to the purpose I described.
Medicaid at its core is designed specifically for those who are incapable of providing for themselves.
Look into the basic eligibility criteria – there are very stringent financial requirements (as well as medical criteria) to qualify.
Again, I would keep Medicaid but put additional measures in place to root out fraud and waste.
The organization typically receives over $300 million in taxpayer funds every year.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/?/news/planned-parenthood-pushes-abortion-for-profit-ex-abortion-facility-director
Profit’: Ex-Abortion Facility Director
by LifeSiteNews
* Thu Nov 05, 2009
By James Tillman
BRYAN, TX, November 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)—Abby Johnson, the ex-director of a Planned Parenthood abortion facility who recently made national headlines after converting to the pro-life position, has revealed that Planned Parenthood pushes employees to strive for more abortions to boost profits.
“There are definitely client goals,” Johnson told WorldNetDaily. “We’d have a goal every month for abortion clients and for family planning clients.”
Abby Johnson had worked at Bryan’s Planned Parenthood facility for eight years and been its director for two when she resigned on October 6th, near the beginning of Bryan’s sixth annual 40 Days for Life Campaign.
She said that she grew uncomfortable with Planned Parenthood when they told her to try to bring more abortions through the door because of the economic downturn.
“Every meeting that we had was, ‘We don’t have enough money, we don’t have enough money – we’ve got to keep these abortions coming,’ ” Johnson said in an interview with Fox News. “It’s a very lucrative business and that’s why they want to increase numbers.”
The latest financial report Planned Parenthood, for the year 2006-2007, shows that the abortion behemoth increased the number of abortions it committed from 264,943 in 2005 to 289,650 in 2006.
Total revenue amounted to over $1 billion dollars,
with the organization’s profit margin – “excess of revenue over expenses” – soaring from $55.7 million in 2005 to $112 million in 2006. The organization typically receives over $300 million in taxpayer funds every year.
@LOI – not sure what your point here is?
Buck & Ray,
Forgive me if I overlooked something in our discussion, but have either of you shown anything that indicates Obama has a better grasp of economics? All I recall has been negative about Palin. Is there anything positive that can be said about the Presidents current policies?
@LOI – http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/economy/
I don’t agree that all were necessarily beneficial – but there is ample evidence of “grasp”
Its a little more challenging to find something neutral to evidence that Sarah has more, less or equal grasp.
This source helps some but not much: http: // www. ontheissues. org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Budget_+_Economy .htm
To be honest you’re trying to compare a former Governor-elect of a State with one of the smallest economies (thank you Ed Rollins – see today’s HuffPost for more) – an economy which she had responsibility over for 2.5 years (in reality less than that since she was campaigning for much of that time).
I would suggest her grasp of economics is more germane to her (smartly) realizing her new found fame and cashing in on it with books, paid punditry, reality TV and appearance income. It doesn’t take someone particularly smart nowadays to realize that they are famous and to listen to handlers with regard to money-to-be-made.
Ray
Here in lies the problem today with our society:
“To be honest you’re trying to compare a former Governor-elect of a State with one of the smallest economies (thank you Ed Rollins – see today’s HuffPost for more) – an economy which she had responsibility over for 2.5 years (in reality less than that since she was campaigning for much of that time).”
The Governor of a State does not have “responsibility” over the economy of that State. The President does not have “responsibility” over the economy of the Nation.
The day WE THE PEOPLE started accepting the premise that it was their responsibility is the day we started the race into the mess me now find ourselves.
So the size of the state matters now too? So someone from Arkansas does not have the comparable experience to California or Texas in experience? Does that mean we should elect only people that have ran in those states? Again, what did President Obama run? How can someone with no experience in buisness, tell buisness leaders what to do?
@TruthSeeker – I think the size of the State is relevant – how relevant can be up for debate. There is also a point-in-time issue – comparing Obama’s economic policies as Chief Executive to when Sarah was a Chief Executive.
@JAC – I don’t agree with you – when POTUS signs his/her name to the Federal budget he/she accepts a measure of responsibility for the economy. That does remove responsibility for the American people. To suggest otherwise would require you to walk back comments you have made here for months on end.
Ray
I think you are missing the point, and thus trying to find contradiction where it does not exist. Perhaps if I had used “should” instead of “does” it would have been more easily understood. So in that respect, my bad.
What you say is true but only because WE THE PEOPLE accepted this change in the American paradigm. It is not the Govts proper role to be responsible for the economy. The fact that it now is responsible is a reflection of OUR failure, not some given natural state. And it certainly wasn’t the concept laid down in the blue prints.
It is OUR fault. WE accepted the distorted view of the Govt’s responsibility in the late 1800’s but it was codified during the early 1900’s and then the Depression by the Socialists and Progressives. Once we did that, WE started accepting the taking of authority by the Govt to carry out the expectation.
Responsibility leads to Authority which leads to Action which leads to either Good or Bad decisions based on “ideology” of those in control.
If WE had not accepted this new paradigm, the economy would run along just fine. Yes there would be ups and downs but over time we would be far better off. Free interaction among free people works out just fine.
Now lets take this one step farther, to the big issue of today. We now here everyone screaming about the Govt’s need to create JOBS. Well, that is not, er should not be, the Govt’s responsibility. But if we push hard enough, Govt will accept that responsibility. Just like it has done.
So what are the consequences? As soon as JOBS is a driving goal the Govt is free to do anything it chooses in the name of job creation. The result is a more inefficient and less effective government. For example, is the goal to build 100 miles of highway at the least cost, to build 100 miles of highway, or create 100 jobs? Obviously you can get different solutions depending on which goal you choose.
That is why the Stimulus was such a bust, in the long run. By focusing on jobs only and doing that with “multipliers” you got money spent in all kinds of less efficient ways that create a drag on the economy as a whole.
JAC – holy crap I mis-spoke – UGH – because we vote them into office does not remove responsibility from us for the economy – the act of behalf of us. At the end of the day if voters want someone to blame – try looking in the mirror.
Ray
I was hoping you would read you post one more time.
I actually figured you typed the negative by mistake, given your past comments.
I hope you see my broader point. The other day the left was whining that expectations of what the Pres. can do about the economy are too great.
I tried to remind them that they were the ones, along with him, that build those expectations. Nobody can handle what we now expect of one elected official. No matter how many minions they have.
Ray,
I’m with you on this, I think the President gets the credit and blame, including the actions of those under him.
Geithner and Bernanke’s actions reflect on Obama. I remember Bernanke telling the senate he would not monetize the debt. Geithner has pushes stimulus and bailouts, here and abroad. So how does big O’s money policy really look? All spending cuts are token gestures and he keeps pounding on only taxing the rich can pay for our debt.
I know accountants that have 10 credit cards maxed out. They understand economics, but are unable to apply it to themselves.
Ray,
Wow! Thanks! I think you have just proved my points for me that:
1) Obama does not understand economics
2) The media is biased to the point they will spin and frame their reports to the point Obama could piss himself and they would remark on his incredible bladder control.
Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 226:
In the Works
Urge China to stop manipulation of its currency value
“Barack Obama and Joe Biden will use all diplomatic means at his disposal to achieve change in China’s manipulation of the value of its currency, a practice that contributes to massive global imbalances and provides Chinese companies with an unfair competitive advantage.”
(The US, under Obama/Bernenake is manipulating it’s currency, China is ignoring us, as it should)
No. 15: Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners
Create a $10 billion fund to help homeowners refinance or sell their homes. “The Fund will not help speculators, people who bought vacation homes or people who falsely represented their incomes.”
(Has he commented on Freddie/Fannie? Have they changed their lending practices, or just asked for and received more loans?)
No. 507: Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits
“Obama and Biden believe Congress should immediately extend unemployment insurance for an additional 13 weeks to help families that are being hit hardest by this downturn. In addition, they believe we should temporarily suspend taxes on unemployment insurance benefits as a way of giving more relief to families.”
(At what point does temporary become permanent? Two years? Five? Not until it’s classified as lifetime unemployment benefits. Everything else is temporary.)
More on Sarah’s grasp of things – one flub am ok with – flubbing everything casts doubt on “grasp”
This was pre-writing-crib-notes-on-hand
Obama’s grasp – not perfect but a little better “grasp”?
Am sure Cyndi, Kathy or Anita will point out the invisible teleprompter here…. 😉
That’s just what the MSM wants you to think!
Ray,
Sorry but I am going to skip watching your video’s. One, time, day job, porn, other demands.:lol:
Two, if you recall the campaign, Obama and the media said he was hope and change, out with partisan politics, reach across the isle, no more favoritism for big business, etc..
I think he should be judged by his action, not his words. And his history did show what kind of leader he would be, but the media did not report that.
@LOI –
“I think he should be judged by his action, not his words.”
That is why I provided you the link above the videos
Ray,
I have responded up there.
Yesterday I shared some of the debate between Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) and David Brooks at the American Enterprise Institute, observing that Brooks’s original characterization of Ryan as an anti-government conservative was inaccurate (a point proven correct in the AEI exchange). Today, Brooks again is misrepresenting the terms of the debate.
At issue this Friday were the following paragraphs from Brooks’s article “A Tax Reform Vision”:
On Thursday, I debated Paul Ryan at the American Enterprise Institute on the proper role of government. Ryan is the incoming House Budget Committee chairman and one of the most intellectually formidable members of Congress. I really admire many of the plans he has put forward to bring down debt and reduce health care costs.
But Ryan and I differed over President Obama and the prospects for compromise in the near term. Ryan believes that the country faces a clearly demarcated choice. The Democratic Party, he argues, believes in creating a European-style cradle-to-grave social welfare state, while the Republicans believe in a free-market opportunity society. There is no overlap between the two visions and very little reason to think they can be reconciled.
As Rubin noted:
It is that last sentence that is inaccurate — and Ryan has plainly rejected it. Yes, he says there is a clear choice between the Republicans’ opportunity society and the Democrats’ cradle-to-grave welfare state, but he emphasized that there is room for a deal, as embodied by his own entitlement-reform plan crafted with Democrat Alice Rivlin, the former Federal Reserve vice chairman. During yesterday’s debate, Ryan touted the “centrist coalition” that is forming, concluding that “the progressive left will be separated” from the center-right coalition.
I’m not sure why Brooks fails to accurately relate the debate to his readers.
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/12/03/wapos-new-conservative-blogger-takes-nyts-david-brooks#ixzz174Sh3OGU
Gold = $1384.89/oz.
http://www.goldprice.org/
Subliminal thought for Ray……Palin/Beck 2012….Palin/Beck 2012…..Palin/Beck 2012………..drink Red Bull…….Palin/Beck 2012.
Now, THAT is brainwashing….
And you thought that water boarding was torture…
@D13 – NO!!!!!!
That’s as likely as TexasChem and I ending up in a semi-erotic embrace, feeding each other white zinfandel and singing Neil Diamond’s “Forever in Blue Jeans” at the top of our lungs.
OMG
Now there’s an image I didn’t need to see before my morning cup of joe…
Sorry Buck – was at the end of a looong day at work – was working incident response and juggling being single Dad since the Mom is on the road – when the brain is tired disturbing images are produced.
No worries.
But just so you are aware – the coffee didn’t help any with that imagery.
Breaking news from Congress….a monumental decision was made this afternoon…….”dit dit dit dit dit”
House architect was summoned today to ask for plans to bring the women’s restroom two minutes closer to the chamber doors….. “dit dit dit dit dit”
Remember you heard it here. Just saw it on CNN….
Probably will be attached to the tax bill….. God, what politics !!!!!!!
What goes around comes around?
Are we all sacrificial pawns in a battle between the Left and the Right (Organic growers versus big Agribusiness) ?
Here in Maine MOFGA (Maine organic farmers and growers association) supports pesticide spray notification laws. This can require notification of neighbors within quarter mile radius everytime pesticides are applied. New Rulings are in the works which would could eliminate most any exceptions. Even just spraying your garden might trigger the law.
Now if this new Food Safety Bill was to pass without any exceptions for small farms, small organic certified farms might be eliminated because of the potential cost of the requirements. http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
As much as I hate new regulations, there might be a feeling of justice to see the elimination of MOFGA .
On the other hand if the Senate passed version with small farm exceptions, was to become law, than the Big Boys would have this all thrown back at them to no advantage. Or at least for now……….
All;
Just going to let off some steam, and since USW doesn’t get as much time to write these days, this is more for me than all of you.
Charlie Rangell gets Censured…WOW!!! This basically means he gets a verbal repremand on the floor by the speaker of the house. I can just see it now, Nancy standing up there shaking her wrinkled finger at him and telling him he was a very bad boy. A scolding for all practical purposes.
This is a crock and another example of an elite mentality. He missuses campaign funds, avoids paying taxes and cheats the public, and comes away with a scolding by the head mistress.
And now he acts ashamed and forlorn. And they waited to see if he was going to get re-elected before they made a decision.
The guy should be tared, feathered and run out on a rail.
What a crock of pure shit!!!
Charlie, you sir are a complete asshole, and I wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire. Hurry up and die will ya, you are sucking up good air.
F**K YOU!!!
CM
Right on CM! WooHoo!
CM
Come on, tell us what you really think!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I second the motion by Mr. Hawkins.
Here’s the frosting on the cake. They gave him a standing O! These people are sick.
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/12/shocker-democrats-give-crook-rangel-a-standing-ovation-after-censure-video/
I’m still floored he was re-elected
What happened with the ovation is a clear reflection of how bad politics and corruption has gotten. For Rangel to try and defelct what he did and compare it to “the other guy” clearly shows that he still does not think he did anything wrong or just because it wasn’t as bad as the “last guy”, that nothing happend at all. He blamed his Censure all on Republicans as if the GOP made him do it.
Those that applauded should be ashamed as they show that they do not care about people breaking the law. Rangel has been in politics forever and has access to any lawyer he wants. He should have taken it upon himself to get guidance on all his properties and doings to ensure he was not breaking the law. Instead, he pled ignorance which never works for the common person. Congress never seems to have to live with the laws they pass.
Rangel outright lied when he said he did not do this stuff to enrichen himself. On the contrary, because he was not paying taxes (a lot), he was indeed enrichening himself. What a bold faced liar.
Contrast.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/criminalization_of_politics_an.html
How many Republicans even know if what Tom DeLay did was illegal in the first place?
On Wednesday’s show, Mark Levin had Tom DeLay’s lawyer on as a guest.
Dick Deguerin explained (and I summarize): Texas Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC) took in $1.5M, half of which was personal donations, half corporate. Seven hundred thousand dollars’ worth of corporate donations was there to pay for operations, but $200K was left over after expenses. That excess was sent to the RNC, which later sent back $190K worth of personal donations (which had been collected from around the country) to help Republican candidates in Texas.
This information was available for anyone to see. Activists in Austin learned of the transactions — which are common practice among Democrats. The problem was that Tom DeLay was a Republican, and an effective Republican — so effective that he made the Texas House majority Republican for the first time in over a hundred years. The left just couldn’t tolerate the defeat. After howling and gnashing their teeth, they got to work to bring “The Hammer” down.
So what happens now? “We’ll appeal. There’s been no crime.” Mark Levin then asked his guest, the counsel for DeLay, point-blank: “You’re a Democrat too, aren’t you?” Deguirin laughed nervously. I don’t recall him actually saying yes, but he asserted that he was not a partisan Democrat. Levin remarked, “This case really upsets you. Everything appears that the way it was done was legit.”
“We tried to follow the law.” I’ll bet he did, indeed. Too bad Democrats and the liberal trial lawyers who run them are trying to convince us that it’s illegal to even be a Republican in America.
During the break, Andrew C. McCarthy, who prosecuted the “Blind Sheik” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, e-mailed Mark: “How can it be money laundering? The proceeds have to be the result of a crime.”
This thing has so many holes in it that anyone can see through them.
Levin said, “The media created a monster out of Tom DeLay.”
C’mon CM, what’s with the PC crap? Speak plainly!
LOL
Seriously, I think you speak for many of us here. And Rangel is just the tip of the iceburg. Truthfully I am even more pissed off about Geitner.
This is a local matter but it points out the corruption that makes us all want to rant. Maybe in this case the guy will actually lose his job but I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t.
Shelby County General Sessions Clerk Otis Jackson’s ethics under inquiry
Pressured staff for donations, several testify
* By Zack McMillin
* Memphis Commercial Appeal
* Posted December 2, 2010 at 2:34 p.m., updated December 2, 2010 at 11:11 p.m.
According to a damning report from the Shelby County Attorney’s Office, General Sessions Court Clerk Otis Jackson Jr. called his employees together on county property on the morning of Nov. 4 and asked them to start thinking about the 2012 elections.
Several employees say, in sworn testimony, that they were told to accumulate $51,000 between them in campaign donations — and asked that it be delivered in $17,000 installments on June 1, 2011, Dec. 1, 2011, and June 1, 2012.
Several employees say Jackson declared he didn’t care how they did it — selling “peanuts and candy” if that’s what it took — because he was expecting “a rough election.” Employees said they were told Jackson would give them raises in exchange for the help with campaign funds.
The county’s top ethics officer says that meeting and other alleged political activity by Jackson and some of his top managers constitutes serious ethics violations, and County Atty. Kelly Rayne has asked the county district attorney’s office to determine if they involve “criminal misconduct.”
Public affairs officer Steve Shular said the county also is asking the district attorney’s office to determine if the conduct warrants “removal from office-ouster,” as stipulated by state statute.
Tennessee Code 8-47-101 lists a variety of things that could lead to removal, including an elected official “who shall knowingly or willfully commit misconduct in office.”
Attempts to reach Jackson were unsuccessful. A spokesman for Dist. Atty. Gen. Bill Gibbons confirmed that an investigation is under way.
“I would think if people are willing to come forward, he ought to be prosecuted,” said Dick Williams, executive director of Common Cause of Tennessee, a public watchdog group.
Jackson, whose use of county money came under question earlier this year, ran for county mayor this year and received 6 percent of the vote in the May Democratic primary. During the campaign, Jackson’s first financial disclosure in April listed 30 donors — 15 of them identified as working for Shelby County government.
In the report, Jackson’s employees say the pressure to help him with fundraising and campaigning went back at least to that mayoral campaign, and also included an Oct. 28 fundraiser — in which employees were pestered to buy and/or sell tickets for $100 each.
According to Bill Jamison, a manager who has been employed with the county since 1981, Jackson said: “I don’t care how you do it. You can sell peanuts or do whatever you can to raise it.”
Political activity in and around the office was not uncommon, according to employees, many of whom are classified as civil servants rather than political appointees and thus prohibited from participating in politics. They said that Del Gill, a top administrator, often can be observed soliciting donations from lawyers who do business in General Sessions courts.
Others mentioned in the report as aggressively helping Jackson were JoAnn Mims, another manager, and Clyde Barnett, a manager who an employee identified as Jackson’s half-brother.
Employees said envelopes were left on desks and that those close to Jackson were not shy about calling them on county phones or visiting their desks to remind them to contribute or raise money.
Shelby County’s code of ordinances states that “no employee” under civil-service protection “may be required or directed, either directly or by implication, to contribute or solicit funds for any political candidate, political party, or political activity, nor may such employee be required or directed, in any capacity whatever, to serve or assist a political candidate, political party or political activity.”
Jackson, a standout point guard at then-Memphis State in the early 1980s, failed at several previous attempts to gain elected office before riding enthusiasm for Democrats in 2008 to a win over longtime General Sessions Court Chris Turner.
“I think he’s a nice guy but he’s surrounded himself with a bunch of bad people,” said County Commissioner Mike Ritz, who in the spring sharply questioned Jackson’s use of county funds, including lavish meals for employees. “If he’s not careful, they are going to destroy his life — besides his political career.”
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/dec/02/shelby-co-attorney-alleges-clerk-otis-jackson-viol/
Does anyone know anything about this?
Business State-‘Controlled’ Russian Company Set to Take Over Wyoming Uranium Mines
* Posted on December 2, 2010 at 7:57am by Jonathon M. Seidl Jonathon M. Seidl
* Print »
* Email »
*
*
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the license transfer of two Wyoming mines to a Russian company, despite concerns over national security raised by local and national government officials including senior House Republicans.
From the Telegram:
Two uranium mines in Wyoming are on their way to control by a Russian company now that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved transferring the mines’ licenses.
The NRC last week approved the license transfer to a Russian company known as ARMZ which expects to obtain a controlling interest in Canadian-owned Uranium One by year’s end. Uranium One holds the licenses for a proposed uranium mine and an existing uranium mine in northeast Wyoming.
The approval comes despite concerns from local and national lawmakers. Bother groups worry that Wyoming’s uranium could in theory go overseas and serve against U.S. interests.
“The administration must maintain rigorous oversight of this project and ensure this transaction does not undercut America’s national or energy security,” Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said through a spokeswoman Tuesday.
In October, four U.S. House members sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to block the sale of the two Wyoming mines, citing national security concerns. According to the Wyoming Business Journal, “the sale would give the Russians control of up to 20 percent of the U.S. national uranium extraction capability along with a controlling interest in one of the nation’s largest uranium mining sites.”
The Republican representatives who sent the letter inclue: Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida (the ranking minority member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee); Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama (the ranking minority member of the House Financial Services Committee); Rep. Peter T. King of New York (the ranking minority member of the House Homeland Security Committee), and Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon of California (the ranking minority member of the House Armed Services Committee).
Both Republicans Sen. Mike Enzi and Rep. Cynthia Lummis, from Wyoming, expressed concerns and promised to keep an eye on the deal, the Associated Press reports. In response, the NRC said the Russian company would have to apply for a special license to export uranium.
Still, exporting is possible, and considering the ownership make up of Uranium One and ARMZ, any national secuirity concerns are not unfounded. According to World Nuclear News, Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom received “356 million common shares in Uranium One” in a recent deal. And the Gillette News Record reports ARMZ is “controlled by” Rosatom.
Why should that cause concern? According to the Record, Rosatom “has provided Iran with uranium in the past.”
“The NRC paperwork states that the transfer means the Russian president and the government of the Russian Federation have the power to direct corporate policy and therefore direct activities under the NRC license and license applications for the Wyoming facilities,” the Record says.
These ties make a recent warning from Russian President Vladamir Putin even more ominous. Speaking with Larry King on Wednesday, the Russian leader advised the U.S. “don’t interfere either [with] the sovereign choice of the Russian people”:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/russian-company-with-govt-ties-set-to-take-over-wyoming-uranium-mines/
“When we are talking with our American friends and tell them, there are systemic problems in this regard, we can hear from them ‘Don’t interfere with our affairs. This is our tradition and it’s going to continue like that.’ We are not interfering,” he said. “But to our colleagues, I would also like to advise you, don’t interfere either [with] the sovereign choice of the Russian people.” [Emphasis added]
Should of realized that this was coming.
Black Farmer Mega-Settlement Clears Way for Discrimination Claims by Women, Hispanics
Published December 02, 2010
| FoxNews.com
* Print
* Email
* Share
* Comments (509)
*
* Text Size
This 2006 file photo shows a farm near Morrow, Ohio. (AP Photo)
This 2006 file photo shows a farm near Morrow, Ohio. (AP Photo)
The congressional approval of a whopping $4.6 billion settlement for black and Native American farmers who claimed they were discriminated against has cleared the way for a similar pair of costly lawsuits — drawing complaints that the government may be buckling to pressure and rewarding dubious claims.
The so-called “Pigford” case involving black farmers who allege the Agriculture Department cheated them for decades drew to a close Tuesday when the House joined the Senate in approving the second settlement in the case to date. But the lawsuits don’t end there. Though Pigford has attracted the most attention, a separate set of cases filed by Hispanic and female farmers has been working its way through the courts since shortly after Pigford was filed more than a decade ago.
Those cases are set for a hearing in federal District Court in the nation’s capital on Friday, and once again a large pot of taxpayer money is on the line. The farmers were offered a $1.3 billion settlement back in May, but the plaintiffs have since then pushed for more. Some Democratic lawmakers argue they deserve it.
But the same lawmakers who fought Pigford warn that this week’s congressional vote could lower the bar for the other discrimination claims. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, declining to comment on the specifics of the claims by Hispanic and female farmers, said he remains concerned that the farmers won’t have to prove much in order to win a payout from Uncle Sam. He suggested anyone who’s not a white male could have a shot.
“I’ve always looked at Pigford as the issue that opens the door for the others,” King told FoxNews.com. “They will point continually at the Pigford precedent.”
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE INTERESTED IN
House Votes to Censure Rangel for Ethics Violations
Glenn Beck: Rome’s Rise and Fall
Sessions Urges Senate to Block DREAM Act Over ‘Abuse of the Process’
When Picking a Cruise Ship: Is Bigger Better?
Politicians Who Own Stakes in Airport Scanner Companies
He said that precedent will probably “embolden” the remaining plaintiffs.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who has called on Congress to investigate the Pigford claims, told FoxNews.com last week that the upcoming cases represent the “next generation” of discrimination suits. She suggested the government was handing out “reparations” for the sake of political correctness.
The Hispanic farmers’ suit, called Garcia v. Vilsack, was originally filed in 2000 and claimed Hispanic farmers lost out on credit and disaster benefits because of USDA discrimination. They also alleged the USDA systematically refused to investigate prior discrimination complaints.
Similarly, female farmers claimed discrimination based on gender in a case called Love v. Vilsack.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs could not be reached for comment, but they have provided reams of testimony to back up their claims. In one filing, a 53-year-old Hispanic woman said her family had been farming in Santa Cruz County, Calif., since the ’60s but struggled in obtaining government loans when the family went through a period of low yields. She said the government gave them an “unworkable” plan with high payments that they had to accept. In a separate encounter, she claimed the government subsequently denied her family an emergency loan in 1995, qualified the family for separate assistance and then demanded that money back years later.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has indicated a desire to close the book on these discrimination cases. He said Wednesday that the administration’s aim is “to try to resolve as many of these cases in as fair and equitable (a) way as possible.”
“This has been a concerted effort the president has been behind, a concerted effort that we at USDA have been behind, and I think it is an historic opportunity for us to close the chapter on what has been a sordid chapter of civil rights in this USDA and start a new chapter,” he told reporters in a conference call.
Though he noted that the cases do not enjoy class-action status and could be handled as “thousands of individual cases,” he said the plaintiffs can still accept the government’s settlement “that we’re in the process of finalizing.” He suggested the money, which has not been voted on by Congress, would come from the so-called Judgment Fund — a funding source set aside by the federal government for settlements and court judgments.
He said plaintiffs need to provide “substantial evidence, documentary evidence, of the fact that you tried to do business or you did do business with USDA and you were not treated fairly.”
Asked about King’s earlier criticism of the Pigford settlement, Vilsack said there is “absolutely no proof” to back up his concerns about fraud.
Carl Horowitz, a project manager with the National Legal and Policy Center who has followed all the discrimination cases, described the Love and Garcia claims as “copycat suits” that would not have existed if not for Pigford. He criticized the claims as having “scant” documentation and said plaintiffs are just trying to strike while the government is in settlement mode.
“This is a classic case of hitting the lottery,” he said.
Leading Democratic senators, meanwhile, are pressing the Obama administration to do more to resolve the claims of farmers in the outstanding legal cases.
Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Robert Menendez, D-N.J.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Mark Udall, D-Colo.; and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder last month expressing concern that the administration was proposing a claimant cap “that may be dramatically underestimated.”
“We are concerned that the program that you have announced regarding Hispanic and female farmers will not meet your stated objectives of parity and adequate redress,” they wrote.
Citing the Pigford case and the settlement with American Indians, who had claimed the government swindled them out of royalties from natural resources like gas and timber, the senators said the remaining set of minority farmers was “not receiving the same level of justice.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/02/black-farmer-mega-settlement-clears-way-discrimination-claims-women-hispanics/#ixzz1716Y5Bhl
Subliminal cut for Ray…… Palin/Beck/Limbaugh……….Palin/Beck/Limbaugh………Palin/Beck/Limbaugh……
“Walk to the light”…Palin/Beck/Limbaugh….followed by Andy Williams tunes….
🙂
Maybe tonight
By the fire all alone you and I
Nothing around but the sound of my heart and your sighs
Ok Ray,
I could’ve eaten a bowl of Alphabits and crapped out a better comeback then this !! 🙂 LMAO
More imagery for Bucks morning cup of joe…
Nice one Chem! What was Gunnery Sgt. Hartman’s line to Private Cowboy in Full Metal Jacket? Something about Texas and steers and q…. oh never mind. Prolly not funny either….. 🙂
Not bad Ray…a lil’ common and overused one liner.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion though.
It’s just that some are flat out stupid!
🙂
Does anyone else feel troubled and dismayed by our societies lack of respect and worth of life?Especially human.
Reading through the comments on abortion lays a heavy hand on my heart when I think of how the left can condone the death of an unborn human yet become inflamed at the thought of eating an animal.To think that there are those that will spend thousands of dollars on a pet and yet believe it right to deny life to an entity that cannot even lend voice to their own defense is MIND BOGGLING!
It’s not as if we do not know what causes a woman to become pregnant!People should understand their is no fault in the life created, only fault with the couple that performed an act of procreation in the first place.If a couple are unprepared for the responsibility of raising a child then fault should lie with them.Do we condemn that couple to death for not being responsible?NO.So why is it lawful to deny the unborn child its right to life?
@TexasChem – well – I think you have offered perhaps a stupid opinion. 😉
Don’t assume those who support a right to choose are easily grouped into buckets of tree-hugging, animal rights-loving, fag-loving vegans. Those who think differently than you have very diverse opinions about a wide range of subjects.
It remains with fact that there are cases where all or nothing does not so easily work. What do you tell the teen or preteen girl that was raped and impregnated? A little Sharron Angle tough love I suppose?
What do you tell the family with the high risk pregnancy that could kill the Mother (and potentially the baby as well)? Suck it up?
Why Ray, I do believe we have made a breakthrough in your thought process!
Isn’t it wonderful that the only two reasons I agree with a womans choice of an abortion are exactly the two you posted!
Abortion used as birth control is an endemic negative disorder of our society.This is what I disagree with.
Yes what should one teach their daughter if something horrible happens to her. Let’s see I have two options.
1. This is unfair and you have a right to kill a baby so that you don’t have to go through this. It will be much better if we add the guilt of killing an unborn child to the equation. You are too weak to handle what the world has handed you-so it’s okay if you commit murder to save yourself form this unfair situation.
2. Life isn’t fair and can be hard. But you are strong enough to handle this. You are strong enough to do what’s right. You cannot take away the pain of what was done to you by killing an unborn child. You do have the right to choose-but only in whether or not you want to raise this child but nothing short of your own life gives you the right to kill another.
Touche’…
Pardon a mans pride for getting in the way of his thought process.I was looking at the incident from the point of view if my wife was raped.
I do agree with your view V.H.
So TC, which is it? Do you believe there should be any exceptions or a blanket prohibition on abortion in all cases?
Also, if a blanket prohibition, should there be criminal penalties for the mother who seeks out and obtains an abortion?
I believe there an exception if the mothers health is at risk.
As to rape I am toeing the line.
V.H. makes a valid case regarding a strong mind, responsibility and a healthy positive society overcoming what could be considered both a blessing and a burden.From a mans perspective it would be very difficult for me to overcome the very idea of raising a child born of the rape of my wife and yet I believe I could set aside selfish pride; love and raise the child as my own.
As I stated above though: abortion used as birth control is irresponsible to society as it devalues life in general, condoning murder to shirk responsibility.
Where I disagree is that I believe it should be an option for a woman to choose if she so chooses. As far as woman going for abortion after abortion as their sole and only birth control method, that is irresponsible and they should be better educated about what they are doing and alternative options available.
I’d be curious as to your views on criminal prosecution for the mother who gets an abortion though?
Do you ever question your starting point? And why are you concerned whether or not a woman uses abortion as a form of contraception if the life she is carrying is just a bunch of cells-what possible difference could it make-if your being point is correct?
Oh and as far as what to do about the mother-you are so concerned about what will happen to the mother. Society has been so concerned about these woman that it has allowed these women to dispose of millions of babies. Do you really think we cannot come up with laws that would be fair and compassionate, to handle this type of situation.
I think you believe that I believe abortion is an easy, go-for-it call. It is a gut-wrenching decision that I hope I (or my wife) never have to discuss nor actually make. While I may believe that a month-old bunch of cells/fetus is not the same as a viable fetus or living child/adult, does not mean that I don’t understand the moral/ethical/etc. issues facing someone who must make this decision.
And again, if you believe abortion should be banned, and the doctors punished for ‘murder’, then why should the woman get off with either no reprecussions or a fair and compassionate sentence?
My question to you is what do you personally believe should happen to the mother and why?
#53
Yes, I do feel troubled and dismayed by our societies lack of respect and worth of human life: not with abortion, but with the death penalty.
On abortion though, yes, we do know what causes a woman to be pregnant (I did learn about the birds and the bees, ya know!). But sometimes things go wrong. Sometimes a couple does everything they can to not get pregnant, and pregnancy occurs anyway. Sometimes a woman is raped and then finds herself pregnant. Sometimes there is something that goes wrong with the pregnancy, causing undue risk to the health of the mother. This is not a black and white issue, but one with replete with shades of gray.
Something does go wrong when you have unprotected sex. Sorry, but the possibliy of getting pregnant while using contraceptives is so low that it is statistically impossible for all of the current abortions that are had to due to the excuse of “contraception failed”. People lie because they fear their parents so they blame contraception. The chances of getting pregnant while using both birth control and a condom are 0.002% since Condoms rate at 98% effectiveness and Birth control 99.9%. Most abortions are not from rape or because of the health of the mother.
Actually, while I will not dispute condoms’ rate – birth control is only so effective if used properly – most women do not use it properly.
But this is all besides the point – what about those circumstances where contraception does fail? What about rape? What about the health of the mother? Are you proposing a blanket ban on abortion, or do you believe there should be some exceptions?
There is only 2 exemptions and one I mentioned before. The health of the Mother. If she wishes to sacrifice her life for another, or live, then it is her choice, and her choice alone. The second is a preteen that was rapped as that could physically damage the preteen.
For all other reasons, the child could be given up for adoption. Carrying a rape child for 9 months isn’t going to hurt the Mother as she will live with the rape for the rest of her life. Aborting that child will not make the rape go away or make anybody feel better.
And criminal penalties for the mother if one of these exceptions is not met?
If what I listed was the law, and a Doctor broke the law, then the doctor should be prosecuted. The mother did not force the doctor to perform the proceedure.
But did not the Mother aid and abet?
I hire you to kill another – am I not also guilty? But why, I didn’t force you to commit murder. I just paid you.
Sorry but you need a better rationale if do in fact believe the mother should not be prosecuted as well.
Well, you like to use the excuse that people are not educated (putting on condoms and swallowing a pill) so lets assume the Mother did not know it is illegal. The doctor would simply say No. Just because you asked about something doesn’t mean you broke the law.
Also, saying people dont know how to properly use BC or Condoms is a lie. Especially if they have been around for 30 years. Ever since 6th grade I have had sexual education. I am SURE a gynacologist tells their patients on how to swallow a pill and how often (I am a man). I also remember in High School carrying around an egg to take care of it. Ignorance will not float here on this topic.
On the mother not knowing it is illegal – that is besides the point. Lack of knowledge of the law is no defense. Also, I’m not talking about where a woman asks the doctor and the doctor refuses; I’m talking about where the woman asks and obtains the abortion. Why should she not be held just as accountable as the doctor?
On igorance – I did not mean to imply that should serve as an excuse to allow for an abortion. My main point is that sometimes contraception fails. I believe that the woman should have the option to have an abortion in this instance.
Buck: My main point is that sometimes contraception fails. I believe that the woman should have the option to have an abortion in this instance.
TS: So, you believe that it is perfectly okay to use abortion as birth control? You do know that Birth control pills are 99.9% effective right? So again, when a women LIES that BC failed, you think it is perfectly acceptable to have an abortion?
There is a difference between using abortion as birth control and obtaining an abortion in the unfortunate (and unlikely) event that birth control was not effective.
By the way, any new rationalizations for why the woman should not be prosecuted?
I have not picked a side on this debate, but I do have to point out that adoption is not as easy a solution as you seem to think. And if adoption were to be the new solution for the number of abortions we have, there would not be nearly enough adopters. This does not justify abortion, but don’t pretend that adoption is an easy solution.
On the death penalty, do you think it is fair for the tax payer to pay for that person to live out their life behind bars being unproductive in society and costing them an undue burdeon? Do you think their victim was treated fairly when the offender took their life? People get the death penalty because they willingly took another life that did not belong to them. Not because they shoplifted.
Actually, yes I do think it is far to pay for the person to live out their life behind bars.
What are your thoughts on those who are innocent and erroneously found guilty put to death? If you are so gung-ho on protecting life, what about their lives? I would think you would oppose the death penalty, just to ensure no innocent man is killed.
At least with life behind bars, there is always the possibility of release for a mistake. Not so with the death penalty.
Buck
Curious why you think it is FAIR for us to pay for some guy to sit in jail for life?
Exactly what is FAIR about that arrangement?
It is fair because what is the alternative?
I have yet to hear that anybody found guilty of murder in the past 15 years was proven innocent later. However, before that, it was possible. I believe that any person who were convicted of murder prior to 1995 should all be reexamined. But it is possible to fully convicted without a doubt if a person was the offender these days and therefore they would not be innocently put to death.
Again with life behind bars, why should they be allowed to sit there and live a full life? Don’t you know that after 20, 30 years, they put out a nice heart-tugging plea to be freed because they have been fully educated and see their error? What do you do then?
Truth
Indentured servitude to the family of the victim.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Cameron_Todd_Willingham_Wrongfully_Convicted_and_Executed_in_Texas.php
But that was prior to 1995. So my point still stands. Another question is what to do about those that were wrongly executed.
Take a look at the Innocence Project and what they’ve done. They have exonerated a number of people who were found guilty since 1995 using DNA evidence.
There was another very recent case (also in Texas) of someone who was found innocent after being executed – cannot recall when the crime had occurred though.
But my point still stands – how can you support the death penalty when it has been proven that individuals have been wrongly executed? You can never ensure this would not happen again.
Again, there should be a stay on all people convicted to die prior to 1995. Yes, I believe that all cases withing the past 15 years can ensure people will no longer be innocently executed (DNA and all). I will try and evaluate the site more.
Not every murder case has DNA evidence.
Buck,
In 1991 before Death row inmates were moved to the Terrell unit, which is now called the Polunsky unit in Livingston, they were housed at the Ellis I unit in Huntsville where I began my first career choice which was in Criminal Justice.A choice that took me seven years to finally change once I completed school.Going back to school while working full time was the best decision I have ever made in my life.I basically tripled if not quadrupled my yearly wages.
The Ramsey III unit in Rosharon was renamed the Terrell unit when ex-chairman of the Texas Department of Corrections CT Terrell decided he did not want his name associated with death row.He fancies himself a humanitarian now I suppose.
Anyways, I propose to you Buck to work at a unit that houses deathrow inmates before advancing the idea that there should be no death penalty.I have personally seen what I can best describe as the “dregs of the scum of the earth” in regards to humanity.Evil has a face and if you really want me to describe it to you I shall in E-Mail but not on this blog.Most wouldn’t have the stomach for it.
As a matter of fact I would be willing to place an entire yearly salary wager that you would want the death penalty increased for some criminal offenses if you were to ever take a job as a Corrections Officer here in Texas.
I’ve never said that death row isn’t filled with the ‘dregs of the scum of the earth’ or that some of these individuals are not pure evil.
But do you dispute the fact that innocent people have been killed by the death penalty? Do you dispute that regardless of advances in DNA evidence, at least some innocent people will be killed in the future? How can you stomach keeping the death penalty around when you know that innocent people have been and will be put to death?
Although I would take that bet, I have no plans on ever becoming a Corrections Officer. That is some serious tough work that I have absolutely no interest in. I salute your work in that regard – most people would not be able to nor want to handle that.
I have no problem if one wants to talk about capital punishment as it relates to the sanctity of life. But I really do have a problem when it is brought up to side track a discussion on abortion, which is normally the case. Whether one believes in one but not the other really doesn’t negate the original argument. Is having abortion on demand belittle the importance of life. Yes or no. You may depending on your opinion claim that to be against one and not the other is hypocritical-and that Buck would cover your being for one and not the other too. Or one can argue that they are different because in one the person involved isn’t accused of anything and cannot speak for themselves. While in the other case the person is accused and has the ability to defend themselves. But again being hypocritical(if one is being hypocritical) doesn’t make the point moot. If we are going to discuss these issues we really should discuss them on the basis of themselves not as a tool to call someone hypocritical so you can TRY to belittle their arguments on one or the other.
But as far as your question :)-I don’t really like capital punishment but I have come to the conclusion-that just like with abortion there are times when an exception might be made. But the bar to apply the death penalty should be very high.
Ray, since you keep bringing up rape as a justification for abortion, I am thinking that you are presenting the fact that most abortions are from rape victums. Can you please post something to back that up? Can you also post anything to backup that if the rape victim did have the child and gave it up for adoption, that the rest of the mothers life was negativley affected? Thank you.
@Truthseeker – then your thinking is wrong. I would not state as fact that “most abortions are from rape victims” as you have – thus is there nothing for me to prove.
Also – can I post anything regarding a rape victim who was forced to birth the baby and how that affected her life. The mere question itself seems to assume that you think there is no negative impact. I do not find that to be the case.
That there is at least one support group for these types of people would suggest to me it is an issue.
http://www.secasa.com.au/index.php/survivors/4/151
Has anyone thought of the notion that the wikileaks scandal could be used as justification for internet seizure, censure and control by the government?!? Could the current administration really have played a part in this to further their agenda? Anyone know the cost of building and placing a server system as large and demanding as wikileaks in an underground blast resistant bunker? Who would deem wikileaks important enough to have its agenda protected in such a manner that they would spend that amount of money and more importantly for what reason?There is an Obama/Soros connection with Moveon.org and Soros’ multiple other political organizations so does this thought make any of you go HRMMMMMmmmmmmm?
I have also considered that there is no way they could have gotten this much information without anybody noticing. It just doesn’t make sense.
Plus Hilary Clintons intentions as to running in 2012 for the democratic nomination are well known.Clintons reputation will be stained by this scandal more than Obamas and I believe his intentions are to toss her under the bus.
Truthseeker,
I’m glad someone else can smell something fishy going on here.I was beginning to think I had a tear in my tin foil hat! I was getting worried there for a bit! 🙂 *wink*
Yes, two days ago. I mentioned it while at work. Instead of the usual derisive comments I get when I point out what’s obvious to me, my coworkers actually considered what I had to say and one even agreed that its possible. Unfortunately, I’m looking less and less ‘looney’ these days. If only I were insane, rather than observant.
You mean like this? Here’s some Orwellian language for you: “preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet.”
EDITORIAL: Wave goodbye to Internet freedom
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/wave-goodbye-to-internet-freedom/
To me, this seems like someone from Wikileaks got access into the State Dept database and was able to have a free for all access to all data for a few days. This was not a run of the mill leaked classified documents that were carried out in huge boxes and nobody noticed. Or the, lets meet by the duck pond and talk off the record. I smell something very criminal here and hidden intentions. I really don’t like conspiracy theories, but I am in the computer security buisness and this does not add up.
I also wanted to add, that if the US Government wanted to shut down that site (DDOS), they could have easily. They were well aware of what was happening and could of killed the site before the masses had access to it.
Not really, DDOS attacks can be stopped at the router level by anyone fairly competent with networks. The guys who support wikileaks will be more than competent.
@TexasChem – I can speak speak somewhat to your points:
(1) I would consider it highly unlikely that a single PFC is the root of all the leakage – it is possible – DoD typically get very low marks for Information Security. While it does not appear that most of the data fell under “compartmentalized top secret”, the diversity of data in what has gone overall to Wikileaks does not lend well to a single source.
(2) Let’s say the PFC did have access to everything that ended up at Wikileaks – perhaps that is possible – our next analysis would be appropriateness relative to size of download. A perpetrator could easily do a slow trickle and over time accumulate a lot of data – I don’t think that is what happened here. For classified data there should be monitoring alarms in places that go apeshit when a size threshold is reached for a download – regardless if you are authorized to access the material.
(3) I do not buy the theory that this was intentional or there is some underhanded scheme for political play. This is flat out egg-on-face stuff. What I am suspicious of is what is happening behind the scenes – the whole Amazon move smells really really bad.
Nothing new here – we all know this stuff now, but sometimes its good to keep the faces and their own words in front of us.
Need to get outta here but just caught this so ending with this post for Ray. Don’t recall if you indicated your new baby (Mathius – read parasite), is male or female, but we all know that naming the little one isn’t always easy. Here’s some help for you!
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1012/palin_girls_names_climb_list.html
Happy Weekend Everyone! First significant snowfall predicted for southern WI – looking forward to it!
Any ruggers out there may appreciate this…..
I will drink a beer out of TexasChem’s ass before I name any of my kids after a Palin demon
Is that type of personal, uncalled for attack neccessary? I thought you were above that. You are only proving peoples point on how the left has demonized someone that hasn’t done anything wrong.
Because of course it is only the left that engages in such demonizations…
Both sides do so-both sides program us to hate-both sides are wrong-if we fall for it-we are wrong too. But neither is right and neither should be excused and none of us are immune.
This isn’t a left or right site. This is SUFA. I don’t remember anybody spiting Vitriol unjustly here. Again, what has Palin done that is so wrong? You cannot campare her to somebody like Rangel. I have not seen or hear Palin do anything to warrant such bad name calling.
And you really just proved that the attacks on Palin in comparison to other politicians are way to vitriolic not to be blamed on the over the top attack that the media has been waging. You have been programmed to hate. Demon is your word of choice.
Jesus H. Christ Truthseeker and V.H. – ease off for a second. I took Kathy’s posting the same as I took D13’s – a JOKE. I responded with a JOKE. Do I need to put a smiley face on everything that is meant with humor? I don’t know if her kids are demons or not and I really don’t care. Well, at least one is a slutty little floozy; but that isn’t the same as a demon. (JOKE ALERT)
I don’t like Palin’s politics. Here is something that’ll make your heads explode – I actually watched her reality show – aside from some of the contrived “family this, family that” over-the-top stuff I thought some of the stuff was kinda entertaining – and I love watching outdoorsy stuff.
Before you wet yourselves with being pissed off late on a Friday – just remember – its Friday and its 5:00 somewhere.
🙂
😉
You might take note that most woman don’t like the word slutty-I particularly don’t like it when it is applied to a child or a young woman. But if you say you are just joking -fine- but I still say your jokes would not be so vitriolic if the press and others didn’t spend so much of their time trying to dehumanize Palin and shamefully her kids too.
Just as a side note -I don’t have a sense of humor anymore when it comes to Palin and especially the attacks on her children. And no offense but in this instance you just aren’t funny. 🙂
Thankfully VH I don’t rely on checking in with you before I make myself laugh.
That’s true-you don’t-but you night consider the feelings of the young woman you just attacked. Ha Ha funny funny-wonder how you would feel if someone called your baby girl a slutty floozy -but what the hell it’s just a joke.
@VH – do you consider President Obama’s feelings before you say mean things about him? Have you considered that he may read this blog every night and cry himself to sleep because his feelings are hurt?
Actually, I do-can’t say I’m not guilty of crossing the line-as I stated before-none of us are immune to the political influence’s in our lives.
If that was the first attack ever out of your mouth it would be different. Your whole MO is ‘attack’. I’ve been attacked by you several times. You attack anyone who doesn’t agree with you. And now you want to play it as a joke? Not buying it. All bow to Ray.
Anita – you need to grow a pair or grow another pair. My comments above were not an attack. It was an effing joke.
😉
I rest my case!
Me too
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL I lauged out loud when I scrolled down and saw this post D-13.
I thought to myself wow he dropped the bomb for real! 🙂
I can understand humor from both sides of the political spectrum.I understand folks getting perturbed at an attack on someone they identify with but in all honesty Ms. Palin is a public political figure and she will continue to get rubbed raw by pundits quite regularly.I am not saying I agree with it.Just that it is going to happen.I’m just as guilty when it comes to the women of “The View” when commenting about those kool aid drinking goofy biddies.
Everyone hold hands and sing Kumbaya now!We will evoke a spiritual unity amongst our SUFA members calm our Chi! 🙂
Woah there Cowboy! Lets think about this just a bit more!
I could have just taken a coffee enema just before that beer got poured!
I firmly believe your daughter would be named … Bristol! 🙂
@TexasChem – am actually hoping for another boy – and he’ll get a good Irish or Icelandic name if we go that route.
It is the fact that you know you are talking about denying life to an unborn child that makes the decision so hard. And if you know you are killing an unborn child the decision should be not to do it unless your life is at stake.
We don’t answer the question of whether it is wrong to kill a baby on the basis of what are we going to do to the mother if she decides to kill her baby. People who are trying to rationalize the taking of an innocent life come up with all kinds of arguments to try and support that which is unsupportable.
But I will try to answer your question-You handle it as you do any other breaking of the law. I would think for a first offense you would handle it much like they do an attempted suicide. You don’t just throw an emotional woman in jail-you give her counseling-you look at all the factors and a court or the attorneys or however plea deals are worked out -decide what is appropriate.
Here’s my problem with your approach, and please correct me where I am mistaken. I am honestly just trying to get an understanding of where you stand on these issues:
You believe abortion is akin to murder (correct?)
You believe the doctor who performs the abortion should be guilty of murder (correct? and if not correct, what is the doctor guilty of?)
You believe the woman who seeks an abortion should not be held accountable or alternatively should only receive a slap on the wrist and obtain counseling (correct?)
Why should the woman get off for murder and only receive counseling? Do you honestly believe the woman who obtains an abortion does not have the capacity to understand what she is doing? If you truly believe abortion is murder, then shouldn’t the woman be held fully accountable for murder, just like the doctor – after all, she had the presence of mind to find a doctor willing to perform this illegal murderous procedure, did she not?
Sorta like the guy that hires a hit man to kill the wifey……both guilty.
Unless it is justifiable homicide…..like throwing away a man’s computerized Taylor Made golf clubs or cleaning a grill with a wire brush and Boraxo soap or cleaning his rifle with 409 or some such….there are exceptions.
🙂
So you can’t clean a rifle with 409? Good to know!
No, no, no he is saying those are justifiable offenses for homicide!
Now I’m even more confused – can you clean a rifle with 409 or can’t you?
I feel better now! lol 🙂
Hell no don’t clean your rifle with 409!
Any 409 residue will break down the oil you put back on it if you did not get it all off.That is not a good thing with friction producing parts…plus un-oiled metal rusts.
Well doh! Just realized you said can’t.Thought you said can.I was thinking to myself some folks might be about to have a major meltdown.I didn’t catch your dry sense of humor at first cause I have this cityslicker impression of you Buck.Gawsh that just plum makes me feel stoooopid.I hate that feeling!
I may be a cityslicker but…umm, yeah, so I’m a cityslicker.
Pretty much what I’m trying to get it. If you honestly believe abortion is akin to murder and the doctor should be charged with murder, then why not the woman as well?
All to often I hear excuses in this hypo about how we cannot or should not prosecute the woman. Makes no sense to me.
First of all, I never said the doctor should automatically be charged with murder. It is a legal question, which must be answered by looking at the evidence in the case. I cannot think of any thing which I feel would justify him not being charged with murder but I will leave that decision upto the people who have the facts. As far as the mother-as in any case -one always looks at all the factors-the reason I look at the mom differently is because she is intimately effected by the pregnancy-her reasoning can be effected by outside influences and even by the pregnancy itsself. Emotional issues can cause people to do things which are wrong. I think these things should be taken into consideration. So I have more empathy and compassion for her than for a doctor who is routinely breaking the law. I do get your point -somehow if I don’t scream for the mom to be punished to the full extent of the law-than I must not really feel this is murder. But that argument isn’t true either. I find a man who accidentally shoots an innocent man while trying to shoot a man who rapped his daughter-guilty of murder-but I have more compassion for him than I do a man who just kills someone. Pregnancy and abortion is an issue that stands alone-there is no other issue that involves two lives in one body. Emotion, fear, all factors effecting the mom matter in determining what is the right way to handle this type of situation.
So the defense is ‘Hormones from the pregnancy made me do it”?? Sorry but I don’t buy it.
Hormones might well cause a woman to do something crazy-but that really isn’t the point-the point once again is that the woman is breaking the law-she should be held accountable for doing so-but all factors should be looked at-just as it is with every other crime. I do find it strange that you can buy allowing a woman to kill her child for who knows what reason but one who is against abortion can’t acknowledge the hardship and recognize that perhaps in some cases the woman shouldn’t be punished to the full extent of the law.
No of course one who is against abortion can acknowledge the hardship of the decision (as I’ve repeatedly said, it is an unimaginatively difficult decision). And sure there could conceivably be some cases where the woman shouldn’t be punished to the full extent of the law.
However, the decision to undergo an abortion is not the same as a jealous husband killing his wife and her lover in a fit of rage, nor going after the guy who raped his wife for revenge. I find it a bit hard to square away the contradiction that this is such a tough decision to make (unlike the above examples) with the idea that the woman shouldn’t be held accountable.
Also, please try to remember that I can buy allowing a woman to terminate her pregnancy because I truly do not see it as akin to murder.
Before I reply. I don’t really understand your meaning with the following:
I find it a bit hard to square away the contradiction that this is such a tough decision to make (unlike the above examples) with the idea that the woman shouldn’t be held accountable.
I’m sure it’s my mind-am getting tired-not enough sleep last night. But could you explain in a different way.
What I’m getting at is the decision to have an abortion is wholly different from the ‘decision’ to kill your wife and her lover in a fit of rage when you stumble upon them in bed together.
We both agree that abortion is a gut-wrenchingly difficult decision to make. I find there is a contradiction when you admit how difficult (and ostensibly time-consuming) this decision is and the concept that the woman is ’emotional’ and therefore shouldn’t be fully prosecuted in most cases.
226 Summit Parkway
Birmingham, AL 35209
Well that didn’t work right-I think I just lost my whole post-give me a minute
Okay, now I get your point. First of all, I do think most woman have a hard time making this decision-I even claim that the reason it is difficult is that they KNOW they are doing something that is WRONG. Not screaming at you –just emphasizing I also think that this decision for some woman is becoming common place and isn’t such a big deal anymore. Because for the last, what 30 years we have been teaching our children that disposing of unwanted pregnancies was just fine. But when I said acknowledging the hardship-I wasn’t talking about a woman struggling over the decision. I was talking about outside forces or internal problems clouding her reasoning. These reasons do not excuse her behavior but they should be considered in determining her punishment.
I sure do like that undue button 🙂
And here hopefully is the rest of my post. Okay, now I get your point. First of all, I do think most woman have a hard time making this decision-I even claim that the reason it is difficult is that they KNOW they are doing something that is WRONG. Not screaming at you –just emphasizing I also think that this decision for some woman is becoming common place and isn’t such a big deal anymore. Because for the last, what 30 years we have been teaching our children that disposing of unwanted pregnancies was just fine. But when I said acknowledging the hardship-I wasn’t talking about a woman struggling over the decision. I was talking about outside forces or internal problems clouding her reasoning. These reasons do not excuse her behavior but they should be considered in determining her punishment.
Gonna try one more time :But now we are at the point where you say-it’s okay because I don’t believe it is taking a life. All the other things we have been talking about are just shadow arguments which dance around the actual issue. Is it wrong to kill a baby in the womb. I say yes –you say no-not sure where we can go from here. But none of these other arguments justify taking a life. You deny it is a life but you acknowledge the hardness of making this decision –So I reiterate –why is it a hard decision if it is not a life. And I ask you to look at a newborn and acknowledge that if the mom had decided differently just a few months prior-days prior for some people – and acknowledge that the baby you are looking at would not be here. )
It is a difficult, gut wrenching decision because it is a potential human life. No one is arguing this fact.
Our difference is that I believe there are overriding lives at stake, if you will – the mother’s free choice as to whether or not to have a child. This is why I strongly believe in the line that has been drawn – whether or not the fetus is viable outside of the womb. As science progresses and the age of viability gets lower, then so too should a woman’s right to an abortion absent extringent circumstances (e.g., serious risk to her life).
Regarding your point of ‘outside forces clouding her reasoning’ – such as?
Time to move go to bottom please
Think about it like this Buck,
A very large percentage of thier lives women actually are hormonally imbalanced which can indeed cause craziness.
During menstruation once a month from 3 to 7 days!That could be an entire week.That’s approximately 1/4 of their life right there! During pregnancy and some few months after…after menopause…it’s really rather frightening to be honest! 🙂
And I’m the one on thin ice with the ladies today…go figure!
Enjoy the weekend – I’m about out.
👿 You’re very wise to be frightened 👿
🙂
V.H.
Question.
If we were to use the old common law as an example of a more Just system we would find that the person who kills someone must make restitution to the family of the one killed.
The punishment is linked to the crime.
If a woman aborts a baby you consider her guilty of killing. So to whom is she responsible for making restitution?
To whom must the doctor make restitution?
I’m not sure JAC-Who would a criminal make restitution too-if the victim had no family. But in reality-my purpose isn’t so much to punish as it is to stop the practice. No punishment will bring back the dead-the point is to stop future crimes, to protect society, or to teach a lesson-so the person won’t repeat the offense. How to determine what is a reasonable response is hard.
V.H. – “…,to protect society,…”
BL – So you want to push YOUR standards onto others by proxy of government violence and coercion in order to protect them?
You’d like to stick a gun to someone’s head and tell them that it’s wrong to kill THEIR fetus?
Yeah, that makes sense.
Are you somehow responsible for all the fetuses in the world?
Is that your right? …and if so,…why and/or how is it your right?
To protect society-is that a hot button pushing phrase for you BL 🙂 🙂 I have been trying to explain the whys all day. It is Wrong. Period. Just wrong. Yes it is my responsibility as a human and as a citizen to try and stop a practice which I consider murder. And yes I would use police enforcement to enforce a ban on abortion. What I’m not gonna do 🙂 is start a long argument about government vs. non government on the need for enforcement capabilities. I have argued this point numerous times in the past. You know my views. Besides it’s friday and I just don’t wanna. 🙂
VH – “To protect society-is that a hot button pushing phrase for you BL”
BL – No, I’m just trying to understand how you protect people by threatening them.
VH – “It is Wrong. Period. Just wrong.”
BL – Who says? You? Me?
I agree that it is fundamentally wrong, But who are we to say what is wrong or right for anyone but ourselves?
VH – “Yes it is my responsibility as a human and as a citizen…”
BL – So just because you’re human and a citizen, you have the right to dictate how others live?
Okay then, since I’m a human and a citizen, I command you to start smoking pot. lol.
VH – “…to try and stop a practice which I consider murder. And yes I would use police enforcement to enforce a ban on abortion.”
BL – Yes, a practice that YOU consider murder is YOUR justification for using violence to FORCE OTHERS to comply with YOUR standards.
Plants are living organisms. What if I considered picking fruits and vegetables to be murder?
If I considered it immoral to eat vegetables, does that give me the right to send an armed man to YOUR dining room to force you to not eat vegetables?
VH – “What I’m not gonna do 🙂 is start a long argument about government vs. non government on the need for enforcement capabilities.”
BL – Neither am I. You seem to miss the point if you think I am simply talking about governance vs anarchy…because it’s really about rights and responsibilities as they relate to freedom.
VH – “I have argued this point numerous times in the past. You know my views.”
BL – Sure do, …which is why I’m trying to untie that knot in your head that causes you to rationalize the justification for being a control freak and telling others how to live their lives.
VH – “Besides it’s friday and I just don’t wanna.”
BL – I went to bed at 0200 and woke back up at 0500, then drove two counties away where I worked hard doing skilled labor all day.
I’m tired, and I’m doing the same tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, etc…
Perhaps we will continue this another day…maybe tomorrow night.
🙂
ROFL!
I did it again.
I forgot to switch back to Bottom Line.
Another time-sounds like we both need sleep.
Because you asked the question my mind is now running overtime on the philosophical. Kinda the tree falls in the forest analogy. Should one be punished if they haven’t hurt anyone living and able to object. Let me throw another idea into the mix-they may well have hurt someone-this unborn child may have saved the life of someones child in the future or may have killed someones child in the future. Who knows-all I know is they have hurt the unborn baby-denied it the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some type of restitution is due-or some type of psychological help is needed.
V.H.
I will only offer this.
Extending the Rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness to the unborn would be extending the concept beyond that envisioned by those who discovered and articulated it.
I am not using that as defense of abortion nor opposition to it. Only that we often defend the idea of looking to original meaning. I think the ancients would recognize the conflict between the rights of the mother (born) and the fetus (unborn).
And we know that Rights can not be conflict between one person and another. That is a basic natural law of the concept of a right. So if they are in conflict then either one is not a “person” with those rights or the rights do not exist.
I was being a might lose with my wording-I do not put the rights of the unborn on the same plane as the rights of the living-which is why I make exceptions for life and death situations-but I believe that pregnancy is a situation that is different than any other issues of rights of the individual, because there are two individual-all the normal reasoning simply doesn’t apply IMnsHO.
V.H.
For now I think it wise to let this rest.
I suggest you get some rest, have some fun, then come back and read your own words again.
Best of wishes for a peaceful and happy weekend.
JAC
Probably best because I am tired and I just reread my words and I’m not having any problem with them. Will reread in the morning. Hope you have a great week end too. Good night.
So JAC, does that mean if I kill my own child (let’s say my wife and I are in on it together), there is no problem as no family to make restitution to?
Likewise in the abortion context given this line of thinking – who does the doctor have to make restitution to if the mother wanted the abortion?
Buck
As to the first point, it depends on the type of society we construct on these principles. But it raises a very important question.
If you kill someone who has absolutely no family nor is connected to anyone else in anyway that their death would be considered detrimental, then what “harm” has been done to anyone but the victim. And as they are dead, what is the appropriate penalty for this killing.
We claim that we imprison for the purposes of justice and protecting society. Justice goes to the issue of restitution. But to claim protection we would have to know that your killing is habitual or subject to random fits of acting out. If not, then what protection is provided by your imprisonment.
So I guess in this world you and your wife would be ridiculed and labeled as “child killers”. Expect your friends to shun you?
As to your second point. I would say that the doctor is subject to the same punishment as the mother, they are conspirators in the killing.
Then in such a world, I would say that abortion would have to be a punishless crime since it is the mother making that choice.
If I ever had to make such a decision, I would expect my friends to support me with an understanding of how difficult the decision was. I seriously doubt any of my friends would shun me – and if they did, they wouldn’t truly be my friend, now would they.
Buck,
What would be your take on the legal standing of a father that slipped the morning after pill into a pregnant girlfriends/wife drink or food without her knowledge which resulted in a baby being aborted with the mother unawares>?If the mother can have a choice to abort would the father be held in criminal standing? It takes two to conceive!
Wow now that’s just a crazy hypo! I feel like I’m in law school taking an exam…
First and foremost since the morning after pill does not cause an abortion, even if abortion was considered a crime (let’s say murder), no murder occurred.
The only criminal liability could be something along the lines of assault and battery. There could also be civil liability.
The interesting question I think you are also raising here is whether a father should be able to force the mother into having an abortion. (the line of thinking being if a woman can decide she doesn’t want a baby, shouldn’t the man be able to make the same decision). My conclusion – absolutely not. However, there probably should be a change in the law concerning a father’s responsibility towards a child he does not wish to have and would have aborted if he was able – this is a very tricky issue though and one I am torn on and very unsure how should be handled.
From my email box
“A chemistry professor at a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist government.
In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, ‘Do you know how to catch wild pigs?’ The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. ‘You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.
You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught.
Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms — just a little at a time.”
I don’t get it – what does this have to do with Chemistry?
Nothing!. Pretend you don’t see that part. 🙂
I believe he is just turning a blind eye to the moral of the story Anita! 🙂
He know exactly what he’s doing. That’s Ok he’s running on thin ice with me and he knows it..but that’s ok cause I have a looooong memory, right Buck? 🙂
I’m running on thin ice?? Moi? Why?
8)
Why is it always a blonde?
Three women go down to Mexico one night to celebrate college graduation, get drunk, and wake up in jail, only to find that they are to be executed in the morning, though none of them can remember what they did the night before.
The first one, a redhead, is strapped in the electric chair and is asked if she has any last words. She says, “I just graduated from Trinity Bible College and believe in the almighty power of God to intervene on the behalf of the innocent.”
They throw the switch and nothing happens. They all immediately fall to the floor on their knees, beg for forgiveness, and release her.
The second one, a brunette, is strapped in and gives her last words. “I just graduated from the Harvard School of Law and I believe in the power of justice to intervene on the part of the innocent.”
They throw the switch and again, nothing happens. Again they all immediately fall to their knees, beg for forgiveness and release her.
The last one (you knew it), a blonde, is strapped in and says, “Well, I’m from the University of Tennessee and just graduated with a degree in Electrical Engineering, and I’ll tell ya right now, ya’ll ain’t gonna electrocute nobody if you don’t plug this thing in.
🙂 Good one.. don’t let Judy see it!
He HE He -that’s funny-Nice break from the depressing subject of abortion. Thanks. 🙂
A little bird told me about,
A new Priest at his first mass was so nervous he could hardly speak. After mass he asked the Monsignor how he had done.
The Monsignor replied, “When I am worried about getting nervous on the pulpit, I put a glass of vodka next to the water glass. If I start to get nervous, I take a sip.”
So next Sunday he took the Monsignor’s advice. At the beginning of the sermon, he got nervous and took a drink. He proceeded to talk up a storm.
Upon his return to his office after the mass, he found the following note on the door:
1) Sip the vodka, don’t gulp.
2) There are 10 commandments, not 12.
3) There are 12 disciples, not 10.
4) Jesus was consecrated, not constipated.
5) Jacob wagered his donkey, he did not bet his ass.
6) We do not refer to Jesus Christ as the late J.C..
7) The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not referred to as Daddy, Junior and the Spook.
8) David slew Goliath; he did not kick the shit out of him..
9) When David was hit by a rock and was knocked off his donkey, don’t say he was stoned off his ass.
10) We do not refer to the cross as the ‘Big T.’
11) When Jesus broke the bread at the last supper he said, “Take this and eat it for this is my body.” He did not say, “Eat me.”
12) The Virgin Mary is not called ‘Mary with the Cherry’.
13) The recommended grace before a meal is not: Rub-A-Dub-Dub thanks for the grub, Yeah God.
14) Next Sunday there will be a taffy pulling contest at St. Peter’s not a peter pulling contest at St. Taffy’s.
Beer30 ladies, have a good one.
Hahaha! Love it!
Yearling Whitetailed Doe.Freshly killed last saturday.Chicken fried backstrap and tenderloin steak tonight with mashed potatoes and purple hull peas as sides.Gravy made out of the grease drippings.Homemade biscuits with real butter.Gigantic glass of iced tea.
Taking a 2 week break from my Ketosis psychotic state of mind! I am so excited lol!
Actually screw 2 weeks.I believe I’ll just wait till the New Year to start back up.
You would be hard pressed to find a situation where I believed the factors, though hard , override the wrongness of getting rid of an unborn child. But what factors. A wife who is deathly scared that her husband will literally kill her if he finds out she is pregnant. A teenage girl who is intimidated by a father or boyfriend who is basically forcing her to have an abortion. Basically woman who are so scared of the consequences of the pregnancy that they cannot think clearly. Stuff like that.
So more along the lines of duress – the mother was forced into getting an abortion by another who threatened her life? In a world where abortion was a crime, such an exception to prosecuting the mother would be very sensible. However, as you know, I still fundamentally disagree with you on whether abortion is murder and should be banned. But its been interesting!
It has been interesting. I will say one more thing. You talk of supporting the line that has been drawn. I’m not seeing much of a line anymore.
How so?
I’m assuming you are talking about the viability, correct?
No, I’m not really talking viability-the definition of viability wasn’t really stated in the Federal law-it was more of a spread with doctors deciding the actual time that a baby was legally viable. I’m talking the continual legal battles-one side trying to shorten the line, the other trying to lengthen the line. As far as I am aware, the most premature birth to survive is 21 wks and 6 days but most states put the line at somewhere between 22 to 24 weeks. This in my mind is already past the legal definition of viability. Personally, I think if we have to have abortions than the date should be at least a couple weeks before viability-just to be safe. I also feel that the laws covering late term abortions simply have to many holes in them which as far as I can see -would allow anyone who really wanted an abortion to get one at any time during pregnancy. Of course the states keep changing things so it’s hard to keep up. I am happy to see that per statistics the actual number of abortions has gone down since I think 2000-although the statistics are rather untrustworthy-some states don’t even report them. One nugget of information I read-California has the most abortions-now why doesn’t that surprise me. There is something just fundamentally wrong with-I can have an abortion today by law but I can’t have one tomorrow because the baby will be viable then. Have you ever thought about it people can go through almost 2/3 of their pregnancy and then have an abortion- 3 months is all the additional time it would take to carry the baby to full term. Three months out of their lives and some people still decide to abort the child. So many babies denied life mostly because the mother just doesn’t want her life disrupted and is to weak to give the baby up for adoption-I mean having to get rid of a baby who is looking back at you is much harder than claiming it’s just a bunch of cells and aborting it.
One quick point – CA may have the most abortions because it is the most populous state. Any breakdown of abortions per capita by state? Would be a more meaningful figure.
I already said the statistics are not very reliable-it’s just that poking at California because parts of it are so far left is required. 🙂
Of course, why anyone would accept viability outside of the womb as a definition of life-I will never understand. Seems to me a developing baby has all the essentials to be considered alive wayyy before then.
Physiology
Pregnancy is typically broken into three periods, or trimesters, each of about three months. While there are no hard and fast rules, these distinctions are useful in describing the changes that take place over time.
[edit] First trimester
Traditionally, doctors have measured pregnancy from a number of convenient points, including the day of last menstruation, ovulation, fertilization, implantation and chemical detection. In medicine, pregnancy is often defined as beginning when the developing embryo becomes implanted into the endometrial lining of a woman’s uterus. In some cases where complications may have arisen, the fertilized egg might implant itself in the fallopian tubes, the cervix, the ovary or in the abdomen causing an ectopic pregnancy. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy there is no way for the pregnancy to progress normally. If left untreated, it can cause harm and possibly death for the mother when a rupture occurs. Sometimes it will go away on its own but otherwise a surgical procedure or medicine is given to remove the tubal pregnancy since there is no way of the pregnancy being able to continue safely.[28] Most pregnant women do not have any specific signs or symptoms of implantation, although it is not uncommon to experience minimal bleeding at implantation. Some women will also experience cramping during their first trimester. This is usually of no concern unless there is spotting or bleeding as well. After implantation the uterine endometrium is called the decidua. The placenta, which is formed partly from the decidua and partly from outer layers of the embryo, connects the developing fetus to the uterine wall to allow nutrient uptake, waste elimination, and gas exchange via the mother’s blood supply. The umbilical cord is the connecting cord from the embryo or fetus to the placenta. The developing embryo undergoes tremendous growth and changes during the process of fetal development.
Morning sickness occurs in about seventy percent of all pregnant women and typically improves after the first trimester.[29][dead link] Although described as “morning sickness”, women can experience this nausea during afternoon, evening, and throughout the entire day.
In the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, the nipples and areolas darken due to a temporary increase in hormones.[30]
The first 12 weeks of pregnancy are considered to make up the first trimester. The first two weeks from the first trimester are calculated as the first two weeks of pregnancy even though the pregnancy does not actually exist. These two weeks are the two weeks before conception and include the woman’s last period.
The third week is the week in which fertilization occurs and the 4th week is the period when implantation takes place. In the 4th week, the fecundated egg reaches the uterus and burrows into its wall which provides it with the nutrients it needs. At this point, the zygote becomes a blastocyst and the placenta starts to form. Moreover, most of the pregnancy tests may detect a pregnancy beginning with this week.
The 5th week marks the start of the embryonic period. This is when the baby’s brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form.[31] At this point the embryo is made up of three layers, of which the top one (called the ectoderm) will give rise to the baby’s outermost layer of skin, central and peripheral nervous systems, eyes, inner ear, and many connective tissues.[31] The heart and the beginning of the circulatory system as well as the bones, muscles and kidneys are made up from the mesoderm (the middle layer). The inner layer of the embryo will serve as the starting point for the development of the baby’s lungs, intestine and bladder. This layer is referred to as the endoderm. A baby at 5 weeks is normally between 1⁄16 and 1⁄8 inch (1.6 and 3.2 mm) in length.
In the 6th week, the baby will be developing basic facial features and its arms and legs start to grow. At this point, the embryo is usually no longer than 1⁄6 to 1⁄4 inch (4.2 to 6.3 mm). In the following week, the brain, face and arms and legs quickly develop. In the 8th week, the baby starts moving and in the next 3 weeks, the baby’s toes, neck and genitals develop as well. According to the American Pregnancy Association, by the end of the first trimester, the fetus will be about 3 inches (76 mm) long and will weigh approximately 1 ounce (28 g).[32]
[edit] Second trimester
Weeks 13 to 28 of the pregnancy are called the second trimester. Most women feel more energized in this period, and begin to put on weight as the symptoms of morning sickness subside and eventually fade away.
In the 20th week, the uterus, the muscular organ that holds the developing fetus, can expand up to 20 times its normal size during pregnancy. Although the fetus begins to move and takes a recognizable human shape during the first trimester, it is not until the second trimester that movement of the fetus, often referred to as “quickening”, can be felt. This typically happens in the fourth month, more specifically in the 20th to 21st week, or by the 19th week if the woman has been pregnant before. However, it is not uncommon for some women not to feel the fetus move until much later. The placenta fully functions at this time and the fetus makes insulin and urinates. The reproductive organs distinguish the fetus as male or female.
[edit] Third trimester
Comparison of growth of the abdomen between 26 weeks and 40 weeks gestation.
Final weight gain takes place, which is the most weight gain throughout the pregnancy. The fetus will be growing the most rapidly during this stage, gaining up to 28 g per day. The woman’s belly will transform in shape as the belly drops due to the fetus turning in a downward position ready for birth. During the second trimester, the woman’s belly would have been very upright, whereas in the third trimester it will drop down quite low, and the woman will be able to lift her belly up and down. The fetus begins to move regularly, and is felt by the woman. Fetal movement can become quite strong and be disruptive to the woman. The woman’s navel will sometimes become convex, “popping” out, due to her expanding abdomen. This period of her pregnancy can be uncomfortable, causing symptoms like weak bladder control and backache. Movement of the fetus becomes stronger and more frequent and via improved brain, eye, and muscle function the fetus is prepared for ex utero viability. The woman can feel the fetus “rolling” and it may cause pain or discomfort when it is near the woman’s ribs and spine.
There is head engagement in the third trimester, that is, the fetal head descends into the pelvic cavity so that only a small part (or none) of it can be felt abdominally. The perenium and cervix are further flattened and the head may be felt vaginally.[33] Head engagement is known colloquially as the baby drop, and in natural medicine as the lightening because of the release of pressure on the upper abdomen and renewed ease in breathing. However, it severely reduces bladder capacity, increases pressure on the pelvic floor and the rectum, and the mother may experience the perpetual sensation that the fetus will “fall out” at any moment.[34]
It is during this time that a baby born prematurely may survive. The use of modern medical intensive care technology has greatly increased the probability of premature babies surviving, and has pushed back the boundary of viability to much earlier dates than would be possible without assistance.[35] In spite of these developments, premature birth remains a major threat to the fetus, and may result in ill health in later life, even if the baby survives.
[edit] Embryonic and fetal development
See also: Prenatal development
Prenatal development is divided into two primary biological stages. The first is the embryonic stage, which lasts for about two months. At this point, the fetal stage begins. At the beginning of the fetal stage, the risk of miscarriage decreases sharply,[36] all major structures including the head, brain, hands, feet, and other organs are present, and they continue to grow and develop. When the fetal stage commences, a fetus is typically about 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length, and the heart can be seen beating via sonograph; the fetus bends the head, and also makes general movements and startles that involve the whole body.[37] Some fingerprint formation occurs from the beginning of the fetal stage.[38]
Electrical brain activity is first detected between the 5th and 6th week of gestation, though this is still considered primitive neural activity rather than the beginning of conscious thought, something that develops much later in fetation. Synapses begin forming at 17 weeks, and at about week 28 begin to multiply at a rapid pace which continues until 3–4 months after birth. It is not until week 23 that the fetus can survive, albeit with major medical support, outside of the womb, because it does not possess a sustainable human brain until that time.[39]
Embryo at 4 weeks after fertilization[40]
Fetus at 8 weeks after fertilization[41]
Fetus at 18 weeks after fertilization[42]
Fetus at 38 weeks after fertilization[43]
Relative size in 1st month (simplified illustration)
Relative size in 3rd month (simplified illustration)
Relative size in 5th month (simplified illustration)
Relative size in 9th month (simplified illustration)
One way to observe prenatal development is via ultrasound images. Modern 3D ultrasound images provide greater detail for prenatal diagnosis than the older 2D ultrasound technology.[44] While 3D is popular with parents desiring a prenatal photograph as a keepsake,[45] both 2D and 3D are discouraged by the FDA for non-medical use,[46][dead link] but there are no definitive studies linking ultrasound to any adverse medical effects.[47] The following 3D ultrasound images were taken at different stages of pregnancy:
75-mm fetus (about 14 weeks gestational age)
Fetus at 17 weeks
Fetus at 20 weeks
Some people are confused about the differences between an ultrasound and a sonogram. An ultrasound is the actual machine that lets you observe pregnancy. A sonogram is the image of the baby that the ultrasound produces. 4D Ultrasounds take 3D sonograms. Some people refer to the procedure as prenatal imaging, 3D imaging, a 3D scan, or 4D scan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy
In fact I would postulate that viability is not a definition of life-it is a definition of convenience-a definition formed to assure the liberation of woman and for no other legitimate reason.
I love these politicians that speak their mind and to heck with the PC crap. Here’s an Austrian guy fed up with Muslim hyprocrisy.
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/austrian-politician-goes-off-on-turkish-ambassador
This is funny-maybe a little tacky in a couple spots-but not to bad and really funny.
Not long after The One was given the keys to the kingdom, he signed an executive order giving Interpol more freedom in the US. And now we have this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/02/nigeria-dick-cheney-to-be_n_790917.html
Are the two related? Time will tell.
What was the EO #? I thought even with that we still have to extradite someone. Buck?
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2009-obama.html
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-30413.pdf
Unsure – I’m not that familiar with either the EO or the requirements involved. Anyone else?
Black Flag,
You’ve been pretty quiet about the economy lately. What with all that’s going, I would have guessed you have some updates for us. Just asking becuase a couple of us have been wondering….
Yeah – where is our resident pirate? Hope everything is OK.
Paging Doctor Flag…………paging Doctor Flag……..
Enjoy-I hope
Ray,
I overreacted to your Palin Demon comment and I apologize. But I didn’t overreact to the slutty comment so I’m not apologizing for that one. Hope you have a good weekend too. Goodnight.
Well mark another victory for the chicago political thugs.Hilary Clinton bows down to Obama and publicly states she will NOT run for any more public offices.
Methinks wikileaks has only released a portion of the incriminating cables against Hilary and is with-holding something more that is very incriminating.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024551-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Buck the Wala said
December 1, 2010 at 7:18 pm
I dispute the imputed meaning of climategate as ‘proof’ that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the scientific community as a whole.
Buck, sorry I missed this statement. As written, I agree. Case closed. BUT….
Climategate was a scandal, AGW is the hoax.
A major factor in the scandal/hoax is how the controlling scientists acted. The did not share their original data. Scientific method and peer review is the required standard. Failure to adhere to that standard means it is not science.
In science, the results can be duplicated. When independent scientist attempted this, request for the original data and temp. readings were refused or obstructed. Several independent scientist took what was information that had been released and could not duplicate the published results. No wonder. The Medieval Warm Period was just as significant as the Little Ice Age. Removing it to hide the decline and produce Al Gore’s Hockey Stick was a scandal and a clear violation of professional ethics.
The hoax was perpetuated by a small segment of the scientific community, those who controlled the data and an agenda driven media who only wanted to present one side of the debate. Consider again, the NY Times reporting and the three networks. All of the counter arguments were presented in the new media because the old media had shut them out.
And if you would like, I would be happy to have a separate discussion on global warming or climate change and is mankind responsible for either.
I would like that as well. And I do agree with you Buck that climategate is not necessarily an indication of a widespread conspiracy. It is, however, an indication of corruption in that vein of science. It also shows weakness in the science, weakness which more responsible scientists freely admit. The fact that climate changes is not being argued, it is the cause, effects, and relevance to mankind’s actions that are in question.
Besides all that, I submit that the political uses of the science, regardless of the scientific findings, is abhorrent and catastrophic. I can offer a host of examples of government managing environmental concerns horribly, slowing or stopping superior free market solutions. I also submit that the environmental activists and the non-activist believers are VERY often failing to use good sense and are, in fact, not being “green” at all in their actions, they are merely doing things that make them feel better, or that they were told to do, they are not really factoring everything. If this is good science, then it needs to be scientifically applied and taught. What we have now is actually far worse for the environment than if we had no green movement or EPA at all.
Sorry..just had to do this! 🙂