Rabble Rouser Ruminations

It's Official

2011-08-10T11:00:00.001-04:00

My new site is up at WordPress. Thanks again to Uppity and Nunly for the encohttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifuragement to move over there. I have added this blog to the Blogroll for Archives sake, but as of today, it is up and running.

Here is the link to Rabblerouserruminations' Weblog. Please bookmark it.

I will be writing at the other site exclusively from now on, though given all that is going on right now, likely not every day (I also will be on vacation again in 10 days, so there's that).

In any event, I hope you will come join me at the other site. It is more user-friendly, especially to make comments. See you soon!

New Construction Open Thread

2011-08-08T11:00:00.001-04:00

Hey, Friends -

I am working on changing my blog site to WordPress, and away from Google's "Blogger" for a number of reasons. Some of those reasons are: 1. my good buddy, Uppity, suggested I do so; 2. because Google attaches a bunch of cookies to people who visit; and 3. it can be a real pain in the butt for people to leave comments. In all honesty, I should have done this ages ago, and I apologize that I did not. So, while I work on setting up the other site, this one will continue to be available.

While I am at the housekeeping portion of this post, I also want to give fair warning that I will be undergoing more knee surgery next month. Unfortunately, that seems to be the only way to determine exactly what is going on in there that is making my pain worse now than it was before. As it is, concentrating on actually writing posts has become increasingly difficult, so expect my posting to be a little more sporadic in the time leading up to the surgery, and for a bit afterward.

Okay. Enough about me. Here are a couple of stories that really caught my eye. First up is the new talking point by the Democrats that it is all the Tea Party's fault for our downgraded credit rating. Because, you know, it just makes sense to blame the people who want to rein in spending and decrease our debt for this rating, right? Uh, yeah, if you are Obama puppeteer David Axelrod, or the last Democrat for whom I ever voted because I was a Yellow Dog Dem even though I couldn't stand him, John Kerry. Wow. The lack of logic there is just staggering.

Let me understand this. The Democrats refused to prepare a budget for over two years because they knew the debt ceiling discussion would necessarily come up, and kept spending like drunken Congresspeople, ballooning our debt more and more, and somehow, it is the fault of a few people from the Tea Party in Congress? What a crock.

Then there is this astonishing story just out now: Jacqueline Kennedy (Onassis) believed it was Lyndon B. Johnson who caused the death of her husband, JFK. Check that - had JFK killed:

[snip] In the tapes, to be broadcast by ABC, Kennedy reveals her belief that Johnson and a cabal of Texas tycoons orchestrated the murder of her husband by gunman Lee Harvey Oswald.[snip]

Holy crappydoo - that is massive.

And finally, my thoughts and prayers go out to the families, friends, and fellow troops after the tremendous loss of 30 of our finest this past weekend in Afghanistan. Such a tragic event in terms of how it happened, and that it happened. To lose so many members of the elite Seal Team Six is just mind boggling. My heart just breaks for all of those affected personally by this tragedy, and for us all, as this impacts us, too.

For them, for their families, I leave you with this:

Where Have All The Girls Gone?

2011-08-05T10:30:00.001-04:00

Debra Saunders had a disturbing piece up at the San Francisco Chronicle recently. In the midst of all of the haggling, blaming, and name calling going on at the Hill, this may not seem like an exciting, gotcha kind of story, but it is an important one, and highlights a situation that will have a long term, global impact.

Here is the story, as detailed in Saunders' piece,
In This Brave New World, Girls Disappear:

The world is becoming unbalanced. In pockets across the globe, women are giving birth to too many boys. In China, the sex ratio is 121 boys to 100 girls. In India, it's 112 to 100. Sex selection also is a force in the Balkans, Armenia and Georgia. In her eye-opening book, "Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men," journalist Mara Hvistendahl estimates that ultrasound and abortion have "claimed over 160 million potential women and girls - in Asia alone." That's more than the entire female population of the United States.

If you think that scarcity makes women more valuable, you are right - but that does not mean females benefit. As "surplus men" have trouble finding mates, young girls are forced into prostitution. Others are forced into arranged marriages. On Taiwan's eBay, Hvistendahl finds three Vietnamese women for sale for $5,400.

Those women who do well economically in the new order sadly are more likely to abort daughters in favor of sons.

Is this not disconcerting? Not only are girls being aborted in greater numbers by choice, but the decreased numbers of girls does not translate to girls being treated better. Not even close, unfortunately. Most disturbing is that women are buying into this mindset, and how that is made manifest.

Saunders points out, though, that this isn't just bad for women:

The results are equally bleak for men. Many boys grow up knowing they are unlikely to marry and start a family. In two years, 1 in 10 Chinese men will lack a female counterpart. The Chinese have a term - fenquing for "angry youth" - to describe the legions of young men likely to grow old alone. They find release in places like the Rising Sun Anger Release Bar, "where for the price of a few drinks, customers can pummel one of the bar's hired hands." In that equation, both men are losers.

In three decades, Vietnam - a poor country that provides brides and kidnapped prostitutes to affluent overly male nations - will have 4.3 million surplus men.

Holy cow. The difference the shortage of women will make in such a brief period of time is astonishing.

Saunders touches on the path of good intentions, whose result seem to fulfill the old adage paves the path to hell:

Hvistendahl finds no shortage of villains in this story. There's China's one-child policy, which resulted in untold forced abortions. Western governments and charities threw money at family-planning efforts to stem population growth in Asia, with little concern to the methods - forced sterilizations and abortions - employed. Then there are the willing participants - doctors, nurses and parents - who choose to engage in female feticide. French demographer Christophe Guilmoto recalls an Indian woman who was livid because she had aborted a boy after a doctor misdiagnosed the gender of her fetus.

I was struck at the distortion of good intentions. Family planning does promote prosperity, while overpopulation is unhealthy and destabilizing. Researchers develop technologies to help families. But in a world where technology moves faster than ethical thinking, giving would-be parents the gender they prefer is good business. So you get fertility clinics like the Los Angeles outfit that advertises, "Be certain your next child will be the gender you're hoping for."

Of course, sex-selection abortions happen in America, often among immigrant families. Hvistendahl reports that 35 percent of Asian American pregnancies result in abortion. [snip]

Oh, yes - definitely "good intentions" paved the way to this hell, which affects girls on a massive scale. And the numbers are just staggering.

Saunders concludes with the following:

[snip] Canadian sociologist Sharada Srinivasan has another suggestion. As she told Hvistendahl, at some point, feminists have to define sex selection as a human rights abuse. That would be a good start. (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, it would be a good place to start - it is a human rights abuse, and the sooner we start dealing with it as such, the better.

I will leave you as Saunders did in her piece, with the following quotes. These should get your blood a-pumping: Thoughts On Parenthood

"You can choose whether to be a parent, but once you choose to be a parent, you cannot choose whether it's a boy or girl, black or white, tall or short."

- Delhi gynecologist Puneet Bedi

"Better 500 rupees now than 500,000 later."

- Mumbai ultrasound ad

"Less than $5 invested in population control is worth $100 invested in economic growth."

- President Lyndon B. Johnson, in a 1965 speech in San Francisco

This Says It All Updated

2011-08-03T10:00:00.004-04:00

I received the following photos from my friend, Artemis, this morning. I think this sums up perfectly the difference between who we could have had, and who we have.

Hillary Clinton in the rain:

And then there is Obama in the rain:

Enough said, though feel free to share your opinions!

UPDATE: Apologies for not having the photo credits, but the friend who sent the email let me know she got the photos from our friend, Uppity Woman's site (where Uppity got them from, I don't know). Uppity has an outstanding post along the lines of this one (though better - Uppity Woman ROCKS). Here is the link to, "He's Stolen Everything ELSE, But He Can't Steal My HOPE!"

Voter Fraud Convictions About Which You Probably Didn't Hear

2011-08-01T10:30:00.000-04:00

I am back from vacation, but am fortunate enough to still have my (almost) 7 year old grandnephew visiting, so posts may be spotty for the next week. Thanks!

And not just because of the constant Debt Ceiling discussion. It is amazing - I was out of the country for five days, and I swear, there has been very little real movement. Even now, a resolution is being touted, but nothing has been PASSED. Just another pesky little detail, right?

Anyway, I don't think it is just the Debt talk that kept this little news story out of the major headlines: "Mississippi NAACP Leader Sent To Prison For 10 Counts Of Voter Fraud." Have you heard about this? No, I didn't think so:

While NAACP President Benjamin Jealous lashed out at new state laws requiring photo ID for voting, an NAACP executive sits in prison, sentenced for carrying out a massive voter fraud scheme.

In a story ignored by the national media, in April a Tunica County, Miss., jury convicted NAACP official Lessadolla Sowers on 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots. Sowers is identified on an NAACP website as a member of the Tunica County NAACP
Executive Committee.

Sowers received a five-year prison term for each of the 10 counts, but Circuit Court Judge Charles Webster permitted Sowers to serve those terms concurrently, according to the Tunica Times, the only media outlet to cover the sentencing.

“This crime cuts against the fabric of our free society,” Judge Webster said.[snip]

No kidding, it does. I still do not get the whole brouhaha about wanting people to show evidence of who they are - we have to do it for far lesser reasons all of the time in this country. That just seems to be a red herring to me, and one that clearly is meant to hide stories like this one. It seems to take a lot to prove actual voter fraud, and that this woman was found guilty of 10 counts is mighty telling.

And it isn't the first time:

[snip] The NAACP has had other problems with voter fraud. The NAACP National Voter Fund registered a dead man to vote in Lake County, Ohio, in 2004. That same year, out of 325 voter registration cards filed by the NAACP in Cleveland, 48 were flagged as fraudulent.

But the NAACP’s voter fraud record doesn’t approach that of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now. At least 54 individuals employed by or associated with ACORN have been convicted of voter fraud.

Voter fraud, sometimes called electoral fraud, is a blanket term used by lawyers that encompasses a host of election-related improprieties including fraudulent voting, voter registration fraud, perjury, forgery, counterfeiting, impersonation, intimidation, and identity fraud.

I have written extensively about ACORN, and all of their attempts to throw an election. I think just about all of the different ways to commit fraud above would fit ACORN. It has been systemic, and systematic. People have been convicted here and there, but the organization itself seemed to slip by. Until now:

And ACORN, which filed for bankruptcy last November, was itself convicted of voter fraud in Nevada in April. Sentencing is scheduled for Aug. 10 in Las Vegas. ACORN was also banished from Ohio in 2010 when it settled a state racketeering filed against it by the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, a project of the Buckeye Institute. Under the settlement ACORN, which is now reorganizing its state chapters under different names, agreed never to return to the state. [snip]

Uh, yeah. Given that ACORN is restructuring under different names, someone better stay on their toes to make sure they don't slip back into Nevada, especially considering their good buddy and protector, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. Just saying'.

But here is what I don't get:

Election experts say voter fraud is fairly common, but progressive activists typically insist that the crime is virtually nonexistent. Republicans, they say, routinely exaggerate claims of voter fraud in order to whip their political base into a frenzy and push for voter ID laws. Liberals say such laws are unfair, and claim that they discourage minorities and the poor from voting.

[...]

Stephen Colbert, the liberal comedian who portrays an overbearing conservative Republican on his cable TV show “The Colbert Report,” broadcast a segment this week ridiculing Republicans for treating voter fraud as a serious problem.

Some Democrats, however, aren’t laughing. The office of District Attorney Brenda F. Mitchell, a registered Democrat who serves Mississippi’s 11th Circuit Court District, successfully prosecuted Sowers. Mitchell was appointed to the post by Republican Gov. Haley Barbour in January 2010 after the previous DA resigned. She’s now seeking the Democratic nomination for the office in a primary election scheduled for Aug. 2.

District Attorney Mitchell isn't the only one:

[snip] U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Democrat, is also no conservative. But she won a conviction against Joshua Reed for voter registration fraud in 2004 when she was the Hennepin County, Minn. Prosecutor.

“It was very important for the public integrity of our electoral system that somebody, if they do something like this, gets charged, gets convicted and gets consequences,” Klobuchar said at the time. (Click here to read the rest.)

I could not agree with Senator Klobuchar more. Our right to vote is sacred, and should be treated as such. And, those who violate that sacred trust deserve to be brought to justice. We need them to be so that we can have full faith and confidence that our elected officials were duly elected. At least this past one, that did not seem to be the case for a host of reasons, mainly surrounding ACORN, and the entire nominating process.

This is good news, even if you haven't heard about it - justice was meted out to both Ms. Sowers, and to ACORN. That's a start. Hopefully, the powers that be will be more vigilant in ensuring this does not happen again, and if it does, to bring the perpetrators to account swiftly. Our system deserves nothing less...

At Long Last, Certification To End DADT

2011-07-23T10:45:00.002-04:00

Friends, I will be on vacation this week, going on a cruise with family and friends. I hope you all have a great week!

Finally. Finally the Powers-That-Be plan to certify that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" cease to be the law of the land. Once Obama signs off on it, that is. And it will take a couple more months before it is so, but still, better than nothing.

I, for one, am very glad this law will no longer be on the books. It is about time our LGB Americans are able to serve openly without fear of reprisal should their private life be found out. No one should have to hide who they are for fear of being stripped of their position, of their vocation (for some), of their income, simply because of who it is they love. This is long, long overdue.

But for some in the community, this change comes to late. One such person is Lt. Dan Choi, a decorated war veteran, and graduate of West Point. Lt. Choi was dismissed because of his sexuality. It was a tremendous loss for our Army, and for Lt. Choi, who was willing to serve his nation, and did, with great distinction.

And now, Lt. Choi is considering throwing his support not to Barack Obama, but to former governor, Gary Johnson:

Choi, who in 2010 was arrested for chaining himself to the fence of the White House in protest, told The Daily Caller in an email, “I lost significant trust in Obama and his fawning gay elites in the wake of recent homophobic court appeals and election-induced double-talk.”

Choi’s frustration with the president’s apparent lack of interest in the policy’s repeal during the lame duck session of Congress has been compounded by administration appeals of court decisions that have ordered an immediate end to the policy’s enforcement.

[...]

Choi has ruled out supporting Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, who he said “foolishly aids the Obama camp in making a cartoonish parody” of Republicans.[snip]

Interesting. I admit, I do not know much about Gary Johnson, but I certainly share Choi's frustration with Obama. I am pretty tired of people acting like he is all that for the LGBT community when his DOJ has repeatedly upheld DOMA, for instance, not as a matter of law, but by characterizing gay people as perverts. For Obama to now say he supports a bill by Sen. Feinstein to repeal DOMA is just laughable. That's an easy thing for him to say - costs him nothing. But those of us who have been paying attention know what his Administration has done to keep it in place.

In much the same way, Obama has done NOTHING to abolish DADT. He didn't push for it, others did. He merely paid some lip service when it was politically expedient for him to do so. Like all of a sudden having the Certification to end DADT coming as his numbers continue to decline. What a coincidence, huh? Yeah, I didn't think so, either.

But Lt. Choi didn't stop there:

[snip]“There are some very appealing candidates such as Governor Gary Johnson and others who are much better than Obama on civil rights,” Choi said. “Our community is too often manipulated by homophobic Democrats; I see very little difference when being manipulated by homophobic Republicans,” Choi said. “One group is openly vile while the other remains closeted towards the same objective: political exploitation.” (Gary Johnson assails conservative Iowa group’s marriage pact.)

[...]

“Our community is too often manipulated by homophobic Democrats; I see very little difference when being manipulated by homophobic Republicans,” Choi said. “One group is openly vile while the other remains closeted towards the same objective: political exploitation.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Ain't that the truth. We are the newest political football - whee!

I never expected Obama to do anything for this community anyway. As I have written numerous times, the people whom he has counted as close friends, like IL Senator, the Reverend James Meeks, or campaigned with, like Donnie McClurkin, are not exactly gay-friendly (that is a massive understatement - they are both unbelievably homophobic). Quite the opposite, in fact. Still, it is nice to see people like Lt. Choi realizing Obama is no friend to us - unless it helps his poll numbers, that is...

In any event, at long, long last, in 60 days, all Americans will be able to serve equally, without fear of reprisal. This is no small thing. Having to hide something so fundamental, so integral, is soul-sucking stuff. It is a horrible thing to do to another human being, and it sure shouldn't have been institutionalized in our military.

It will be a good day, indeed, when this is behind us...

MSNBC Needs To Make It Official

2011-07-22T10:30:00.000-04:00

Their name change to MSNB(arack)O(bama). Seriously.

As many of you know, Keith Olbermann left his 6:00pm slot there for any number of reasons many of us would be willing to suggest were the true reasons. Regardless, he has been gone for a number of months now (though not off the tv - he found another cable channel to take him).

You will never believe who they found to replace him.

But before I make the big reveal, it seemed that Olbemann's likely successor was Cenk Uygur, of "Young Turk" fame. Indeed, he was on the path. Or so he thought. But then something strange happened, according to Mr. Uygur (h/t to Harp2 for this video):

For those of you who may not have internet service that supports videos, suffice it to say, Mr. Uygur was told that he would not be stepping into Olbermann's shoes because some in Washington didn't like his "tone," according to Mr. Uygur in this NY Times article (which also highlights the NY Times incredible bias):

[snip] Mr. Uygur, who by most accounts was well liked within MSNBC, said in an interview that he turned down the new contract because he felt Mr. Griffin had been the recipient of political pressure. In April, he said, Mr. Griffin “called me into his office and said that he’d been talking to people in Washington, and that they did not like my tone.” He said he guessed Mr. Griffin was referring to White House officials, though he had no evidence for the assertion. He also said that Mr. Griffin said the channel was part of the “establishment,” and “that you need to act like it.”

MSNBC is home to many hosts who criticize President Obama and other Democrats from a progressive point of view, but at times Mr. Uygur could be especially harsh.

[...]

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said in an e-mail Wednesday that his staff did not raise any concerns about the show “with Phil Griffin or anyone else.”

“I didn’t agree with everything said on the show, but certainly didn’t have any problem with it,” Mr. Pfeiffer added. [snip]

Of course he didn't. That's why Uygur claimed that the head of MSNBC met with him, and told him that they were Washington Insiders.

Just as I am so sure the White House had nothing to do with MSNBC indefinitely suspending the editor of Newsweek, Mark Halperin, for a comment he made on "Morning Joe." Oh, wait. Yes they did. (Now, I do not think it was appropriate for Halperin to use the language he did about a sitting president, but honestly - the things people said about Bush and Clinton were pretty harsh, but I don't think either one of those presidents had their toadies call the network and insist the person be let go. We do have an amendment about what people can say, after all, whether they like it or not.)

Okay. So, it is not going to be Cenk, since he has the unmitigated gall to actually question what Obama does once in a while. No sirree, can't have THAT on MSNBO.

Wanna guess who it's going to be? Oh, you won't - this is just so freakin' glaringly biased for Obama, you would never believe that an alleged news channel would hire this man for such a prime slot. But you would be wrong.

It's the Reverend Al Sharpton. I swear. It isn't official as of this writing, but it is "Imminent," according to the New York Times:

[snip] Mr. Sharpton’s imminent hiring, which was acknowledged by three people at the channel on condition of anonymity because the contract had not been signed, is significant in part because MSNBC and other news channels have been criticized for a paucity of minority hosts in prominent time slots. Mr. Sharpton, who is black and is a well-known civil rights activist and radio host, has been guest hosting in the 6 p.m. time slot for the last three weeks.

There had been uncertainty about the 6 p.m. slot ever since the channel’s marquee anchor, Keith Olbermann, departed in January, prompting Ed Schultz to be moved to 10 p.m. from 6. Suddenly Mr. Uygur, who had been made a paid contributor to MSNBC months earlier, was handed 6 p.m., a big coup given that he had earlier campaigned to have his progressive Web show “The Young Turks” picked up by MSNBC. [snip]

Al Sharpton. Al Sharpton is now going to have one of the plum, prime, slots on MSNBC. He is SO impartial, so even handed, in his outlook and statements. And I trust you know that it total and complete snark on my part. Of course, he is wildly partisan, taking offense where there is none, taking on causes that have little merit, and on and on Io could go. One thing is for certain about the good reverend - he loves to be on the tee-vee, so no doubt, this is a dream come true for him.

As for MSNBO, come on already, make it official. Go ahead and change your logo to this:

Seriously, I think we would all have more respect for you if you were honest about who and what you are. As a bonus, my partner, who created this for me, said you can even have it for free.

Until then, I imagine you will keep pretending to be a "news" source with the likes of Al Sharpton as your prime time host. And I imagine a lot of us will be laughing at you for it...

"Waste Not, Want Not"

2011-07-21T12:15:00.001-04:00

The old Ben Franklin adage, is apparently one with which our government is unfamiliar. Just within the past few days, three major wasteful decisions have come to light.

The first is in the State Department. This wasn't just a wasteful decision, but an unethical, immoral, and I have to hope, illegal one. Within the State Department was a woman named Kathleen McGrade.The Daily Caller did some good, old fashioned investigative reporting on her, and guess what they discovered? Ms. McGrade had funneled $52 MILLION of yours and my taxpaying dollars to her daughter, and her secret husband. I am not making this up, and neither is the Daily Caller:

[snip] Kathleen McGrade helped their company, Sterling Royale Group, win 43 federally funded contracts over the last few years.

McGrade acted as the Contracting Officer (CO) for awards to Sterling Royale Group. McGrade’s husband, Brian Collinsworth, serves as the company’s Vice President. McGrade’s daughter, J.L. (Jennifer) Herring, is its president and CEO.

When TheDC first reached Collinsworth for comment, he denied being married to McGrade. “She is the CO on our contracts, but we are not married in any way, shape or form. That’s kind of funny, but, okay,” Collinsworth said, adding that he and McGrade have no relationship “other than a professional one of a CO to a company.”

Collinsworth also denied that Herring is McGrade’s daughter, and his stepdaughter.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Surprise, surprise, Collinsworth is a big liar. They are indeed married.

Fortunately, the State Department quickly did the right thing - they fired Ms. McGrade:

[snip] “Upon learning of the allegations, the Department immediately relieved Ms. McGrade of her responsibilities,” Laine said in an email. “Subsequently, the Department instructed her company that her employment at the Department is terminated.”

McGrade worked as a federal government contractor, handling the disbursement of taxpayer money for the State Department to other contractors. She worked on-site at the State Department in the office of Overseas Building Operations.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, that's just terrific, but, what about our money? And why hasn't she been brought up on charges? Forced to pay restitution? Something? The State Department is being mum on any further action, according to the article. Oh, well, okay then. That's fine - not.

Second, we have the ten year lease signed by representatives of the SEC. Oh, this is a doozy. The Wall Street Journal has the story:

[snip] Chairman Mary L. Schapiro has been under fire for the SEC’s decision last year to sign a 10-year lease valued at more than $500 million for 900,000 square feet of space in a D.C. office building known as the Constitution Center. A recent report on the lease by the SEC’s Office of Inspector General found that the SEC unnecessarily limited the locations it could consider because it overestimated the amount of space it needed. The report cited one employee who described the process used to calculate the space needs as a “`WAG,’ (wild-ass guess) and a ‘back of the envelope calculation.’”

The SEC made its projections based in part on the increased responsibilities related to the Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law but also on budget projections that had not yet been approved. After the anticipated budget increase didn’t materialize, the SEC determined it would not need the space in the building, which is owned by David Nassif Associates.[snip]

Oops. Yep, they signed the lease, but then didn't need the space after all, so...Good grief. These are the people running our government???

Now you see why they were called on the carpet:

In a hearing Wednesday before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management to discuss the lease, Ms. Schapiro acknowledged missteps and said she wanted to SEC to cede its authority to lease space to the General Services Administration. U.S. Rep. Jeff Denham (R., Calif.), chairman of the subcommittee, also questioned why there was an urgency to get the deal done in spite of the “collapse of the real estate industry.”

Ms. Schapiro said she had heard there were few options for space. “It was presented to me…that if we were going to have any growth at all, we had to take this space,” Ms. Schapiro said.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

You'll be glad to know that, according to the article, the Office of the Comptroller has been able to rent some of the space, but they are still looking for tenants for the other third of the sf available. Any takers? Oh, and they are considering whether to investigate this or not.

I'm sorry, but what's the question there, exactly?? Sheesh.

And finally, last but definitely not least, is the third example of wasteful government spending I have heard of in just two days. If the second one was a doozy, this one is a wallop. It seems that two, not one, but two, Navy tankers which have yet to be completed, are now heading to the scrap heap. They only cost $300 million, so not as bad as the 10 year lease, but still, a mighty hefty amount of taxpaying dollars:

[snip] The Isherwood, stretching more than 660 feet, began its final journey this week, unceremoniously towed Tuesday from its mooring spot in the James River Reserve Fleet, also known as the "ghost fleet," near Fort Eustis in Newport News.

Its destination: International Shipbreaking Limited in Brownsville, Texas, just above the Mexico border. There, the vessel will be cut up, its innards removed and disposed of, and its steel and other metals sold as recycled products.

The Eckford, of equal size, is scheduled to follow next Tuesday, leaving behind fewer than 20 junk ships in the ghost fleet, the smallest number since its inception during World War I.

Once the two Navy oilers have departed, "it will close one of the saddest chapters in American shipbuilding and for that matter, federal fiduciary folly," wrote Joseph Keefe, a global maritime commentator, this week on the website MaritimeProfessional.com. [snip] {Click here to read the rest.)

This just begs the question: why were these tankers ever even authorized?

Someone asked recently what we are sending to countries that do not think highly of us, according to a recent Pew poll. We are going to give Egypt $1.3 billion this year for military aid; thanks to the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, $1.5 billion a year to Pakistan; and the list goes on. Since the Congress has failed to provide or pass a budget for the past couple of years, this CRS report on aid to East and South Asia should provide fairly up-to-date information.

But we cannot leave out the billions of US dollars in aid to Afghanistan that has been stolen, or "lost," there. Holy crap.

"Waste not, want not" should be our mantra. This is especially true as our Congress and president fight over how much more in debt this nation is willing to go. And at what cost to us, our reputation, and our economy, they are willing to accept on our behalf. They can begin by being a helluva lot more careful as to how they spend our tax dollars, whether for programs at home, lack of oversight of personnel who have no authority to be signing contracts, and to those who do have the authority to sign away millions and millions without doing their freakin' homework first.

These are just three examples in the past two days that have come to my attention. I am sure you can come up with a few more. Our Congress needs to remember they work for US, and when they waste money on programs or goods they are not going to use, they must answer to US. This isn't Monopoly money after all, it's for real. It is well past time they started acting like it.

Who Knew The White House Could BE Even More Obtuse?

2011-07-20T12:15:00.000-04:00

But yet, they can. This has got to be my all-time fave from the current White House spokeseasel, Jay Carney. He came out with a real doozy in response to some questions from ABC News journalist, Jake Tapper regarding the debt issue with which we are dealing:

[snip] TAPPER: OK. The House is passing something that many observers feel would never pass the Senate and the president has said he would veto. The Senate is passing -- the McConnell-Reid plan, it's not clear that that could pass the House. The Gang of Seven plan, it's not clear that that could pass the House. Would this not be an opportune time for a president to lead and say, this --

CARNEY: Leadership is not proposing a plan for the sake of having it voted up or down, and likely voted down because it is -- look, you know how this town works and how Congress works. If an individual, whether Democrat or Republican leader, steps forward and says, this is my plan and solely my plan, it makes it a lot harder for that plan to be the basis for a bipartisan compromise. The way to reach a bipartisan compromise is in bipartisan negotiations where a plan emerges that is the product of that negotiation and is supported by Republicans and Democrats and then presented. Otherwise, your chances of actually achieving something diminish greatly. And I think there is certainly plenty of history to support that idea, and that's the approach.[snip]

Do they go to school for this level of hogwash masquerading as an actual answer? In essence, what Mr. Carney is asserting, is that President Obama is leading by not leading.

You have got to be kidding me with this crap.

I don't think Mr. Tapper bought it, either:

[snip] TAPPER: Every time there have been specifics on the table, the president has not gotten in the boat. With his own deficit commission, he didn't get in that boat.

CARNEY: Jake, we can -- we can argue about this, or we could -- you could have me on and we can talk about this. The president's been very clear about what he's willing to do. And the way the president has approached these negotiations has been designed precisely to achieve a result, and not to achieve political points.

TAPPER: How's that working out for you?

CARNEY: We're closer now than we've ever been. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

"How's that working out for you?" Uh, yeah. More importantly, how has this been working out for US? Not too well, so far, I would wager.

Can you believe this kind of response? So, to extrapolate, you can work hard by not working, you can learn by not studying, you can move forward while standing still, and I could go on. Please feel free to add your own on this, or anything else you please.

As for me, I gotta go take some aspirin...

"Celebrate Good Times, Come On!" UPDATED

2011-07-15T11:00:00.004-04:00

The US Women's National Team has made it into the Finals of the Women's World Cup. Woohoo! It was an exciting match, dominated in possession by their opponent, France, but the US scored the most goals, 3 - 1. This is the first time the Women's Team has made it back to the Finals since the incredible win against China in 1999. That match was won on penalty kicks, and gave us this iconic image of Brandi Chastain, who put in the winning strike (photo credit Atkins/AP):

What an amazing moment that was. Just breath-taking.

Another soon-to-be iconic moment was the Japanese Women's National Team before their semifinal match on Wednesday against Sweden, which they won, 3-1 (AP Photo/Michael Probst):

They turned to all four directions of the stadium making a "human sandwich," and then they bowed. It brought tears to my eyes. Given all the tragedy with which Japan has been dealing following the earthquakes and tsunamis, their Women's Team making it to the Finals is a bright light for them. Congratulations to them. Well done.

The final between the US and Japan will air Sunday at 2:00pm EST on ESPN. It should be a very exciting match, especially since the two teams have very different styles of play. Go, USA!

And since it is Friday, I will leave you with a swinging ditty from Jimmy Smith to get your feet tapping, a little shout out to the Prez and the Congress:

One last thing: One of my oldest friends is in town for a visit, so this will be my last post until Wednesday, July 20, unless something major happens that I feel compelled to write about, that is. Have a good weekend, everyone.

UPDATE: After a well played 90 minutes, plus two 15 minute overtimes, the USA went down in defeat on Penalty Kicks to Japan. It was probably the best I had seen the USA play all tournament long, but Japan got the edge in the PKs. I am very disappointed, of course, but for Japan, this is a bright, shining moment. Well done, and congratulations.

There's always 2015...

Guess Who Hates Us Even More Now Than When Bush Was President?

2011-07-14T11:15:00.003-04:00

The French? Well, they might, but no, that's not who I mean. The British? Well, most likely, especially they way Obama has dissed them (like sending back the bust of Churchill, and that is the mere tip of the iceberg)?

Nope. The Arab World. Yep, that's right, even after Obama's bowing and scraping to them, whether it was to Saudi King Abdullah, or the Egyptians after his Cairo speech. Yes, we have lost even more standing in the world now.(Photo found at Atlas Shrugs.)

Indeed, despite Obama's numerous overtures to the Arab world, seems they aren't too happy with us. Glenn Greenwald had this article in Salon, US More Unpopular In Arab World Than Under Bush:

I've written numerous times over the last year about rapidly worsening perceptions of the U.S. in the Muslim world, including a Pew poll from April finding that Egyptians view the U.S. more unfavorably now than they did during the Bush presidency. A new poll released today of six Arab nations -- Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco -- contains even worse news on this front:
The hope that the Arab world had not long ago put in the United States and President Obama has all but evaporated.

Two and a half years after Obama came to office, raising expectations for change among many in the Arab world, favorable ratings of the United States have plummeted in the Middle East, according to a new poll conducted by Zogby International for the Arab American Institute Foundation.

In most countries surveyed, favorable attitudes toward the United States dropped to levels lower than they were during the last year of the Bush administration . . . Pollsters began their work shortly after a major speech Obama gave on the Middle East . . . Fewer than 10 percent of respondents described themselves as having a favorable view of Obama.

What's striking is that none of these is among the growing list of countries we're occupying and bombing. Indeed, several are considered among the more moderate and U.S.-friendly nations in that region, at least relatively speaking. Yet even in this group of nations, anti-U.S. sentiment is at dangerously (even unprecedentedly) high levels.

Yikes. That is not good. If we were talking Libya, or Iran, this would not be surprising news. But that some of the ones who think less of us now among our friendlier nations is disturbing on a number of levels.

Greenwald continues:

In one sense, this is hardly surprising, given the escalating violence and bombing the U.S. is bringing to that region, its ongoing fealty to Israel, and the dead-ender support the American government gave to that region's besieged dictators. Though unsurprising, it's still remarkable. After all, one of the central promises of an Obama presidency was a re-making of America in the eyes of that part of the world, but the opposite is taking place.

More significantly, as democracy slowly but inexorably takes hold, consider the type of leaders that will be elected in light of this pervasive anti-American hostility. When the U.S. propped up dictators to suppress those populations, public opinion was irrelevant; now that that scheme is collapsing, public opinion will become far more consequential, and it does not bode well either for U.S. interests (as defined by the American government) or the U.S.'s ability to extract itself from its posture of Endless War in that region. Given that it is anti-American sentiment that, more than anything else, fuels Terrorism (as the Pentagon itself has long acknowledged), we yet again find the obvious truth: the very policies justified in the name of combating Terrorism are the same ones that do the most to sustain and perpetuate it.

That is precisely the issue, as we have seen in Egypt already. All of the jubilation that this small band of people were able to stage a coup (still don't know how that happened), and that democracy was coming to Egypt, downplayed the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood was going to be a big part of the new government. Guess what, they are. And now, our esteemed Secretary of State would welcome dialogue with this group:

"We believe, given the changing political landscape in Egypt, that it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to nonviolence, that intend to compete for the parliament and the presidency," she told reporters in Budapest, Hungary. "And we welcome, therefore, dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us." [snip]

Um, the Muslim Brotherhood has waged jihad against the United State, which spawned Hamas`, which works to impose the law of the Quran (that would be Sharia Law), and which treats women as worse than shit. To characterize it as a "committed to nonviolence" is laughable on its face. And now we are giving it legitimacy. Great job, everyone. Wow.

Believe it or not, there is more:

UPDATE: The full report on the new Middle East poll highlights several other additional striking findings:

In five out of the six countries surveyed, the U.S. was viewed less favorably than Turkey, China, France -- or Iran. Far from seeing the U.S. as a leader in the post-Arab Spring environment, the countries surveyed viewed "U.S. interference in the Arab world" as the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East, second only to the continued Palestinian occupation. . . . President Obama's favorable ratings across the Arab world are 10% or less.

While Americans are continuously inculcated with the message that Iran is the greatest threat to that region, the people who actually live there view the U.S. in that light. And as the above-referenced links to other polls demonstrate, that is a routine finding in surveys of Arab and Muslim opinion in that part of the world.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Good grief. You know it is bad when Iran is thought of more highly than the United States. That just boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Two and a half years after the president who has alienated Israel, our ally; threw former ally Mubarak under the bus; and literally bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, the United States has lost standing with Arab Nations. I admit, I did not see this one coming. How about you?

Some Things I Just Don't Get

2011-07-13T11:00:00.002-04:00

One would have to be living under a rock to not be aware of the struggles going on in Washington, SC, over the debt ceiling and the budget. Jay Leno used the following video to sum up the bickering on Capitol Hill:

Uh, yeah. That sounds about right.

Here's something I don't get. President Obama is trying to paint the Republicans as the ones who are trying to kick the can down the road. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they just come to power THIS YEAR? Wasn't it under Nancy Pelosi's rule that they decided to not even make a budget because of the soaring debt?? Wasn't it the Democrats solely in power for a while there, and over the entire Congress even before Obama's ascension? So, how is this all the Republicans' fault? That doesn't make sense to me.

As reported in the Washington Post (and mentioned here), First Lady Betty Ford lamented the days gone by when Republicans and Democrats were friends, when, even if they didn't see eye to eye, they were able to look past those differences.

Just this morning, I saw Governor John Kasich of Ohio, and he said much the same thing. He served in the U.S. House of Representatives back in the '90's. Gov. Kasich offered some advice to his former colleagues about how to deal with this whole budget/debt issue, and had something to say about civility near the end:

I think that sums it up nicely, on both fronts.

What I don't get is, when did this polarization happen? WHY did it happen? How can we change it back to a more civil discourse, not just in Congress, but among us all? Is it just a lack of impulse control? Sense of entitlement that we can say or do whatever the hell we please? I just don't get how our discourse has so deteriorated. Something's gotta give. Maybe a national Miss Manners class is in order...

There's something else I don't get about how we treat one another. How is it, in the 21st century, we still have 2 million women battered by their partners each year, and 10 million children at risk because of domestic violence? How is it that we have not dealt with this issue, worked to change attitudes about women to the extent that their partner would never even DREAM of hitting them (or psychologically abuse them)? Or that, at least, these numbers would be greatly decreased?

I raise this because Dr. Phil, at the invitation of Senator Patrick Leahy, will be testifying on Capitol Hill today to request that an Act passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act, providing funds for prosecution, requiring restitution, and other issues, be re-authorized (which it was in 2000). Isn't it sad that in this day and age, the following holds true:

[snip] # According to the U.S. Surgeon General, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women in the United States.
# The American Medical Association estimates that their male partners assault 2 million American women each year.
# The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 95% of the victims of domestic violence are women.
# A woman is beaten every 15 seconds in the United States. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Report to the nation on Crime and Justice. The Data. Washington DC Office of Justice Program, US Dept. of Justice. Oct 1983)
# 35% of all emergency room calls are a result of domestic violence.
# Of those who abuse their partner, well over 65% also physically and/or sexually abuse the children.
# Each day .....4 women die as a result of abuse.
# Each day .....3 children die as a result of abuse.
# The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that 32% of female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 1999.2000)
# Anywhere from 1-3 million women are battered each year by their intimate partner. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence. Washington DC, 2000.)
# In the United States, a woman is more likely to be assaulted, raped, or killed by an intimate partner than by any other type of assailant. (ibid.) [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Here's the truly tragic aspect of the list above - that is less than a THIRD of all of the issues of violence facing women in this country. Holy shit.

And one more thing I don't get. How is it that Quinnipiac Poll finds that Obama still holds 50% over Republican challengers? How can that possibly be? After the Stimulus that wasn't anywhere close to one, the Obamacare Debacle that will cost us big time, Unemployment going up, housing values going down while foreclosures are going up, the number of golf trips of Obamas going up, along with the number of Executive Orders to circumvent that pesky Congress(about which we screamed bloody murder when Bush did it), and the number of lies he tells daily, including about his own mother's insurance coverage while he was campaigning in 2008 (that one was a DOOZY - using his dying mother for political gain, and lying about it - wow, that speaks VOLUMES about the kind of person he is), and I could go on, and on, and on.

I just don't get it. Do you?

First Lady Betty Ford, Rest In Peace

2011-07-12T10:30:00.001-04:00

(Photo credit CBSNews.com)
First Lady Betty Ford died on Friday, July 8th, at the age of 93. She is remembered for her groundbreaking work in the area of addiction, and the Betty Ford Center has become synonymous with addiction rehab. Her diagnosis of breast cancer in 1974 helped to bring this serious issue to light. Her successful battle against breast cancer was an inspiration to many women, and served as an encouragement for women to seek out mammograms.

There was so, so much more to this woman than I knew. Mainly, I knew her as the wife of the bumbling Gerald Ford, who took over the presidency after the Watergate Scandal felled Richard Nixon. I have since learned that the clumsy, klutzy depiction of Gerald Ford was the result of one trip, glorified by Chevy Chase on SNL, and forever associated with this former Michigan quarterback and US Navy veteran. Such is the power of the media, even those dedicated to spoofs (how many people still think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house after Tina Fey made the comment on SNL?).

But back to Betty Ford. In her early days, she was a dancer, modern dance in particular. She even danced in New York with Martha Graham's company at Carnegie Hall (who knew?). There is much to this woman, including how involved she was with women's issues, and the work of the president in general:

[snip] According to their son Jack, Betty Ford not only read through the President’s briefing papers on political issues he faced, and reviewed with him those pertaining to social programs or any which affected women. She also quietly worked as a conduit on legislative and other domestic agenda issues, both to and from him to others. Although she refused to ever discuss what issues they may have disagreed on, she did admit to serving as what she called, a “sounding board,” and exercising “pillow talk” on occasion. She also admitted to reviewing his more important speeches, offering advice to make cuts and use livelier language, without the need to always spell out details but rather leave audiences with some eagerness for further clarifications. Publicly, she gave only faint enthusiasm for the public relations effort “Whip Inflation Now,” a public relations action effort by the Administration intended to encourage cost-cutting and budgeting by citizens to counter the economic inflation of 1974-1975. In the White House, Mrs. Ford emphasized that she was reducing both her family and public entertaining food costs by serving less-expensive poultry, substituting soup for the pricier fish course, having smaller portions served. Personally, she stated, she would have her older shoes dyed rather than buy new ones for each event she needed them, and purchased her cosmetics in larger bulk to keep cost down. She also signed a “consumer’s pledge” to buy “only those products and services priced at or below present levels…” [snip]

She was an amazing woman, to be sure. If you have the time and inclination, you can read all about her at the National First Ladies' Library.

First Lady Ford's funeral is Tuesday, July 12th. Something else I did not know is that presidents and first ladies prepare their funerals down to the detail. According to this Washington Post article, First Lady Ford knew a few years back who she wanted to deliver her eulogy:

[snip] In 2006, Cokie Roberts got a call from Ford’s daughter Susan: her mom wanted Roberts to deliver a eulogy, whenever that time came, at her funeral.

“Wow — that’s an incredible honor,” the veteran D.C. journalist replied. Then, she recalls, Susan gave Roberts her assignment: “Mother wants you to talk about the way things used to be.”

Meaning?

“A time in Washington when Democrats and Republicans used to be friends, when their families were all friends,” Roberts told us Monday. “The main message she wanted me to say is when you’re friends, government works. It’s like she planned it for this week.”

Roberts has been friends with the Fords for decades. Her father, Hale Boggs, was House majority leader when Gerald Ford was minority leader. Her mother, Lindy, teamed with Betty on various causes. The familes went to school and church together.

“They were all friends with each other,” Roberts said. When her father disappeared after an Alaska plane crash in 1972, the Fords were “devastated. . . they were so supportive.” [snip]

Ah, yes, those were the days, were they not? Sadly, they seem long gone, it seems...(There will be two other speakers at the Washington funeral, First Lady Rosalynn Carter and the Betty Ford Center's Geoffrey Mason. First Lady Ford will have a funeral service in Michigan, too, where she will be laid to rest with her husband.)

What an amazing, complicated, dedicated woman First Lady Betty Ford was. My sincerest condolences to her family and friends. In honor of First Lady Ford being an Episcopalian, I have the following rendition of the Nunc Dimittis* is in her honor (this is one of my favorite hymns from Vespers):

Rest in peace.

* Translation:

Salva nos, Domine, vigilantes, custodi nos
dormientes, ut vigil emus cum Christo et requiescamus in pace.
Save us, O Lord, while we are awake, and guard us
when we sleep, that we may watch with Christ and rest in peace.

Nunc dimittis servum tuum, Domine, secundum verbum tuum in pace:
Quia viderunt oculi mei salutare tuum
Quod parasti ante faciem omnium populorum:
Lumen ad revelationem gentium, et gloriam plebis tuae Israel.
Now Thou dost dismiss Thy servant, O Lord, according to Thy word in peace;
Because my eyes have seen Thy salvation,
Which Thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples:
A light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel.

By The Numbers

2011-07-10T10:30:00.000-04:00

3,003, 37, 28, 5-5, 4,2, 1, and 1.

That would be Yankees shortstop and Captain, Derek Jeter's numbers from Saturday, July 9. Derek Jeter has now joined an elite club of 3,000 hits. There are only 28 people who have done it. In Jeter's plate appearances against All Star pitcher, Tampa Bay David Price, Jeter went 5 for 5, including the hit that put him in the club, a homerun, making him only the second person to hit that amazing plateau with a homerun (Wade Boggs would be the other person, for those keeping score). Not only did Jeter have a perfect day for the plate, including driving in the winning run, but he stole a base, too.

Not bad for a 37 year old. Speaking of age, Jeter is also the 4th youngest person to reach this amazing number. And he is the only one in a Yankees uniform to have done so.

Jeter has long been one of my favorite Yankees (Bernie Williams was another fave, back in the day when Jeter was a young man). He is the consummate professional, garnering respect and admiration even from Red Sox fans. He is about the game, not about his own personal records. As a result, he has quietly amassed records that have pushed him past some of the best known Yankees in history. He passed Lou Gehrig as the Yankee with the most hits. He has stolen more bases than Rickey Henderson. He has done it all with a humility unseen in many professional athletes, and a quiet leadership as the Captain of the Yankees on and off the field.

On the field, Jeter has made some of the most unbelievable plays, like this one:

Or this one. Watch how far he goes for this catch:

This was what Jeter said about that amazing catch and dive into the stands:

And he has five - FIVE - World Series rings to boot.

Here is a recap of his magical day:

Oh, and the fan who caught that homerun ball? Christian Lopez, 23, was at that game as a result of his girlfriend's gift. He and his dad were there together. After he caught it, and was whisked away by security (for his protection), he gladly gave the ball up for Jeter, saying this was such an incredible accomplishment, Jeter should have the ball. He said he wouldn't mind getting a few signed baseballs for it (the price they expected that ball to fetch was $1 million). Well, he got that and a bit more - signed balls, signed bats, signed jerseys, amazing seats for Sunday's game, and 4 front row season tickets for the rest of the season - in the Legends section.

As for the cool mil he could have gotten, Lopez said:

[snip] Lopez was asked if he ever thought of demanding $1 million or more for the ball, as some fans have after catching milestone home runs.

''It didn't cross my mind until they asked me what I wanted,'' he said. ''The only thing I could think of was a few signed balls would be nice, and to meet him. It wasn't about the money. It was about a milestone, and I wasn't going to take that away from him. Money's cool and all, but I'm only 23 years old. I have a lot of time to make that.''

''Mr. Jeter deserved it,'' Lopez said. ''It's all his.'' [snip]

Yes, it is. Though what a refreshing change of attitude Mr. Lopez demonstrated!

Congratulations, Captain. You deserve all the accolades you are receiving, and more. What a class act. Here's to you, Jeet!

A Twist On Same Sex Marriage Some Didn't See Coming

2011-07-09T11:15:00.001-04:00

Recently, New York State became the 6th state to legalize same sex marriage. One of the votes that helped push it over the edge was by Republican State Senator Mark Grisanti, who made this statement to explain his vote:

[snip] With his position still undeclared, Senator Mark J. Grisanti, a Republican from Buffalo who had sought office promising to oppose same-sex marriage, told his colleagues he had agonized for months before concluding he had been wrong.

“I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.” [snip]

What a powerful comment, and I am glad he was able to come to that position.

But now there are starting to be some consequences in those states that sanction same-sex marriage. The New York Times reported that several major companies are now asserting that those who currently have domestic partner benefits need to get married in order to keep those benefits:

[snip] Corning, I.B.M. and Raytheon all provide domestic partner benefits to employees with same-sex partners in states where they cannot marry. But now that they can legally wed in New York, five other states and the District of Columbia, they will be required to do so if they want their partner to be covered for a routine checkup or a root canal.

On the surface, this appears to put the couples on an even footing with heterosexual married couples. After all, this is precisely what they have been fighting for: being treated as a spouse. But some gay and lesbian advocates are arguing that the change may have come too soon: some couples may face complications, since their unions are not recognized by the federal government.

“Even with the complications, many people will want to get married for the reasons people want to get married,” said Ross D. Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda. “But from our perspective, to hinge something as important as insurance for your family to what is still a complicated legal matter for same-sex couples doesn’t seem to be a fair thing to do.” [snip]

The issue with same sex marriage and the federal government is that those of us who have domestic partner benefits are taxed on them as income, as opposed to heterosexual couples, who are not. That is the difference to which Mr. Levi is referring.

I may be missing something, and feel free to tell me if I am, but I am not sure why he is characterizing the push by these companies for people to get married in states where they live work in order to secure these benefits is unfair. Or maybe I just don't accept his argument.

Like the following argument for how this change could affect adoption:

[snip] When it comes to adopting a child, couples may run into trouble if they are trying to adopt from a place that restricts same-sex married couples from adopting. Having one parent adopt while still single may be easier. “If you want to be able to answer honestly in paperwork, multiple interviews and background checks, then you won’t want to get married,” Ms. Taylor said, adding that many foreign countries ban adoptions to same-sex couples. [snip]

Wait - this seems like a red herring to me. If someone is single when they are adopting - as in, not in a relationship - what difference would it make if they found someone after the fact? I think what she is saying, though, is that the person can CLAIM to be single if they aren't legally married, so they can adopt. But that is not being honest anyway, so I am not sure why this changes things.

And then there is the immigration issue:

[snip] He said that there were a variety of reasons — legal, financial and personal — that companies should keep the domestic partnership option at least until gay marriage was recognized at the federal level. Legally speaking, getting married could create immigration issues or it could potentially muddy the process of adopting a child. In some instances, he added, an employee may work in a gay marriage state but live in a neighboring state that does not recognize the marriage. The couple may want to wait to marry until they can be legally wed in their home state.

“There are certainly reasons why a couple may not wish to marry,” added Camilla Taylor, marriage project director at Lambda Legal. “People with certain immigration statuses might want to think very carefully before getting married. There are some types of visas that are meant to be temporary, and if you get married to someone who is a citizen, it could flag your renewal application and reflect your more permanent decision to stay.” [snip]

But doesn't that apply to ANYONE? If someone is here on a temporary visa, finds an American with whom they fall in love, won't the outcome be similar?

Here's the thing - my partner and I had hoops through which we had to jump in order for me to be on her insurance. We have to pay more in taxes as a result. And there are some changes that occurred when she changed companies in our insurance, like that the only way I could have dental insurance was if I saw a dentist in California where her company is based. It is unfortunate for obvious reasons, and obviously heterosexual couples don't have that issue, but there you are. Still, even though it was not legal, we did have a commitment ceremony 14 years ago, and would gladly go to a Justice of the Peace to get legally hitched if we had the opportunity (which is likely to be some time for SC).

All of that is to say, I cannot shake the feeling that some of these folks want their cake and to be able to eat it, too. They pushed for this in these states, they got it, and now when some major companies are saying they have to play by the same rules, they are balking. It isn't like the companies aren't giving them time, or making concessions for issues like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but still, there are concerns:

[snip] At least for now, these companies seem to be in the minority, though it is unclear whether more employers will follow their lead. Eastman Kodak, based in Rochester, said it would continue to offer domestic partner coverage to both same-sex and opposite-sex partners.

“My impression is that there has been lots of discussion about dropping domestic partner coverage when marriage is first opened up to same-sex couples, but very few employers actually end up taking this step,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, legal director at the Williams Institute, which studies sexual orientation law and policy issues. “Some employers initially believe that it is fairer of them to impose the same marriage requirements on all employees, regardless of sexual orientation. But then employees and others explain that employees with a same-sex life partner remain in difficult circumstances due to the continuing federal discrimination.”

Whether same-sex couples marry, they will still be responsible for paying federal income taxes on the value of their partner or spouse’s benefits since they are not recognized by the federal government as an economic unit, unless the person covered is considered a dependent. Couples will not owe those taxes at the state level in places like New York that recognize gay marriage. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And that is a difference - if the companies offer partner benefits regardless of sexual orientation, then sure, keep it that way. But if the benefits are offered because same sex people were unable to get married at that time, but can now, it only seems fair.

And along these lines of same sex marriage, my sister sent me the following video yesterday. I thought there were some pretty good signs. Cracked me up. I hope you find the humor in them, too:

I may be too black/white about this, but if companies are already progressive enough to offer these benefits out of a sense of fairness, are giving people a year to get married, I am not sure what the difference is. But that's just me.

What do you think? Should the companies that already provide partner benefits for their same sex employees require that they get married if they are able to be eligible for these benefits if that is the requirement for their heterosexual employees? What about the immigration and adoption issues? I'd love to hear what you think.

Atlantis - The End Of An Era

2011-07-08T12:30:00.000-04:00

As of Friday morning, thirty years of shuttle flights come to an end after the Shuttle Atlantis returns after its liftoff.

What a program this has been, since the very first one took off all those years ago:

[snip] It all started with STS-1, launched on April 12, 1981, just twenty years to the day after Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space. When astronauts John Young and Robert Crippen launched that morning in Columbia, it was the first time in history a new spacecraft was launched on its maiden voyage with a crew aboard.

For an entire generation, the space shuttle was NASA. We've watched a parade of firsts -- Sally Ride, Guy Bluford, Kathy Sullivan, John Glenn and others. We've seen astronauts float free, and launch and repair spacecraft like Hubble which have fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe. [snip]

Truly, this has been an incredible program, and I am sad to see it come to an end.

Atlantis lifted off without a hitch:

It was a magnificent sight, bringing tears to my eyes.

Farewell, Atlantis, and Godspeed...

Atlanta Higher Ups Have Found A Way To Get Passing Grades - Cheat, Cheat, And Cheat Some More

2011-07-07T12:00:00.001-04:00

The hammering outside (stucco guys putting up mesh) is matched only by the hammering in my head after reading the following article: "Investigation Into APS Cheating Finds Unethical Behavior Across Every Level". This is disturbing on a number of levels, including that the superintendent under whose direction this rampant, long term cheating occurred, no, was encouraged, was named the 2009 National Superintendent of the Year.

Good grief.

Here are the particulars from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Across Atlanta Public Schools, staff worked feverishly in secret to transform testing failures into successes.

Teachers and principals erased and corrected mistakes on students’ answer sheets.

Area superintendents silenced whistle-blowers and rewarded subordinates who met academic goals by any means possible.

Superintendent Beverly Hall and her top aides ignored, buried, destroyed or altered complaints about misconduct, claimed ignorance of wrongdoing and accused naysayers of failing to believe in poor children’s ability to learn.

For years — as long as a decade — this was how the Atlanta school district produced gains on state curriculum tests. The scores soared so dramatically they brought national acclaim to Hall and the district, according to an investigative report released Tuesday by Gov. Nathan Deal.

In the report, the governor’s special investigators describe an enterprise where unethical — and potentially illegal — behavior pierced every level of the bureaucracy, allowing district staff to reap praise and sometimes bonuses by misleading the children, parents and community they served.

The report accuses top district officials of wrongdoing that could lead to criminal charges in some cases.[snip]

This is just mind boggling. For once, I am practically speechless at the depth and breadth of cheating that went on from the highest levels down for as long as it did. At the very LEAST this is unethical, egregious, and reprehensible. Wow.

There is so, so much more to this story, including this:

[snip] For teachers, a culture of fear ensured the deception would continue.

“APS is run like the mob,” one teacher told investigators, saying she cheated because she feared retaliation if she didn’t.

The voluminous report names 178 educators, including 38 principals, as participants in cheating. More than 80 confessed. The investigators said they confirmed cheating in 44 of 56 schools they examined.

The investigators conducted more than 2,100 interviews and examined more than 800,000 documents in what is likely the most wide-ranging investigation into test-cheating in a public school district ever conducted in United States history.

Holy crap. This just boggles the mind, doesn't it?

And what about this Superintendent of the Year, Beverly Hall? Oh, I am sure you can guess:

The findings fly in the face of years of denials from Atlanta administrators. The investigators re-examined the state’s erasure analysis — which they said proved to be valid and reliable — and sought to lay to rest district leaders’ numerous excuses for the suspicious scores.

Deal warned Tuesday “there will be consequences” for educators who cheated. “The report’s findings are troubling,” he said, “but I am encouraged this investigation will bring closure to problems that existed.”

Interim Atlanta Superintendent Erroll Davis promised that the educators found to have cheated “are not going to be put in front of children again.”

Through her lawyer, Hall issued a statement denying that she, her staff or the “vast majority” of Atlanta educators knew or should have known of “allegedly widespread” cheating. “She further denies any other allegations of knowing and deliberate wrongdoing on her part or on the part of her senior staff,” the statement said, “whether during the course of the investigation or before.” [snip]

Oh, I am sure Ms. Hall denies all of the charges. And of course, that two different governors investigated what happened in Atlanta means nothing. Surely, she did nothing to deserve this level of scrutiny. Ahem:

[snip]Hall preferred to spend her time networking with philanthropic and business leaders rather than walking the halls of her schools, the investigators found.

But when the scandal erupted, she withheld key information — state data on the suspicious erasures — even from executives and civic leaders who the school board, at Hall’s urging, appointed to conduct the inquiry.

“In many ways, the community was duped by Dr. Hall,” the report said. “While the district had rampant cheating, community leaders were unaware of the misconduct in the district. She abused the trust they placed in her.

“Hall became a subject of adoration and made herself the focus rather than the children,” the investigators wrote. “Her image became more important than reality.” (Click here to read the rest.)

I encourage you to read the rest of this article - there is so much more in it, and to this story. Teachers were threatened with loss of livelihood if they told what they saw, and were generally threatened or intimidated.

This was the bottom line for what happened in Atlanta:

[snip] “In sum, a culture of fear, intimidation and retaliation permeated the APS system from the highest ranks down,” the investigators wrote. “Cheating was allowed to proliferate until, in the words of one former APS principal, ‘it became intertwined in Atlanta Public Schools ... a part of what the culture is all about.’ ”[snip]

I can only imagine how long it will take to clean up this "culture of corruption." I don't envy them the task. But it is one that must be done, for the sake of the children, and of those teachers who did not willingly conspire to cheat, cheat, and cheat some more. I can only hope that justice will be swift and unwavering in dealing with (former) Superintendent Hall and her minions. They deserve nothing less for the insult they have brought upon the institution of education, and Atlanta. Shame on them.

"Operation Fast And Furious" Gets The Furious Part Right

2011-07-06T12:00:00.001-04:00

This has been an evolving issue, the ATF's Operation Fast and Furious. In case you are unfamiliar with this program, here are the basics to this program:

A U.S. law enforcement operation intended to crack down on major weapons traffickers on the Southwest border spiraled out of control as federal agents were told by superiors to "stand down" and ignore weapons bought in Arizona headed for Mexico, a House panel heard Wednesday.

Three federal firearms investigators told the House Oversight and Government Reform committee that they wanted to "intervene and interdict" loads of guns, but were repeatedly ordered to step aside.

"Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals -- this was the plan," John Dodson, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent, testified to the panel. "It was so mandated."

He added: "My supervisors directed me and my colleagues not to make any stop or arrest, but rather, to keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk." [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy cow. I don't know about you, but I find that to be incredibly disturbing.

This program was halted when Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry, 40, was killed with one of the guns from this incredibly misguided, ill conceived, dare I say, idiotic, program.

Here's the thing - finding out who actually authorized this program has been much harder than it should be. Obama denied that it was Eric Holder, though the ATF is under his purview. If you have seen any of the hearings on Capitol Hill, you know that trying to get that name has been like trying to pull hen's teeth. But Obama said that there will be swift action against whoever it was, though it sure wasn't Holder. Yeah, okay. Well, SOMEONE approved this plan.

That was then. This is now. And that is not the end of it, not by a long shot. The All Stars discussed this very issue on Tuesday night after several Mexican officials, in response to deaths in Mexico as a result ofn "Operation Fast and Furious" spoke out:

Yes, this is a big deal, and Eric Holder has lots of 'splaining to do. That's what Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley think, too, as this Daily Caller article highlights:

Top Republican lawmakers have authored an explosive new letter containing details of secret testimony by acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson, which reveal for the first time the extent to which his agency was involved in an international gun selling scandal.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, fired off the letter to Attorney General Eric Holder Tuesday detailing what Melson told Congressional investigators in a secret July 4 testimony.

One key takeaway from the meeting was that Melson acknowledged to investigators that agents had witnessed transfers of weapons from straw purchasers to third parties without following the guns afterwards. Straw purchasers are people who could technically legally buy guns in the U.S. but their intent was to turn around and sell them to drug cartels in Mexico.

Another point Melson clarified for investigators was that the ATF group carrying out the mission of Operation Fast and Furious was placed under the direction of the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s office. The U.S. Attorney in Arizona, Dennis Burke, is a political appointee of the Obama administration.[snip]

Here's the thing, though - it seems that, Obama's pledge notwithstanding, the DOJ is not being at all helpful in getting to the bottom of this. Gee, aren't you surprised by that? No? I wasn't, either:

The DOJ has not been fully cooperative with a number of Issa’s and Grassley’s requests for documents and other evidence in this investigation. According to the July 5 letter, Issa and Grassley said Melson told them he asked the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) to be more cooperative with Congressional requests for information, evidence and documents.

Their letter also details how Melson told Issa and Grassley that he and other senior ATF officials moved to reassign every major official involved in Operation Fast and Furious. Melson said Obama administration Justice Department officials directed him and other ATF officials to not communicate to Congress the reasoning behind the reassignments. [snip]
(Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, the plot thickens. No doubt, it will get thicker before all is known about this incredibly stupid, moronic plot. As you might guess, those firearms that were purchased were done so on our dime.

Despite the Democrats' attempts to try to defuse this issue and make it all about gun laws, this is about the DOJ, and the ATF. It is about who crafted, and authorized, this program which cost the life of an agent, and lives across the border. I hope Rep. Issa and Sen. Grassley stand firm in getting to the bottom of this.

I have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg. What do you think?

What A Bargain - NOT! (Corrected)

2011-07-05T11:00:00.003-04:00

That would be the cost of each new job saved by the $666 billion dollar stimulus. A bargain it most definitely was not. But can we just pause for a moment as we look at this figure - 666? I mean, really - can this be a coincidence that the number for the Anti-Christ is the amount spent on jobs saved or created? Just asking.

But I digress. Okay. Hold onto your hats. The amount each job cost from the Obama Stimulus was: $278,000. Yes, each new or saved position cost almost THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!! This figure is from Obama's OWN White House economists.

But check this out. If you go to the White House's own website, Recovery.gov, the number is $1.4 MILLION dollars, according to Eric Bolling of Fox Business News. How many jobs were saved? Not all that many, really - 560,000. In fact, they are saying that there would have been MORE jobs created without the stimulus.

To add insult to injury, 1.8 MILLION jobs have been lost since the Stimulus.

Here's my favorite part of this report:

[snip] The figures mean the U.S. government could have given a $100,000 cheque to everyone whose employment was made possible by the $800billion American Recovery of Reinvestment Act (ARRA) - and taxpayers would still have come out $427billion ahead, The Weekly Standard reported. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Dang, I'd rather have the (corrected) 10o THOUSAND grand, wouldn't you? We could put that $427 BILLION toward our massive deficit. And you know if we were each given that kind of cash, we would have put a lot of it back into the economy, right?

Great plan there, Obama. And great execution. Nothing like spending way more on job saving/creation than many jobs pay. With our tax dollars, too, I might add.

See, this is what happens when you have someone in office who hasn't the foggiest about economics or business, not ever having anything to do with either. Not only was Obama clueless, but he picked the wrong people to handle his economic decisions. No wonder all but Timmy Geithner have jumped ship (though it still amazes me that those who did leave, like Austan Goolsbee, or Christina Romer, got other jobs after failing so spectacularly with the nation's economy).

I would sure love to hear from one of these folks who has a "created" or "saved" job, particularly just how much they make a year. Just wondering. But I am pretty sure they don't make over a quarter million dollars a year. How about you?

It's The Fourth Of July - Happy Independence Day

2011-07-04T10:00:00.000-04:00

Happy Independence Day, everyone!

Apparently, I need to make clear the year we actually gained our independence - 1776, and that it was from England. It turns out, many of our young people are unaware of these facts. How this can possibly be, I don't know, but it is the sad reality, according to this Marist poll:

[snip] Only 58% of residents know that the United States declared its independence in 1776. 26% are unsure, and 16% mentioned another date.

There are age differences on this question. Younger Americans are the least likely to know the correct answer. Only 31% of adults younger than 30 say that 1776 is the year in which the United States broke away from Great Britain. (Emphasis mine.) 59% of residents between 30 and 44 report the same. Americans 45 to 59 — 75% — are the age group most likely to have the correct answer. Among those 60 and older, 60% report that 1776 is the year in which the United States declared its independence. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

There is no other way to say this - those statistics are appalling. Just appalling. Wow.

We are so fortunate to live in the United States, even with all of the major issues currently confronting our nation at this time. Even still, we have so much for which to be thankful. For those who gave of life and limb to secure our liberty, to those who sacrifice in service to the nation today, the deepest of gratitude for the keeping this land free.

We may disagree on politics, we may disagree on religion, we may disagree on any host of issues, but on this one thing we can agree: it is great to be an American, and we are damned lucky to be so. Each and everyone of us should surely know when this nation was founded, and from which country we rebelled. At the very least, we should know that much.

On this Fourth of July, may you take the time to reflect on how this great nation came to be, and give a word of thanks for being able to call the USA home. It's a mighty fine place:

Happy Independence Day (and happy birthday to my favorite brother)!

It's Sunday - Time For A Little Good News

2011-07-03T10:00:00.001-04:00

I'm a firm believer that it is unhealthy to dwell too much in the land of angst, ire, and agitation, i.e., the world of politics. People are not one dimensional, after all, and we need balance.

So, here's some good news for the day. Recently, the Marine Corps installed its first woman Commander at Parris Island, SC:

[snip] Brig. Gen. Lori Reynolds will become the first woman commanding general in the depot's 96-year history during a change of command ceremony on Friday, according to the Beaufort Gazette.

The US Women's National Team defeated Columbia on Saturday 3-0 to advance to the Quarterfinals in the Women's World Cup (soccer). The World Cup only comes around every four years, so it's a pretty big deal. It was an exciting match to watch, though the referee made some interesting calls, as refs are wont to do (that is a bit of a joke). The US Women's next opponent is Sweden. Should be another good match. Hopefully, the US Women will return the Cup to the US this year.

Reynolds also will oversee the Marines' Eastern Recruiting Region, which covers states east of the Mississippi River.[snip]

How cool is that? Parris Island is very close to where I live, especially as the crow flies or boat goes. And I have had family go through the boot camp there. This is no small feat by Brug. Gen Reynolds, and I congratulate her on her success.

And since I am talking about South Carolina, I must mention that the University of South Carolina men's baseball team won the College World Series for the second year in a row:

That is also no small feat. Congratulations to these young men and their outstanding coaching staff. Well done!

And because it is another beautiful morning here in the LowCountry, soft breeze blowing carrying the smell of the ocean, tide coming in, birds chirping, crickets cricketing, here's a little music for the soul:

I hope your day is filled with song, laughter, calm, happiness, and fun. Enjoy!

Celebrating the Fourth Of July? You Must Be A Republican!

2011-07-02T10:30:00.001-04:00

By a slight, statistically insignificant margin, according to a new Harvard Study.

No, I am not making this up. Really. I swear. Paul Bedard had this report in the US World and News Report, "Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing." Who knew, right? I just thought these parades were celebrating the Independence of our country. Who knew that they were really right wing breeding grounds? Or so these Harvard researchers claim:

[snip]"Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation's political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party," said the report from Harvard.

"The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans," write Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam.

Their findings also suggest that Democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades, likely a shocking result for all the Democratic politicians who march in them.

Uh, yeah - I bet it would be a shocking result. But even more shocking is the percentages by which these researchers claim these findings:

[snip] * When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent.
* It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.
* It boosts the likelihood a reveler will vote by about 1 percent and increases the chances they'll make a political contribution by 3 percent.

[...]

Finally, the report suggests that if people are looking for a super-patriotic July 4th, though should head to Republican towns. "Republican adults celebrate Fourth of July more intensively in the first place." (Click here to read the rest.)

Gosh, "Republican towns" like, say, BOSTON??? Good grief.

Really, these "statistics" are laughable - by 1%? 2%? 3%? What was the margin or error in these stats? Let me guess, 1%? 2%? 3%? What a freakin' joke.

And if I may quote one more comment I saw, I cannot let this one by Michael Dean slip by. It is just too damn funny:

Good News for Democrats!

Who says Democrats don't celebrate Independence Day? Yesterday the White House updated President Obama's July 4th schedule to include a stop in London where the Commander-in-Chief will officially apologize to the Queen and the British people for North America's racist colonial aggression of the late 18th Century that led to the illegal formation of the breakaway United States. In a ceremonial gesture that U.S. liberals call long overdue, the President will formally repay the Crown for the tea and other property lost in 1773 when disloyal Massachussetts residents committed acts of economic terrorism by tossing cases of tea into Boston Harbor. Scientists have reached a consensus that this original so-called "Tea Party" created an environmental hazard which remains a primary cause of global warming and therefore a threat to all life on earth, especially women, minorities, and the poor. In recognition of the worldwide suffering caused by centuries of American exceptionalism, Democrats will mark the upcoming July 4th holiday with legislation calling for a "success surcharge" on all U.S. households earning more than $250,000 per year. Vice President Biden calls it "the patriotic thing to do." Finally, Senate Democrats will celebrate July 4th by joining hands on the steps of the Capitol where they will sing the updated version of "God Bless America" entitled, "May the Deity You Find Least Offensive Improve the Lives of Everyone on Earth, Especially Undocumented Immigrants." Happy 4th of July!!!

Indeed.

Can you believe someone PAID for this study, and even thought to look at it in these terms in the FIRST place? WTH?

Wow, all these years, I was under the misguided assumption that the Fourth of July was a celebration for all Americans to acknowledge the birth of this great Nation. Evidently not, at least according to these Harvard researchers. Enjoy celebrating our Independence Day all by your lonesomes, Republicans. Apparently, the Democrats will be sitting it out...

It's Official - The World Has Gone To Hell In A Handbasket

2011-07-01T10:30:00.000-04:00

You know, I really should stop being astonished at the news, the sheer upside-down-ness of the world in which we live. But, no - I suppose I still expect a modicum of sanity to prevail. Sadly, that expectation fell far short when I saw some of the following news stories.

For instance, WHO would have ever thought that North Korea - NORTH KOREA - would head the UN Disarmament Council? No one, because it is insane. Yet, that is the reality:

Nuclear-armed North Korea has assumed the presidency of a key United Nations disarmament body — despite facing UN Security Council sanctions over its weapons programs.

The development comes in the same week the UN defended its decision to support Iran's holding of an international "anti-terrorism" conference — which saw participants declaring that Western powers were the international terrorists.

UN officials point out that North Korean ambassador So Se Pyong takes on the presidency of the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament under rules that say the chair will rotate among all 65 member states in alphabetical order.

But critics said Wednesday the rules should be changed when they allow the body — whose mandate is in part to push for world nuclear disarmament — to be led by a country that the West considers to be an international nuclear renegade.

"No system should tolerate such a fundamental conflict of interests," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of Geneva-based UN Watch, which also led protests against the UN's input at the Iranian "anti-terrorism" conference. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Who could really be surprised, though? This is the same "august" body that put Iran on the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Does it surprise anyone that IRAN is happy about this? Yeah, I didn't think so.Yet another institution for which I have lost all respect.

Meanwhile, the US, in its infinite wisdom in Insanity Land now recognizes the Muslim Brotherhood:

The U.S. has decided to formally resume contact with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood group - which does not recognize Israel – in a move that could further alienate some Jewish voters already skeptical of President Barack Obama, it was reported.

One senior U.S. official said the Brotherhood’s rise in political prominence after the forced departure of former President Hosni Mubarak earlier this year makes the American contact necessary.

“The political landscape in Egypt has changed, and is changing… It is in our interests to engage with all of the parties that are competing for parliament or the presidency,” said the official, who confirmed the news to Reuters on condition of anonymity. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Do I really need to remind everyone of who and what the Muslim Brotherhood is? You know, "The Quran is our law; Jihad is our way," including against the United States, Hamas-spawning, and Israel hating formerly outlawed in Egypt organization? Yeah, that one. The same one Obama invited leaders from to hear him babble on in Cairo while they were still outlawed. Yeah, we saw this one coming.

And as if this is not bad enough, the United States, in its infinite insanity, has designated Israel - ISRAEL - as a country that produces terrorists (h/t Gina). Just to be clear - we are engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood, a TERRORIST organization, and calling one of, hell, our ONLY, Middle East ally, a terrorist sponsoring organization:

In an implicit admission that Israel is so threatened by terrorism that it is not only surrounded by countries and territories that produce terrorists but also unwillingly harbors terrorists within its own territory in a way that most other nations in the world do not, the Obama administration is currently listing Israel among 36 “specially designated countries” it believes “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.” {snip} (Click here to read the rest.)

Seriously, are these people out of their freaking mind? And how in the HELL can the Hillary Clinton, as head of State, support this? Don't even get me started.

But really, what can one expect from someone like Obama, who not only plays fast and loose with the facts, but is a huge bully while doing so. I cannot go through them all, but let's just look at Obama's big comparison between corporate jet taxes, and student loans:

[snip] In a bit of class jujitsu, the president six times mentioned eliminating a tax loophole for corporate jets, frequently pitting it against student loans or food safety. It’s a potent image, but in the context of a $4 trillion goal, it is essentially meaningless. The item is so small the White House could not even provide an estimate of the revenue that would be raised, but other estimates suggest it would amount to $3 billion over 10 years.

Meanwhile, student financial assistance, just for 2011, is about $42 billion. So the corporate jet loophole — which involves the fact that such assets can be depreciated over five years, rather than the seven for commercial jets — just is not going to raise a lot of money. It certainly wouldn’t save many student loans. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

You know it's bad when even the Washington Post is calling Obama a liar. But hey, if the shoe fits, as they say, and it surely does with Obama.

Blech. I wish this was all, but this is all I can handle without my head exploding.

Thank heavens, though, at least there is one bright spot in the world - it is Canada Day! The newest royal couple, William and Kate, are in Canada for the big day, delighting the Canadians with their charm:

[snip] Friday also would have been the 50th birthday of William’s mother, Princess Diana, who died in a 1997 Paris car crash. In London, her admirers gathered to leave gifts outside Kensington Palace, which was her official residence.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, as William and Kate are formally known, arrived Thursday to cheering crowds of thousands. Poised and confident, they thrilled crowds with warm, unscripted gestures, wading into throngs of well-wishers to shake hands and accept flowers and other gifts.

To cheers of delight, William addressed his hosts in both English and French, then cracked a joke about his language skills. “It will improve as we go on,” the prince quipped, then noted how much he and Kate were “truly looking forward to this adventure.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And this is for our neighbors to the North:

I hope the Royal Newlyweds continue to enjoy their trip, and that Canada has an excellent day of celebration.

Personally, I thank Canada for diffusing the explosion in my head from the other news of the day. How about you - what news stories hit you today?

"Sarah Palin’s Unlikely Supporter"? UPDATED

2011-06-29T10:00:00.001-04:00

Just from the title of this Sheila Marikar ABC report, you get a hint of a bias. The article doesn't help to dispel that sensation, rather it escalates it:

There’s the stereotype of the Sarah Palin supporter, and then there’s Sonnie Johnson.

The 30-year-old African-American mother and wife is featured in “The Undefeated” as one of the many people Palin captivated when John McCain thrust her onto the national stage as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. In Pella, Iowa today for the premiere of the film, Johnson said she latched on to Palin when the former Alaska governor took the stage at the Republican National Convention.

“We were watching it on TV and my daughter was like, ‘A girl can be president?,’” Johnson recalled. “And I said, ‘Yes, baby, girls can do anything.’ That was the moment -- I saw that look in my daughter’s eye, that anything in possible. The next week, I went to my very first political event, and that was to see Sarah Palin. John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Johnson has become increasingly involved in the tea party since then, speaking at tea party events around her native Virginia. She’ll give the keynote address at an event held by the Charlottesville, VA. tea party on the Fourth of July with her young daughter by her side. [snip]

Obviously, the elephant in the room is that Hillary Clinton had run to be president, but she was not the party's pick (and I use those words deliberately). So that Johnson's daughter saw Palin as a potential president if McCain won is a difference. Palin was on the ticket, Clinton (unfortunately) was not.

That being said, there are so many glaring issues wrong with the entire way Marikar framed this piece that I barely know where to start. First, there is the whole "stereotype" assumption made by this "reporter." One of the comments summed it up pretty succinctly:

VG; "stereotype" Who put the stereotype on Palin?? All you Obama loving scumbags in the corrupt MSM. You people make me sick.

I think many of us can appreciate this person's sentiment about the circular practice of the MSM - castigate and attack, then stand back and "report" people regurgitating back the attacks launched, then explain that as the reality of the situation.

There were a few more comments I must share with you, beginning with the issue of women:

John; Unfortunately, women can't be president. Just watching the vitriol that has been thrown at Sarah Palin makes that clear. The attacks on her family have been disgraceful. The attempts to dig through 24,000 pages of her email to try to find any dirt also makes it clear that America is not ready for a female leader. Best to tell our daughters to become teachers or mothers so they don't become the next woman to be Palinized....

Jim (in response to Katherine); "There was a woman running in the Dem Primary, and she was pilloried by the misogynistic media... Palin got it X2, and she is still standing, and appears to be stronger than ever. Just sayin'."

@Katherine: Couldn't have said it better. I am an ex-Democrat and have had it with the way the democratic party takes the women constituency for granted. I am sick of how they treated Hillary. This was a woman that was many times more accomplished than Obama and after Obama's presidency we can safely say she would have been many times more effective as a president. Now they are doing the same thing to Palin. I am just sick of the venom that has been thrown at her - just sick of it. [snip]

Amen, amen, and amen - I could not agree more. Many of you know that this has been my refrain about the Democratic Party, Obama, and the blatant, virulent misogyny they have been spewing our way.

But there is another piece to all of this:

[snip] “She’ll be on stage with me,” Johnson said. “I want to get her involved, little by little. I like to say that for the black community, nothing will change until we learn to love our children more than we love the Democratic party.”

After Stephen K. Bannon cast her in his 2010 documentary about conservative women leaders, “Fire From the Heartland,” he asked Johnson to speak about Palin’s influence on her for “The Undefeated.” Other tea party personalities have failed to capture Johnson’s attention as Palin has.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley - calling out the black community for its allegiance to the Democrats is a mighty interesting turn. No doubt, that will raise some eyebrows, along with charges of being an "Uncle Tom." I don't know about you, but it does seem that whenever a black person does not subscribe to a particular point of view they are, by necessity, an "Uncle Tom." I thought this comment by Colint summer it up:

Black woman as "unlikely" supporter.... funny.... imagine that, a black who isn't brainwashed into loving the useless Democrats. Wow... what a revelation.

Could she have figured out the lie... figured out that the Democrats are race baiters?

Good question. Of course, Ms. Johnson would not have to look far. Heck, she need look no farther than my representative, Jim Clyburn, to see numerous instances of race baiting.

I don't know about you, but I found this to be a pretty interesting glimpse into both how the MSM tries to package information, and how more people are not buying what they are selling. Maybe there really is hope yet.

UPDATE: Speaking of the media, The Hollywood Reporter has a glimpse into the new movie, "The Undefeated". Hold onto your hats, this is not for the faint of heart:

[snip] The movie begins with Sen. John McCain introducing his running mate, then quickly cuts to the Hollywood sign, and the music turns ominous. A TV news anchor says, "Hollywood has a new favorite pastime: taking aim at Sarah Palin."

Then the celebrity montage begins: Damon likens Palin to a "really bad Disney movie" and says she's "really scary"; Letterman attacks her, and the discourse descends in to the filthy from there. Maher insults her on his TV show, Madonna screams obscenities about her while on stage, and comedians use graphic, severely bleeped language to describe Palin and the intensity with which they "hate her."

When the montage is through, the screen goes dark and a Bible verse comes into focus: "By their fruits ye shall know them." [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, indeed we will. And the fruits being sown by these people against a woman they have never met, using the vilest of language to describe her, and even attacking her special needs child, says it all.

State Department Goes Gaga While Air Force Personnel Are GoneGone

2011-06-28T10:30:00.001-04:00

We have many pressing issues in this country, and around the world. Every time we turn on the news, there is some major crisis, from the war in Libya to the economic collapse in Greece. So you can understand why our State Department would be focused on Lady Gaga.

Yes, that Lady Gaga, she of the bizarre outfits and, um, interesting lyrics. Seems the State Department asked Gaga to be a part of Rome's Pride Parade, seeing as how she is Italian American and all. Wow. I am not making this up:

[snip]Clinton specifically pointed to a letter that David Thorne, the U.S. ambassador to Italy, sent to Lady Gaga urging her to participate in the event.

“And then there is the work that our embassy team in Rome has been doing,” Clinton said. “Two weeks ago they played an instrumental role in bringing Lady Gaga to Italy for a Euro Pride concert.

“Now as many of you know Lady Gaga is Italian American and a strong supporter of LGBT rights,” said Clinton. “And the organizers of the Euro Pride event desperately wanted her to perform and a letter to her from Ambassador Thorne was instrumental in sealing the deal.”[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, gosh, that should spark some "Fireworks," shouldn't it? And really - this is on what our State Department is focusing? Don't get me wrong, I am glad Secretary Clinton is speaking out on LGBT rights, but requesting a pop singer, on official letterhead, to go to ROME for a LGBT pride concert seems a bit of a stretch to me.

It also begs the question, if the Plight Of Partying Pride Paraders is of such importance to our State Department, how about our LGBT military right here at home? You may recall that I wrote back in December about DADT being overturned, though STILL IN EFFECT until certified otherwise. Well, that ain't happened yet, surprise surprise. What HAS happened, however, are four Air Force Personnel being separated from service as a result of DADT:

The Pentagon confirmed Monday that more service members have been discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell” pending certification of the policy’s repeal, with one individual’s discharge approved as recently as Thursday.

A total of four airmen have been discharged under the policy in the last several weeks, Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez confirmed Monday.

One of those individuals is Airman First Class Albert Pisani, who spoke to The Advocate earlier this month of his voluntary separation under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which defense officials approved on April 29.

Air Force spokesman Maj. Joel Harper told The Advocate that the discharges of three additional service members — two female staff sergeants and one male second lieutenant— have been approved since an April 29 discharge. Harper declined to say whether Pisani was the April 29 discharge, citing confidentiality reasons. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Sadly, I knew this was going to happen. It is still the law of the land, after all, though that fact was all but ignored by just about everyone. Of course, the longer it takes to certify this (blatantly political pandering by the Democrats who waited until the very last second before dealing with this issue in Congress), the more discharges we can expect to see.

But while our military personnel are being separated from service for being LGB, our State Department is willing to help the Romans have the most Gaga-licious Pride Parade Evah.

Wow. It is making my head explode.Feel free to discuss this, and whatever else is on your mind, if yours hasn't exploded yet, that is...

TSA Targets Elderly Woman

2011-06-27T11:30:00.000-04:00

TSA has done it again, only this time, they have targeted an elderly woman with leukemia. Oh, and the TSA is sticking behind its officers (again).

Here's the story:

Can you believe this? What is it going to take for the TSA to not only stop these practices, but to stop being so quick to support these deplorable practices of their agents? If this is really okay with them, then it simply highlights the complete violation of our right to privacy.

This is disturbing beyond words. Clearly, the TSA is bound and determined to continue its assault against those who have disabilities, and who prove ZERO threat against the country.

It is clear that this anti-Constitution behavior will continue under this Administration, but I sure hope the next president will put a stop to these offensive pat-downs against those who are dying of cancer, are 6 years old, have had knee replacements, and the list goes on.

The TSA needs to stop, they need to stop conducting these kinds of pat downs, and they need to stop defending their assaults on our rights. This has gone way, way too far.

It's About Family Today

2011-06-26T10:00:00.000-04:00

Since I have my nephew and his wife visiting for the weekend, I thought I would take this opportunity for another day of music. Hey, with all of the bickering and crapola going on in Washington, can't we all use a day off? I think so.

My choices are people who are family, beginning with Clannad, one of my all-time favorite Irish bands. I just love this piece, "Newgrange":

Some of you may know, that Clannad is Enya's family. She performed with them before striking out on her own. This is a gorgeous song, "Book of Days":

The Corrs are another favorite Irish group - they are composed of three sisters and a brother. They are known for songs like, "Breathless," but this is a nice Irish tune, "Toss the Feathers":

And finally, in case you want something a bit different, here's another band - no - not the Jonas Brothers (though you are more than welcome to go to Youtube, if you wish!), the Dixie Chicks. Two of their three members are sisters (Emily and Martie). But hey, country has its roots in Irish music, doesn't it?

Anyway, this one is also a tribute to those who have served, "Travelin' Soldier":

I hope everyone has a great day today with your families, chosen and blood. And if you are unable to be with your family (or friends), remember that we are all your family. We are all connected.

Have a wonderful Sunday...

New York State Has Joined The Ranks

2011-06-25T11:30:00.000-04:00

Of states which have decided to afford all of their citizens the same marriage rights. It is the sixth state to do so. The vote was cast with a 4 vote difference:

Lawmakers voted late Friday to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed and giving the national gay-rights movement new momentum from the state where it was born.

The marriage bill, whose fate was uncertain until moments before the vote, was approved 33 to 29 in a packed but hushed Senate chamber. Four members of the Republican majority joined all but one Democrat in the Senate in supporting the measure after an intense and emotional campaign aimed at the handful of lawmakers wrestling with a decision that divided their friends, their constituents and sometimes their own homes.

With his position still undeclared, Senator Mark J. Grisanti, a Republican from Buffalo who had sought office promising to oppose same-sex marriage, told his colleagues he had agonized for months before concluding he had been wrong.

“I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Thank you, Senator Grisanti, for truly getting it and articulating the core of the issue so well. That is the bottom line - all citizens deserve the same rights under the law. Anything else is discriminatory.

I certainly understand that some people have religious objections to same sex marriage. Nonetheless, in terms of a civil institution, all citizens should have the same opportunities, same rights, and the same benefits.

Obviously, there is a long way to go - there are still 44 states in which all people do not have the same rights and benefits. It is slow going, to be sure, and will take time. But one can hope that someday, the law of the land will apply to every citizen equally.

But for now, for today, it is time to celebrate:

Taxpayers Subsidize Media Matters, And Obama Panders, Slips Again

2011-06-24T10:00:00.002-04:00

Yes, aren't you so glad to learn that your tax paying dollars are going to David Brock's Media Matters? Whether you are or not, they surely are:

David Brock, the conservative turned liberal advocate, has recently garnered a considerable amount of press coverage for his attacks on Fox News for, among many other things, allegedly taking over leadership of the Republican Party. What the news coverage has ignored is his use of tax-free funds for his organization, Media Matters for America (MMA), for these attacks — a form of government support for activities that clearly do not merit tax-exempt status and that as a result infringe on Fox News’ First Amendment rights.

MMA was originally established as an Internal Revenue Service Section 501(c)(3) organization, that is, an organization that can receive tax-deductible contributions to engage in educational activities. The more precise purpose was to counter alleged media bias and so to “identify occurrences of excessive bias in the American media, educate the public as to their existence, and to work with members of the media to reduce them.”

What MMA actually is doing, however, moves far afield from identifying possible bias to mounting a campaign to undermine a major media outlet and to promote the Democratic Party and progressive causes associated with it. Mr. Brock himself has described this new strategy as “a war on Fox,” an effort “to disrupt [Rupert Murdoch‘s] commercial interests” and look for ways to turn regulators against News Corp.’s media outlets. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

It does not matter if you like Fox, or hate it, but for taxpayer dollars to go to support an alleged non-profit that has a clear political agenda is unacceptable, regardless of whose political agenda it is. There are laws in this country against that sort of thing, after all. And there is that pesky matter of the US Constitution and the First Amendment. Taxpayers should NOT be funding this organization. If George Soros wants to fund it, that's his decision, but Media Matters sure should not receive our money as a "non-profit." That is just ridiculous.

And speaking of money, Obama was in New York last night at a few fundraisers, trying to fill his coffers. I just have to ask - who is it that can afford a $35,800 a plate dinner?? That is not a typo - there are five numbers there on purpose. Just wondering.

While Obama was at it, he did a little pandering to the LGBT community, claiming he thinks we should have the same rights in this country as everyone else. I agree with that, but what CNN was not so great about reporting was that Obama also said he thought it should be a state matter. Huh - that's the same thing Michelle Bachmann said in the recent debate (to give you a comparison).

Meanwhile, DADT is STILL the law of the land over 6 months later after the big hoopla in December. Yep, the government has not finished what it needs to do to change that. Big surprise, huh? Yeah, I didn't think so...

Add to that Obama misspeaking about a Medal of Honor recipient while pandering at Fort Drum:

[snip] "Throughout my service, first as a senator and then as a presidential candidate and then as a President, I’ve always run into you guys. And for some reason it’s always in some rough spots.

First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously."[snip]

Except it was. Oops...

There is more going on, and feel free to discuss whatever you wish!

What A Bunch Of Southernist BS About Boeing And SC

2011-06-23T10:30:00.001-04:00

As some of you know, here in South Carolina, we have been under siege by the NLRB, which is attacking Boeing for moving its DreamLiner series to North Charleston. Since we already had the DreamLifter here, it wasn't exactly an "out of the clear blue sky" kind of move.

That hasn't had an impact on the NLRB, though, which filed a suit against Boeing since it will not be using union labor here (SC is a "right to work" state). Bear in mind that NO union jobs were cut because of this move, Boeing still has plants in Washington State, and in fact, their union positions have increased.

This has been an on-going battle, with the tacit acceptance by the White House of the NLRB trying to dictate to what states companies can, and cannot, have their businesses.

So, it is in that framework that Thomas Geoghegan, an attorney in Chicago, wrote this WSJ editorial, "Boeing's Threat to American Enterprise; When major firms move to the South, it's usually a harbinger of quality decline. Why let that happen?"

I'm sorry, what? Is he really saying that companies that move their business South automatically suffer in quality? Why, yes he is:

[snip] We should be aghast that Boeing is sending a big fat market signal that it wants a less-skilled, lower-quality work force. This country is in a debt crisis because we buy abroad much more than we sell. Alas, because of this trade deficit, foreign creditors have the country in their clutches. That’s not because of our labor costs—in that respect, we can undersell most of our high-wage, unionized rivals like Germany. It’s because we have too many poorly educated and low-skilled workers that are simply unable to compete.

We depend on Boeing to out-compete Airbus, its European rival. But when major firms move South, it is usually a harbinger of quality decline. Over and over as a labor lawyer in the 1980s and ’90s, I saw companies move away from Chicago, where the pay was $28 an hour, to some place in South Carolina or Louisiana where the pay was about half that. While these moves aggrieved me as a union lawyer, it might have consoled me as an American if those companies went on to thrive globally.[snip] (Click here to read the rest of this drivel.)

See, because if you are having to pay twice as much to compensate the unions, you are better off. Uh huh.

It's a miracle we Southerners can even get our dumb asses out of bed every day, ain't it??

Now, I thought about going on my own little rant, and believe you me, I could - but there were a whole bunch of comments at the WSJ that really say it all:

Buck Hebner: After reading y'all's comments, I realize what an astute move the WSJ made publishing this lawyer's editorial. The WSJ staff must be howling with laughter. This one editorial accomplishes what a hundred conservative viewpoints fail to do, show readers the true stakes of this battle. In a few paragraphs, Mr. Geoghegan unmasks the true intentions of big Labor and progressive policy. They believe stirring up sectional hate and class-warfare will help them achieve their goals of unlimited Federal power and personal gain.

150 years after the Civil War was fought, the South is rising again. Not as an antagonist to the North, but as a economic engine that will help all of America become stronger through economic competition. The WSJ should be commended. Thank you.

Roger Simpson: First, Boeing did not "move" any work from Washington; as they have repeatedly stressed, the work to be done in South Carolina is new work, and there is nothing wrong economically with adding jobs to a state that could sure use them. Second, the notion that Washington citizens are somehow more "skilled" than South Carolinians is sheer arrogance, and has no basis in reality. Such babble was used when the auto manufacturers moved jobs there, and we have seen how ridiculous it was.

The real issue is that Big Labor cannot afford for people to find out that the work of $28/hour workers (who still are not satisfied with their lot) can be done just as well by $14/hour workers in another state, and without complaint. Especially a state which does not cater to the class of self-important, professional protesters, who take a cut from every worker's check to line their own pockets, while presuming to negotiate en masse for an entire group of indivdual free citizens.

Wilson Jones II: I hope this cat remembers that Southerners probably made the steel that holds his building up (Nucor), made his blood pressure meds (Glaxco Smith Kline), assembled his BMW.... AND we were smart enough to put together a rocket that put man on the moon... Now give me some Kickapoo Joy Juice as i listen to the theme from Deliverence...

Millard Ramsey: I can't stop laughing long enough to compose a response to this piece. I live in Chattanooga where VW has seen fit to invest $1 billion in a plant that will employ thousands of those "unskilled" Southern workers. Looks like VW has given up on quality too.

Alan Davis: Kia in Georgia, Hyundai in Alabama, BWM in South Carolina, and the list goes on and on. The rush to low quality must be the new business model.

I might add, Gulf Stream Jets are made in Savannah, GA, Toyotas are made in Kentucky, oh, and not only are Hyundais made in Alabama, but so are Mercedes Benz SUVs, and NASA is there, too, with Peterbilts being built in Denton, TX.

If you want some good laughs, though, go read the 40+ pages of comments about this incredibly offensive, arrogant, condescending, and flat out Southernist BS from this Chicago lawyer.

Boeing has every right to build its plants wherever the hell it sees fit. And our government should not be in the business of telling businesses where they can have those plants. Hell, even the Seattle Times is claiming that "Obama Administration Putting Politics Before The Economy" with this misguided assault against Boeing, and SC. No freakin' kidding. This is all payback.

And speaking of payback - remember when Obama shoved the (also misguided) stimulus down our throats to bail out companies like GM? He claimed that the Administration would not be micromanaging GM? Well, hold on to your seats - he lied. Yes, Obama lied. In fact, the Treasury Department DID essentially run GM, and get this:

[snip] These messages reveal that Treasury officials were involved in decision-making that led to more than 20,000 non-union workers losing their pensions. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy shit. Well, that just goes to show you this NLRB debacle is not an aberration, but business as usual. Cutting TWENTY THOUSAND non-union pensions - are you kidding me with this?

Oh, but then again, what the hell do I know? I'm just a Southerner, after all...

Happy Father's Day

2011-06-19T10:30:00.005-04:00

Today we celebrate our fathers, blood and chosen, those who helped form us, who often provided for us, taught us, laughed with us, disciplined us, and loved us. Some of us didn't have the best relationships with our fathers, others didn't know their fathers at all, but still, in ways large or small, they played a role in our lives.

I lost my father almost six years ago. He and I did not get along all that well throughout my life. His philosophy was that children should be seen and not heard, especially not girl children. Obviously, he got the wrong daughter if that is what he wanted! While I was on my way to becoming an Episcopal priest (before I became a UU), my father left the Episcopal Church when they began to allow women's ordination. We were both stubborn, which didn't help.

Even still, I knew my father loved me. I know he was proud of me and what I accomplished. Near the end of my father's life, I was able to thank him for the gifts he helped bestow on me, especially the love of, and for, music. Much of my musical ability came from my father (though my mother had a beautiful singing voice). I remember how delighted my Anglophile father was when I returned from choir camp sounding like an "English Choir Boy," and having won the Girl's Best Singer award. His focus on academics, reading, working hard, and doing well, were lessons he (and Mom) imparted to all of us. While he wasn't into sports (I love them), his genetic makeup carried a lot of athletic ability, which he passed on to me (along with Mom, who actually did play sports with me when none of my brothers were around).

My father was also a religious man. When he served in the US Navy, he worked in the Chaplain's Office. Growing up, we had an altar in our house, and we prayed together as a family. We ate dinners together, all of us, and whenever a meal was shared, the blessing was said. Since he was the organist at every church we attended, we went to church together for years and years, until I went off to boarding school in high school. While our religious beliefs differed, my father's religious devotion was an inspiration to me.

I don't remember now who said this, but it really hit me - at some point in a child's life, s/he sees the parent as a person in their own right, not just a parent, as an individual who had their own hopes and dreams, just a person doing the best they can with what they have and know. It was really liberating in a lot of ways. It opened my eyes to see my father as a man who worked hard for his family, who had a great sense of humor, was a bit of a prankster. He was someone who had dreams realized, and dreams unfulfilled, accomplishments and disappointments, gain, and loss. He was just a man, a human being, not perfect, but doing the best he could.

As my own issues with joint pain impact my life, I cannot help but feel for my father, a brilliant organist and pianist whose playing days were cut short by rheumatoid arthritis that deformed his hands and feet. Having had to give up playing instruments myself as a result of arthritis, I can appreciate how devastating losing that ability was for my father. It has enabled me to understand him better. And to appreciate him more. I hope, wherever he is in the universe, he knows that.

One last thing about my father. Even though he would grumble and complain, he didn't stop me from bringing home every stray I found, cat, dog, or person. He let (Mom and) me have ponies and horses. And even though he claimed to not even like animals, I would catch him, when he thought no one could hear him, "hey, kitty, kitty, kitty, who's a pretty kitty?" Like that.

And so, on this Father's Day, for fathers blood and chosen, whether we had close relationships or tumultuous ones, this video is for you. It is sung by one of my favorite groups, the Corrs, and it has horses in it, so there ya have it:

Happy Father's Day. I would love to hear about your fathers.

And speaking of the physical issues that affect so many of us and our fathers (and mothers), many of you know that I had a knee replacement back in September. Unfortunately, there are issues with it that have been causing me debilitating pain. I will be having some more tests done this week to try and determine the origin of the issue. I will be away from my keyboard for a couple of days, just so you know.

An Important Segment Of Palin's Emails Overlooked?

2011-06-17T11:00:00.002-04:00

How much have you heard about the death threats revealed in Sarah Palin's emails since their release? Probably not much, I would wager. That was the point Jim Treacher of the Daily Caller made on Thursday, too:

[snip] AGAINST her, that is. Yep, it turns out there was some news hidden in those thousands of Palin e-mails after all. But the American media couldn’t use it against her, which is why you have to go to the British press to learn about it. The Daily Telegraph reports: “The release of 24,000 pages of Sarah Palin’s emails shows that she received a barrage of abusive emails including death threats in the run up to the 2008 presidential race. One message sent by someone in Juneau, Alaska on Sept 17, 2008 said the governor should be ’shot from one of the planes that shoot the very wolves that you ordered.’ Five days earlier an email landed in her in-box saying she ‘must be killed.’ It said: ‘She doesn’t belong to the NRA to support the right of each citizen to have weapons in an aim of self-defense, but just to support the right of every southern white citizen to shoot all non-white people legally! Sarah Palin MUST BE KILLED!’ Another emailed death threat in the same month, while Mrs Palin was on the campaign trail as John McCain’s vice-presidential running mate, came from Antwerp, Belgium. It said Mrs Palin should be shot and that ‘only on that moment justice will be accomplished.’” If you think Sarah Palin deserved that, you might be a liberal. Or, at the risk of redundancy, an American journalist.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy crap. Now, I am not (that) naive, I know many leaders receive death threats, but the vitriol directed at the VP candidate, was rather shocking.

Just as it is shocking that there are very few news sources in the United States that covered this, as Jim Treacher highlighted. After doing my own search, I saw two: ABC News, which mentioned the death threats briefly, though it did highlight what a voracious reader of news Palin was (that that, Katie Couric); and Fox News, which used an AP report, also mentioning the death threats in passing (very brief statement).

Across the pond, as noted above, the Daily Telegraph (UK) has been reviewing Palin's emails (again, a bit of a witch hunt since no other politician I can remember has had to endure this level of intrusion). The title, and subheading are telling, indeed, "Sarah Palin Emails: Enemies Sent A Series Of Death Threats; The release of 24,000 pages of Sarah Palin's emails shows that she received a barrage of abusive emails including death threats in the run up to the 2008 presidential race."

I continue to be amazed at all this woman has endured, and with such incredible strength, determination, and even good humor. What also amazes me is how she is depicted compared to , oh, I dunno, the Petulant Commander in Chief, who somehow got the title of being "even-keeled," at least that's what the NY Times said about him. It is remarkable since he seems to get so testy when someone actually asks him a question. And while Obama claimed families were off-limits, that sure never stopped the media, and liberal bloggers, from going after Palin's then and now.

All things considered, though, I think this witch hunt by the media has backfired tremendously. While the MSM might be a little (too) quiet on some of the more dangerous and heinous emails Palin has received, and what she has endured, they have had to acknowledge that she was engaged, smart, not a "prima donna," and more. I'd say the last laugh is on them.

Now, if they could please get back to doing some real journalism, perhaps investigate Obama 1/100th as much as they have Palin, or heck, even Anthony Weiner to see if he broke any laws with which he can be charged? The MSM failed mightily with Obama in 2008, allowing him to get away with all kinds of secrets and lies. They have the opportunity for a do-ver in 2012. You know, like doing some real journalism instead of this assault on one woman whose only crime as far as I can tell is being a strong, accomplished woman, and who isn't even in the running (yet). Just saying...

BREAKING NEWS - Rep. Anthony Weiner Will FInally Step Down UPDATED

2011-06-16T11:00:00.001-04:00

At long last, after several weeks of revelation after revelation of way more information and images than we EVER needed of a US Representative, Anthony Weiner will be stepping down on today (Thursday). He plans on calling a press conference for 2:00 pm today, according to The Hill.

In case you need a reminder of what happened with Rep. Weiner, and oh my gosh, I don't know how that could happen, here is a tidbit from The Hill:

[snip] Weiner has been embroiled in controversy since admitting he accidentally sent a lewd picture of himself to a woman in Seattle over Twitter. Weiner initially said his Twitter account had been hacked and did not admit he was the one who sent the photo for more than a week.

He admitted responsibility at a tearful New York news conference in which he also admitted to having had "inappropriate" correspondence with roughly six women over the internet over the past six years. Since the news conference, more embarrassing photos of Weiner have been made public. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Admittedly, that is a sanitized version of what the past few weeks have involved, since there are some mighty, um, revealing photos of Rep. Weiner, taken in the House gym (>available at TMZ, if you really want to see them). Then there was the press conference of porn star, Ginger Lee, on Wednesday, in which she detailed how Rep. Weiner asked her to lie about their conversations.

I mean, really - how much of a scum must one be to have a PORN STAR come out looking better? Apparently, according to her press conference, she was all about discussing politics, and Weiner was all about discussing his, uh, um, well, his "package."

Yeah, Rep. Weiner definitely needs to resign.

I do feel sorry for his wife, Huma Abedin, who just returned from an overseas trip with Sec. Clinton, for whom she works as an aide. What a helluva thing to which to return, isn't it?

Plenty of folks will be discussing this today, but IMHO, Weiner's resignation is LONG overdue. How about you?

*UPDATE* Kirsten Powers, an old friend of Anthony Weiner, and short-term girlfriend, speaks out on Weiner's resignation:

It really does beg the question how so many in the Democratic Party can continue to support this man after the misogynistic, and predatory, manner by which he has conducted himself. Yet, they did...

The Most "Transparency" And "Change" Money Can Buy

2011-06-15T13:00:00.002-04:00

Now, I know that many of us - members of the "reality based community" - did not believe for one skinny second that Barack Obama was ever going to be transparent or bring real change to the White House. Frankly, it is ludicrous on its face to refer to someone as "transparent" who refused to allow any of his transcripts or medical records to see the light of day, or any of his papers, not even a date book, from his time as an IL Senator. Anyone who ever believed that he was going to have a more transparent government was just fooling themselves.

Naturally, Obama's Administration has continued the trend of Obama the Candidate. It has taken a major step back in that whole transparency thing, according to the AP. Even when he wins awards for being transparent, he has to do so in a closed ceremony - how much more hypocritical can one be?

Well, there is one bit of transparency that is now coming forth about Obama. And that is how he pays off his big campaign donors. Of course, it is not unusual for a president to give a plum position to a big contributor, but Obama has done so for about 200 - that is two hundred - of his supporters in government positions in just two years. By comparison, George W. Bush hired about 200 contributors over EIGHT years. Uh, yeah.

So much for that "change" in Washington from "special interests," huh? I know, I know, I am not surprised, either, but I didn't drink the Kool Aide and vote for the man who made this claim:

[snip] As a candidate, Obama spoke passionately about diminishing the clout of moneyed interests. Kicking off his presidential run on Feb. 10, 2007, he blasted “the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests,” who had “turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.”

“We’re here today to take it back,” he said.[snip]

Ahahahahaha - I know, I know, it is hilarious. Or it would be if so many people hadn't bought this total BS.

And in direct contradiction to what the candidate said, here are some particulars of Obama the president's sycophants:

Telecom executive Donald H. Gips raised a big bundle of cash to help finance his friend Barack Obama’s run for the presidency.

Gips, a vice president of Colorado-based Level 3 Communications, delivered more than $500,000 in contributions for the Obama war chest, while two other company executives collected at least $150,000 more.

After the election, Gips was put in charge of hiring in the Obama White House, helping to place loyalists and fundraisers in many key positions. Then, in mid-2009, Obama named him ambassador to South Africa. Meanwhile, Level 3 Communications, in which Gips retained stock, received millions of dollars of government stimulus contracts for broadband projects in six states — though Gips said he had been “completely unaware” that the company had received the contracts.

[...]

• Overall, 184 of 556, or about one-third of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers. Nearly 80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took “key administration posts,” as defined by the White House. More than half the 24 ambassador nominees who were bundlers raised $500,000.

• The big bundlers had broad access to the White House for meetings with top administration officials and glitzy social events. In all, campaign bundlers and their family members account for more than 3,000 White House meetings and visits. Half of them raised $200,000 or more.

• Some Obama bundlers have ties to companies that stand to gain financially from the president’s policy agenda, particularly in clean energy and telecommunications, and some already have done so. Level 3 Communications, for instance, snared $13.8 million in stimulus money.[snip]

The last one is particularly troublesome to me. I thought the nation generally frowned upon companies having inside tracks to getting our hard earned, tax paying dollars. I dunno about you, but for Level 3 to get that kind of cold, hard cash from the stimulus sounds like payback to me. (You know, the $3 Trillion stimulus that Obama thought was a joking matter the other day? When he flippantly, arrogantly, joked there weren't as many shovel ready jobs as they thought, that one? What a piece of work. It is not a laughing matter to most of us, President Obama.)

Oh, but wait - there is more:

[snip] The appointment of George Washington University law professor Spencer Overton illustrates how the administration has rewarded many top fundraisers.

Overton wrote in 2003 that the influence big donors wield in elections means that an “overwhelming majority of citizens are effectively excluded from an important stage of the political process.” Yet Overton bundled at least $500,000 for Obama. He was named to the Obama transition team and in February 2009 was appointed principal deputy attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy. Overton visited the White House more than 80 times from January 2009 through the end of 2010 for events ranging from small meetings with high-level staffers to social and entertainment events, sometimes with his wife, records show. Overton resigned the $180,000-a-year job in July 2010. He declined to comment for this story.

Overton is one of seven campaign bundlers who took jobs at Justice, including Attorney General Eric Holder, who was a $50,000 bundler. Holder had been deputy attorney general in the administration of President Bill Clinton. [snip]

Just to be clear, here is the problem with "bundling" contributions:

[snip] Bundling is controversial because it permits campaigns to skirt individual contribution limits of $2,500 in federal elections. Bundlers pool donations from fundraising networks and, as a result, “play an enormous role in determining the success of political campaigns,” according to government watchdog Public Citizen. [snip]

Yes, that would be a bit of a problem. And it also helps explain how someone who has made such a mess of the DOJ got his position. Of course, I am referring to Eric Holder, who has been just a disaster in upholding federal law (the examples are too numerous to mention here, but the dismissal of the clear cut voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers case is the tip of the iceberg).

There is so much more to this story I cannot possibly recount it all here, so I urge you to read it all. It goes into more detail about those who got these positions, but I have to leave you with one more example:

[snip] In March 2009, Obama appointed $500,000 bundler and law school pal Julius Genachowski to chair the Federal Communications Commission, an independent agency. Two other bundlers at the FCC are chief of staff Edward Lazarus, a litigator and former federal prosecutor, and William T. Lake, a lawyer specializing in communications and e-commerce issues who serves as chief of the media bureau.

Genachowski had previously served as chief counsel to the FCC chairman in the 1990s, but his close ties to Obama have raised eyebrows. He has turned up so often at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. that in March, congressional Republicans demanded an accounting of whom he has met with and what was discussed. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

You know someone is spending a lot of time at the White House when US Representatives are demanding to know just what the hell they are doing there all of the time.

Ah, yes - the only thing transparent about Obama is how much "change" he is getting from his bundlers. I mean, members of his Administration. Heaven knows, they siphoned a whole boatload of it into his coffers. He is returning the favor with OUR change.

That is the kind of change I can do without.

Tell Me Again, Who Is It That Hates Senior Citizens?

2011-06-14T12:30:00.003-04:00

Ever since Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) unveiled his Budget Plan, Republicans have been attacked for hating seniors, wanting to gut Medicare, and wanting old people to die. Or so you would think.

Heck, I think you could say the Republicans were being just plain hateful toward seniors, especially considering the comments by DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

[snip] "This Republican path to poverty passes like a tornado through seniors' nursing homes." [snip]

Not to be outdone is Rep. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.):

[snip]"Make no mistake about it, the Ryan budget is a war on seniors," she said in a press conference organized by the Congressional Task Force on Seniors. "Newt Gingrich has said Medicare should wither on the vine. Well, this Republican budget would chop it down." The new civility didn't stop there: "Republicans are literally trying to kill Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Democrats will stand of the way of their war on seniors." [snip]

Holy shit, grab the dog, Martha, and hide under the bed! Ahem.

Imagine my surprise, then, while reading my daily paper to discover the following article, "Seniors Face Medicare Cost Barrier For Cancer Drugs." Huh? Wait - how can that be? Isn't the President a Democrat? And the Senate is headed up by Democrats? How can this possibly be?

Oh, wait - I know - because the "health care" plan shoved down our throats by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, cut boatloads of money from Medicare. Not that you'd know it from the way the Democrats are screaming and carrying on now.

But I am getting ahead of myself and this AP article:

Chemotherapy is now available in a pill, but if you have Medicare, you may not be able to afford it.

That's what happened to Rita Moore when she took her prescription for a medication to treat kidney cancer to her local drugstore. She was stunned when the pharmacist told her a month's supply of the pills would cost $2,400, more than she makes.
Medicare prescription plans that cover seniors like Moore are allowed to charge steep copayments for the latest cancer drugs, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. About 1 in 6 beneficiaries are not filling their prescriptions, according to recent research that suggests a worrisome trend.

Officials at Medicare say they're not sure what happens to those patients — whether they get less expensive older drugs that sometimes work as well, or they just give up. Traditionally, chemotherapy has been administered intravenously at a clinic or doctor's office. Pills are a relatively new option that may represent the future of cancer care. [snip]

Good grief, how could this possibly happen? Oh, wait - I know that, too - because Obama met with Big Pharma before doing ANYTHING else on the "Health Care" bill. And it makes this even more aggravating:

[snip] Private insurance companies that deliver the Medicare prescription benefit say the problem is that drug makers charge too much for the medications, some of which were developed from taxpayer-funded research. The pharmaceutical industry faults insurers, saying copayments on drugs are higher than cost-sharing for other medical services, such as hospital care.

Some experts blame the design of the Medicare prescription benefit itself, because it allows insurers to put expensive drugs on a so-called "specialty tier" with copayments equivalent to 25 percent or more of the cost of the medication.
Drugs for multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and hepatitis C also wind up on specialty tiers, along with the new anti-cancer pills. Medicare supplemental insurance — Medigap — doesn't cover those copayments.

"This is a benefit design issue," said Dan Mendelson, president of Avalere Health, a research firm that collaborated in a recent medical journal study on the consequences of high copayments for the new cancer drugs. [snip]

Yep - we helped these companies design these drugs, and now some of the very people who did so cannot afford these drugs to save their lives.

There is more to this article, including the response by Medicare, and how Obama's Health Care Law factors in, but this is the result for Rita Moore:

[snip] Rita Moore had to try to find her own way out of the dilemma.

She decided to apply to Pfizer's prescription assistance program for patients who can't afford Sutent and other drugs the company makes. Pfizer approved a year's worth of free medication, but it took about two months to collect and review all the medical and financial paperwork.

"They were very helpful, but it wasn't a fast process," said Moore, who is still working as the manager of an apartment building for seniors. In the meantime, she wasn't being treated. The cancer spread and is now close to her spine and her body's main artery. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, dear - that is just dreadful. I am sure Rita Moore is more the rule than the exception, especially considering this article from The Daily Caller, "Obamacare Doesn't Stop Medigap Providers, AARP Partners From Discriminating Against Seniors." Say what? But wait, I thought it was supposed to be REPUBLICANS who hated seniors. Nope, apparently it is Democrats. Oh no they didn't:

The Daily Caller has learned that Democratic lawmakers omitted a section of Obamacare in the summer of 2009 that would have stopped Medigap plan providers, including American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) partners, from discriminating against seniors with pre-existing conditions.

Democrats removed a section that would have required “guaranteed issue,” or coverage regardless of preexisting conditions, for Medigap plans from an early version of the Obamacare bill.

Medigap plans are supplemental coverage that Medicare recipients may purchase. They insure seniors a step further than the basic Medicare coverage.

TheDC has obtained an early copy of the Obamacare bill, dated June 19, 2009, which shows the bill’s original authors had intended to stop AARP partners and other Medigap providers from discriminating against seniors. But, at some point between then and early fall 2009 when Democrats introduced the bill into the House, that provision was removed.

A House Democratic aide told Kaiser Health News (KHN) earlier this year that the Medigap provision was removed from the bill because it cost too much. [snip]

Oh, yes, they did.

Well, wait - what's the deal with AARP? Doesn't their very name imply they are supposed to stand with senior citizens? So one would think:

[snip] The AARP said numerous times throughout the Obamacare debate that it would forgo profits to cover costs of improved health insurance for seniors. “To suggest there is a commercial conspiracy is ludicrous,” AARP’s chief lobbyist David Sloane told the Tacoma News-Tribune in October 2009, referencing charges that the AARP was supporting Obamacare in order to bolster its partners’ Medigap programs and, thereby, making profit. “As we have said, we would gladly forgo every dime of revenue to fix the health care system.”

The AARP generated more than $675 million in 2010 “royalty revenue,” or “kickbacks” as some of its members refer to them as. More than $440 million of that came from AARP’s partnership with United Health Group, a Medigap provider AARP lends its brand to in exchange for royalties.

Jim Martin of 60 Plus, the conservative version of the AARP, told TheDC that this new revelation shows what he thinks the AARP really is: “The Association Against Retired Persons.”

“They’re betraying seniors while going after the almighty dollar,” Martin said. “I don’t mind them making a profit if they use their own dime to do it. But, as you well know, they’ve received well over a billion dollars in tax dollars throughout the years now.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And the argument can be made that one would be wrong to think AARP has the best interests of its members in mind. (And this is why I deep six every AARP membership card I receive.)

Well, this does thicken the plot, doesn't it? Seems to me that the Democrats are crying foul lest the focused light is shone on them. Of course, that would mean the MSM would have to actually look at these issues more. As others have said, would that the NY Times and Washington Post spent as much time and energy on the Obama Health Care Plan as they have the Sarah Palin Emails. Then we would not have had to wait for the bill to be passed into law to find out just what the hell was in there.

Hey, better late than never - now that they have all of these volunteers, perhaps they could ask them to take a little look see at the Health Care Law. Just a thought.

One last thing, today is FLAG DAY! Fly it high and proud, friends!

Better Be Careful What You Throw Away Open Thread

2011-06-13T11:00:00.001-04:00

These days, since FBI agents now have broader leeway to go through your garbage. Yes, in lieu of having to get one of those pesky warrants, now they can just dig through your trash.

Don't you feel safer now? I'm sure I do - not.

Of course, that is not all these expanded powers allow them to do:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.

The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.

[...]

Under current rules, agents must open such an inquiry before they can search for information about a person in a commercial or law enforcement database. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search such databases without making a record about their decision.

Mr. German said the change would make it harder to detect and deter inappropriate use of databases for personal purposes. But Ms. Caproni said it was too cumbersome to require agents to open formal inquiries before running quick checks. She also said agents could not put information uncovered from such searches into F.B.I. files unless they later opened an assessment.

The new rules will also relax a restriction on administering lie-detector tests and searching people’s trash. Under current rules, agents cannot use such techniques until they open a “preliminary investigation,” which — unlike an assessment — requires a factual basis for suspecting someone of wrongdoing. But soon agents will be allowed to use those techniques for one kind of assessment, too: when they are evaluating a target as a potential informant. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I'm all for fighting crime, and stopping terrorism in its tracks, but to not even have to open a "preliminary investigation" first before searching people's trash or lie detector tests is a bit disconcerting, don't you think?

And speaking of terrorists, Janet Napolitano has an interesting take on "profiling" a certain group:

Good grief. She is incredibly painful to listen to, isn't she? And THIS is the head of Homeland Security? No wonder the FBI needs expanded powers. Ahem.

In other news, Obama plays golf again on Sunday for the ELEVENTH week in a row. So glad he has his priorities in order...

Feel free to add your own "news we do not want to lose"!!

Even In Exonerating Palin, Politico Smears Her

2011-06-12T10:30:00.000-04:00

Politico has an article out about Sarah Palin and her 24,000 pages of emails, featured on the front page of my local newspaper, the Post and Courier (P&C has teamed up with Politico for the election season)This is quite a feat. Even as Molly Ball acknowledges that the release of Palin's emails show her to be a hard working, warm, devoted public servant, she throws in some snide, demeaning comments about her. Even the headline is offensive in the Post and Courier: "Emails Show Palin Noncombative, Engaged - And Whiny." WTH?(February 16, 2011 - Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images North America)

It made me mad. It is just more of the media's continued unfounded, politically motivated, assault on Sarah Palin. They have attacked her mercilessly for three years, and now claim, after the constant harassment, that she has "darker tendencies"? Are you kidding me with this circular logic crapola??

And so, I was compelled to write this letter to the editor of the Post and Courier. I have no illusions they will actually publish it:

I read Molly Ball's article on Gov. Palin. The emails requested back in 2008 from sites such as Mother Jones are proving to be a bit of a disappointment to all those who wanted to get dirt on the former governor. Turns out that she was - gasp - hardworking, warm, engaging, and dedicated to her state. Shocking!

But here's the thing - to qualify Palin now as exhibiting her "darker tendencies" is disingenuous at best. The only reason these emails are even available was the desire to take down this qualified woman 3 years ago by the media when they filed their FOIA requests. They have hounded her, and her family, on a daily basis, flat out making crap up (like that she, personally, shot wolves from the air, which your newspaper has already dispelled). They have accused her husband of incest, claimed her baby was not her own, used despicable language to attack her, and her family, sent numerous reporters to Wasilla to dig up dirt on her, and AP reporters to "factcheck" her book. And now, Ms. Ball is claiming that Palin is a divisive figure. If she is, it is only because the media has MADE her a divisive figure.

Even more, why has the media never spent anywhere NEAR this much time investigating Barack Obama? He claimed he had no records, not even a datebook, of his time as an IL Senator. How is that even possible?? The media failed miserably in ferreting out why the two front runners for the IL US Senate seat both, mysteriously, had their SEALED divorce records unsealed just a few short months before the election, forcing them both to drop out, allowing Obama, once again, to run basically unopposed as he did when he ran for office the first time (he got everyone else thrown off the ballot - look it up).

Where has the media been in looking at his connections to Khalid Rashidi, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Kwame Kilpatrick, Louis Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright? They could not be bothered to research the presidential candidate, or his methods for becoming the candidate, much less his associates, any one of whom would have brought down any other candidate. (How many people know about the rampant caucus fraud perpetrated by the Obama camp? There were complaints made to the DNC by a number of people, including Hillary Clinton, but the DNC turned a blind eye. Even worse, they took lawfully cast and certified votes for Hillary Clinton and GAVE them to Obama. That was the day this Yellow Dog Dem became an Independent.)

But to the VP candidate from Alaska the media managed to devote all kinds of resources. Lo, and behold - there is nothing there. Of course, that doesn't stop Ms. Ball from making gratuitous, unfounded, slights against Palin, thus demonstrating her very clear bias even as she was tasked with acknowledging there was nothing there.

This isn't journalism, this is tabloid writing. And you put it on the front page.

While I am at it, I would like to highlight something else from these emails that was in my local paper - and listen up all of you who made this salacious claim - SARAH PALIN DID NOT SHOOT WOLVES FROM THE AIR, AND WAS OPPOSED TO IT. Got it? Seriously. Oh, and the emails highlighted how much of a conservationist she really is. I bet that will stick in some folk's craw...

Good grief.

Clearly, despite there being nothing there to attack Palin over, these rags will continue to make the kinds of gratuitous smears Ms. Ball did. They just cannot stand that this woman is exactly who she said she is and has demonstrated herself to be. I guess in the face of Obama's failures, this must really get to them, so they have redoubled their efforts to go after her, not him. Pathetic. Be big enough people to admit you were duped, you were snookered, you were fooled, and you were wrong. Give it a shot.

And now, for our musical moment to take a break from this continued media folly, I leave you with this:

"Now Showing: Crazy, Crazy Everywhere"

2011-06-11T11:00:00.001-04:00

That is a sign hanging up in our favorite beach restaurant. And it seems particular appropriate to a bit of an update to my previous post, "Chris Matthews' Trip To Crazy Town." To paraphrase my friend, CindyIndie, Matthews has purchased property, and taken up residence in Crazy Town.

You will not believe what he has said now. During a discussion about Rep. Anthony Weiner's immoral, indecent, misogynistic, perverted behavior, Chris Matthews had this to say (h/t to Sowsear1 for the link):

[snip] They never get the Speakership back because the people in the rural areas of this country who are Christian conservative culturally - you can say backward if you want - but they don't like this kind of stuff at all. They're not part of that 56 percent in Brooklyn and Queens who say, "okay, we can live with this guy. [snip]

Oh, where to begin? The 56% of people in Brooklyn and Queens who are okay with Weiner's behavior, which is disturbing in and of itself, or the claim that only conservative, culturally backward Christians would be upset by this kind of behavior?

Good grief. Well, let me start with the latter. It is not just rural, "culturally backward," conservative Christians who are upset by this despicable behavior of an official elected to one of the highest offices in the land. And some of us are not looking at this in terms of how it will affect the Democrats' chances in 2012, as Matthews was, but in terms of the most basic decency and decorum, sorely lacking in Weiner's behavior. (Feel free to add your own reasons why this was an assholic thing to say.)

And speaking of Weiner, the plot continues to thicken. Weiner has admitted engaging in communications with a 17 year old girl. His spokesperson assures us that there was nothing untoward about the contact whatsoever. Since Weienr has been so honest and forthright throughout this process, we have every reason to believe him. Oh, wait, no, no, he wasn't. He lied through his teeth up one side and down the other, calling to meet with media outlets to lie some more. As if I didn't think he already needed to resign. Holy cow.

It is the weekend, so a little music is in order. The following Patsy Cline is a classic, and goes out to all of Weiner's Twitter pals:

Oh, and this one is a bit crazy, and goes out to Weiner's wife, Huma (h/t to ScrewtheDNC):

Your turn for "Crazy, Crazy, Everywhere!"

Obama:"What, Me Worry?" And Other News

2011-06-10T11:00:00.000-04:00

That would be the Obama Administration response to the economic crisis in which we find ourselves. Oh, wait - I'm sorry, I meant to say the "bump in the road" we are enduring. Pay no attention to the rising unemployment numbers, the falling number of jobs created, or the continuing decline of housing market. I mean, it isn't like this is a permanent thing, right? Just a little "bump in the road." It isn't like we are going into a double dip recession or anything. That must be true, because Obama said so just the other day! Have no fear, Obama doesn't. So, no worries, people. It's all good, right? ("Mad Magazine"

And for those of you who are unemployed - and that would be a boatload of you since unemployment is on the rise - do I ever have a task for you! Well, actually, the New York Times and the Washington Post have jobs for you. See, back in 2008, once Palin was nominated to be the Republican VP, a whole bunch of sites, including Mother Jones, made a FOIA request for Palin's emails. Those emails have now been released - all 24,000 of them - and the Times and Post want YOU to help them find any dirt to be found there.

Before I go on with the duties of the position, I have to ask: media sites filed FOIAs for Palin's email back in 2008? Yes, indeed they did. From the very beginning, they set out to dig up anything they could possibly find on the very popular Governor of Alaska. Apparently, because Palin is just a girl, think that the First Dude was the one doing all of the work. Sexist pigs, the lot of them.

Oh, if only they had bothered to do the same with the man sitting in the White House (unless he is out on the golf course), making a wreck of the country but no - it is much more fun to try and destroy someone for no other reason than sheer derangement syndrome, which overcame these sites very quickly, I must say. (Isn't there some kind of vaccination for that kind of lunacy? Just wondering.)

Okay, back to the NY Times job description:

[snip] We’re asking readers to help us identify interesting and newsworthy e-mails, people and events that we may want to highlight. Interested users can fill out a simple form to describe the nature of the e-mail, and provide a name and e-mail address so we’ll know who should get the credit. Join us here on Friday afternoon and into the weekend to participate.

What you will see when you click on the link is that the title REALLY is, "Help Us INVESTIGATE the Sarah Palin Email Records."

Not to be outdone is the Washington Post:

[snip] Over 24,000 e-mail messages to and from former Alaska governorSarah Palin during her tenure as Alaska's governor will be released Friday. That's a lot of e-mail for us to review so we're looking for some help from Fix readers to analyze, contextualize, and research those e-mails right alongside Post reporters over the days following the release.

We are limiting this to just 100 spots for people who will work collaboratively in small teams to surface the most important information from the e-mails. Participants can join from anywhere with a computer and an Internet connection.

If you need inspiration before getting started, take a look at what to expect from the e-mail drop. For micro-updates as tomorrow unfolds, check out our new Twitter feed. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Here we are, with a shitty economy, people losing jobs, REAL scandals in people like Weiner (a little more on that in a minute), high gas prices, high food prices, illicit war being waged in Libya, Obama inviting the likes of Ali Bongo from Gabon to the WHITE HOUSE (hint: Bongo's family's theft of money from the nation of Gabon makes Mubarrak look like Mother Teresa), and two of the biggest papers in the country are still going after PALIN?? They are seriously screwed up.

You might like to take a look at the comments at both papers. A number of people are calling them out on their sexism toward Palin, and their inability to do their own damn jobs. Rightly so, too. What a bunch of jackwagons.

And in a major Screw You to at least two of the Big Ten (that would be Commandments), the people in Weiner's district don't give a damn that he is an adulterer, liar, predator, sick, twisted, misogynist. Yep, 56% of those polled think he should stay in his position. Wow. That is amazing. And incredibly disturbing. It isn't like he is even all that great at his job. He is considered more of a show horse than work horse, so WHY would the people in his district support a man who has demonstrated such horrible judgment, such misogyny, such twisted sexual proclivities, and who is a downright liar? I'd love to know.

Blech. Okay, that's enough crapola for one day. Time for a metaphorical shower:

TGIF...

Chris Matthews' Trip To Crazy Town

2011-06-09T11:00:00.001-04:00

Okay, you know it is bad when other journalists, and frequent guests, are talking about how nutso Chris Matthews has become. What seemed to prompt this outspokenness on their part was the attempt by Matthews to pin the Weiner scandal on Weiner's WIFE, as if it was her fault her husband is an unethical, perverted, sleazeball. Wow, talk about blaming the victim there, Matthews.

No, Anthony Weiner has no one but himself to blame for the mess he is in. His long time friend (and for a brief period, girlfriend), Kirsten Powers, came out with a scathing post about Weiner on Wednesday, June 7th. She has been friends with him for years, and unknowingly carried his water on "Hannity" in defense of Weiner. She is not carrying it any more, as this post highlights:

[snip] Narcissism doesn’t begin to describe this kind of behavior. It seems there was nobody he didn’t lie to. The New York Times reported this morning that he told donors a week ago that the scandal was the result of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” and that “everything [would] be fine.” We also learned after his press conference that he coached a former porn star with whom he had communicated online on how to lie to the media.

But even if I could see past the lying and extreme narcissism that is noteworthy even by Washington standards, there is the issue of his attitude toward women. What has emerged is a picture of a predator trolling the Internet for women—some half his age—with which to engage in cybersex. We know only about the women who were responsive to his overtures. The odds are very high that he struck out with many, and other women were victim to his unsolicited sex talk. Women should be able to “friend” a married—or unmarried—congressman on Facebook or follow him on Twitter without fear of being the recipient of lewd talk or behavior. Just because a woman “likes” your video on Facebook doesn’t mean you can send her a picture of your penis. This is textbook sexual harassment. It may not be illegal, but it’s definitely unethical. He is in a position of influence, and many women—especially a 21-year-old—would be afraid to report a congressman doing that to them because he holds so much power. Also, he claims none of the women he contacted were underage, but how could he possibly know that?

By far the most disturbing information that we have been privy to—there is, no doubt, more out there that we don’t know—is the transcript of a nine-month "sexting" relationship Weiner had with a Las Vegas blackjack dealer. Radar Online posted the transcript, and it is rife with misogyny and distorted views about women...

[...]

A whisper campaign has started in New York that Weiner’s wife was partly to blame for what happened. “You know, she does travel a lot” is what one New York political operative told me they have heard from multiple reporters. So now we have the “blame the woman” campaign even though what Weiner did had zero to do with sexual satisfaction and everything to do with his own mental issues and attitude toward women. And, by the way, plenty of men have wives who travel and they don’t start preying on women on the Internet and sending pictures of their private parts. [snip] (Click here to read the rest, and believe me, it is well worth your time.)

Again, Powers' post is well worth your time - there are some things in there to support her charge of misogyny, and she is right on the money.

Unlike Chris Matthews, whose sexist, boorish behavior have been on display for a number of years. You may recall that even Media Matters took him to task for his sexism toward Hillary Clinton, though his expression of such seems to have only scratched the surface:

[snip] One young conservative female guest who appeared several times on Matthews’ show told TheDC that bizarre comments toward women were part of his off air banter as well.

“During one appearance, during the commercial break, Matthews informed me he loves it when women wear baby doll dresses,” she said. “It’s his favorite thing to see women wear.”

[...]

Liberal watchdog groups such as Media Matters and the Daily Kos have hit Matthews hard for his poorly chosen, even misogynistic words toward liberal women.

Media Matters noted Matthews’ poor math in trying to figure out how many women governors there were in 2008.

“Where are the big-state women governors? Where are they? Name one. They don’t exist,” Matthews said of the potential for a future female presidential candidate.

Media Matters subsequently pointed out that in 2008 there were in fact many female governors with populations comparable to the big name former governor presidential candidates, such as Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.[snip]

Holy crappydoo. Seriously?? "Babydoll" clothes? Unaware that there are a number of women governors??

Yeah, this guy is a lunatic:

[snip] His emotional rants have become commonplace on “Hardball,” and made his show must-watch TV for the likes of Mediate, NewsBusters, Real Clear Politics and even The Daily Caller — all waiting with bated breath for Matthews to inevitably say something “insane.”

When asked by TheDC why he watches so religiously, Ian Schwartz, Real Clear Politics video editor, did not mince words.

“‘Hardball’ is a reminder that I am sane,” said Schwartz. “Chris Matthews is more of a gaffe machine than Joe Biden and the ignorance of his sexism and bigotry makes the show entertaining to watch.”

“He’s a freak show” said another media reporter. [snip]

You got that right, for so, so many reasons.

But you know who one of his favorite targets is:

[snip] Sarah Palin is another of Matthews’ punching bags. He has called the former Alaska governor and former vice presidential nominee “profoundly stupid,” “a dolt,” and an “empty head.”

“He’s a known sexist pig. It’s not misogyny based on political party,” Amy Siskind, president of the women’s advocacy group The New Agenda, wrote at TheDC. “No, Matthews has a familiar pattern: he purposefully strikes out at any woman who is rising in power.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest. I have just scratched the surface of this outstanding article.)

Matthews thinks Palin is "profoundly stupid" and a "dolt"? Wow. This is just yet another uninformed opinion put forth by this brain trust.

I will allow Gov. Palin herself to dispel the biased, sexist attack by Chris Matthews in this synopsis of her recent bus tour:

Just WHO is "profoundly stupid," Mr. Matthews? I'll give you a hint. It ain't Gov. Palin.

Whiners For Weiner, And Anti-Paliin Whining, Too

2011-06-08T11:30:00.000-04:00

The whining would be by some men in the "journalism" profession who think what is going on with Rep. Anthony Weiner in the press is really unfair. "Leave Anthony alone!" seems to be their cry.

Good grief.

Yes, that is the problem - that Weiner's "privacy" has been violated, not that he has disgraced his office, his wife, and himself, with very little contrition for what he actually DID. No, his tears were over being CAUGHT, not that he is a freakin' pervert, engaging in sexting with women around the country, and apparently, made phone calls to some of these women from his House office. There is no doubt that not only did he act unprofessionally, but unethically, compounded by his vast number of lies upon lies.

But as Jennifer Rubin pointed out in her Washington Post piece, "Anthony Weiner, Wronged Man? Not Quite," some are taking the Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz approach, claiming this is a "private matter." They are wrong. Rubin specifically mentions Ezra Klein and Richard Cohen:

I’ve been a bit amazed at the post-bizzaro press conference insistence by some on the left that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) is a wronged man. Ezra Klein via Twitter professes to be puzzled how this can be a big deal. Richard Cohen writes:
We are doing a terrible thing here — we hypocrites of the press, especially of the blogosphere. Every man lives a bit in a fantasy world, maybe women, too, but I know nothing of them. Every man is a boy, either in mind or in deed. Much of this is harmless. There are no bodies. There is no crime. This is the case with Weiner. No damsel was in distress, and no one was rescued.

This is the place for me to condemn Weiner. Consider it done. He’s a liar and a creep, although how one can be the latter without being the former is beyond me. (Still, lying is impermissible.) But I would also like to condemn those who made it their business to destroy him, who deputized themselves to invade someone’s private life, his fantasy life, and hold him up to ridicule.

Let me point out that Weiner went beyond fantasy. Or have we forgotten that these are real women with whom he was communicating? Women who, gosh, he thinks, are not underage. Women who he supposed would not blackmail him. Women whom he apparently told his wife about before their marriage but could not bring himself to give up. The press isn’t invading his mind or his bedroom; it’s looking at his Tweets and talking to the women on whose Timeline he was willing to risk his marriage, his career and his self-respect. [snip]

So let me make sure I understand Mr. Cohen's point - he thinks the press is doing the wrong thing by REPORTING THE NEWS??? I am just shaking my head in disbelief at these men. Oh, no, check that - I am shaking my head in DISGUST at these men, and their willingness to use their professions as "journalists" to try and protect this pervert.

Jennifer Rubin's response was very good, I thought:

[snip] Let me point out that Weiner went beyond fantasy. Or have we forgotten that these are real women with whom he was communicating? Women who, gosh, he thinks, are not underage. Women who he supposed would not blackmail him. Women whom he apparently told his wife about before their marriage but could not bring himself to give up. The press isn’t invading his mind or his bedroom; it’s looking at his Tweets and talking to the women on whose Timeline he was willing to risk his marriage, his career and his self-respect. (As for the comment, “Another Christian has been thrown to the lions. The ‘Christian in this case is a Jew,” I am dumbfounded and dismayed that Weiner’s religion should enter into the discussion.)

As for the “I just don’t get it” response of some young liberal men out there, I can only imagine that ideology so dominates their lives that they fail to see the harm in a public figure’s not-at-all-private conduct. Or perhaps they too see the Tweets as a harmless pastime. Maybe, for all the “sexual harassment” training we’ve gotten, we’ve forgotten some essential training in ethics. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I don't get it, either, Ms. Rubin, except to say that this mindset is incredibly disturbing. (Ms. Rubin goes on to note that the Wall Street Journal has a very good editorial on Rep. Weiner's behavior and judgment, and I encourage you to either finish reading her piece, or read the WSJ piece here.)

The next piece of news also deals with a Democratic Representative, Earl Blumenauer. Seems Rep. Blumenauer is upset at the effort put forth by the Parks Department for doing anything that might amount to educating Gov. Palin about American history. Yes, he is upset that money is being spent to give the governor an education at our historic sites and monuments, presumably because it is making her smarter than many in the press (I refer you to the ridiculous recent brouhaha over Paul Revere) in which journalists by and large failed to factcheck before jumping on their condescending "gotcha" bandwagon).

Yes, this representative, Earl Blumenenaur, has some "serious concerns" over the money spent thus far on Palin and her bus tour:

[snip] “Many of the press accounts of stops included in this tour, which provided personal and political benefits to former Gov. Palin, suggest that National Park Service resources were made available to an extent beyond that which an average American family would receive,” Blumenauer wrote.

He cited media reports of Palin and her family receiving a private guided tour of Mount Vernon, early admission to the National Archives and a 10-person escort involving park rangers and New York City police officers at the Statue of Liberty.

“For cases in which the Park Service did not have additional personnel on duty as a result of the tour, was manpower diverted from regularly-scheduled services to accommodate the Palin family’s visits and is this a routine practice for visiting celebrities?” Blumenauer added.

National Park Service spokesman Jeffrey Olson said his understanding is that Palin received customary treatment for a visiting celebrity and that the costs of her visits were nominal at best.

“We see celebrities on a regular basis, it’s something that we’re used to,” Olson said. “We give them a tour but we also try to not make it a bug hoo-ha for all the other visitors. So it’s kind of standard fare if there’s a celebrity or two that show up we do a special program for them.”

That usually involves rangers and interpreters that are on the job regardless. "That's why it's not an extra cost for us," Olson said. "We just try to make sure everybody has a good experience at a national park." [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Maybe that's what is getting Rep. Blumenaur's goat - that Palin is seen as, and treated like, a celebrity. Oh, but the best part? Palin was not the one who requested the Park Police provide an escort while she was at the Statue of Liberty. Rather, it was one of the officers in charge who did that. Oops - so much for this little "gotcha" attempt by Rep. Blumenaur.

One of the commenters at this Politico.com article was kind enough to post a video of another "celebrity" getting a private tour at the Statue of Liberty. I wonder if Rep. Blumenaur was so quick to investigate the money spent on THIS tour:

I am going to guess, no, Rep. Blumenaur did NOT demand an accounting from the Parks Service for Rep. Weiner being able to go where people had not been able to go since 9/11. But, hey - that's different, right? Yeah, sure, right.

And in an incredible twist of irony, Rep. Weiner called President Clinton to apologize to him for this whole sexting scandal. President Clinton officiated at Weiner and Huma Abedin's wedding.

Gee, I wonder what the conversations are like between Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin?

Blech. This whole thing is making me ill - support for this immoral, unethical piece of work (Weiner), and attempts to take down someone as a result of PDS. The hypocrisy is staggering, and I am just sick of it.

How about you? Feel free to talk about the issues above, or anything else on your mind today.

Happy Fortieth Anniversary, And We Still Have A Ways To Go Yet

2011-06-07T12:00:00.001-04:00

On Monday, June 6th, while Congressman Weiner finally admitted he is a big fat lying pervert with no morals or sense of decency, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was celebrating the fortieth anniversary of Title IX.

To celebrate Women in Sports, especially with the Women's World Cup (soccer) coming up this summer, Secretary Clinton delivered the following remarks:

Now you know, I am a HUGE soccer fan. And I was able to attend the semifinals in DC of the World Cup of which Sec. Clinton spoke. In fact, President Clinton was at the stadium at the same time I was, watching the match. There was even a flyover with fighter jets - cool! Oh, and the US obviously won, since they went on to win the World Cup in the dramatic fashion Sec. Clinton mentioned.

This is a great time, this celebration. But wow, do we still have a long way to go.

While Secretary Clinton is reflecting on Women and Sports, a "Gay Girl in Damascus" was allegedly kidnapped in Syria. In Egypt, another woman journalist was almost killed in Tahrir Square last week, saved by a police officer, who was then beaten himself for rescuing her.

A Libyan student in Australia received only THREE YEARS in jail for sexually assaulting four women, and two girls, one of whom was only 13. Why? Well, you know, it is a whole cultural thing. The way these women dress, oh, my, it just upset him SO much, and made him excited, all at the same time. So he did what any man would do - he attacked them. Oh, wait - most men do NOT do that:

Libyan Almahde Ahmad Atagore, 28, was sentenced to three years behind bars yesterday for sexual assaulting a number of young women in Melbourne in August and September last year, the Herald Sun reports.

Atagore was shocked by the cultural differences and felt isolated and depressed, particularly as he did not have a mosque nearby, said County Court Judge Margaret Rizkalla.

He told a psychiatrist he did not like how Australian women dressed, leaving him angry but also aroused. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Women, and girls, participating in sports is important, there is no doubt about it. And it is very cool that the US does sports exchanges with other countries. The benefits to girls and women who participate in sports are numerous, with higher self esteem and better overall health at the fore.

But it is not enough when men still think they can overpower women, see women purely as sexual objects, or violate them in a sexual manner as a show of power (though it really highlights the man's weakness, IMHO). It is not enough when they are seeing a very different message coming from the media, and from our political parties. When the Democratic elite are still supporting a complete sleazebag like Anthony Weiner, what kind of message does THAT send to our young women and girls? When judges in countries like Australia grant a short amount of jail time for a man who assaulted several women, and two girls, as a nod to his neanderthalic view of women based on his religion, how do the girls and women in Australia feel? What is the message being sent to them?

I am glad we still have Title IX in this country, and am happy to celebrate its 40th anniversary. Our girls and women deserve it. But all girls and women, here and around the world, deserve to be treated better than we are. We deserve to not have some slimeball US Representative texting a college woman with a photo of his private parts. We deserve for men to serve the time for the crimes committed against us, not some slap on the wrist. We deserve to be able to do our jobs without threat of DEATH because gangs of men descend upon us.

We deserve better. We deserve better from men, we deserve better from the women who support these sleazeballs, we deserve better from our elected officials.

To follow up on Sec. Clinton's suggestion, and while I can still post videos from YouTube (our illustrious US Senators are threatening to make it a felony to embed videos), I want to honor the US Women's Soccer Team. Below is look back at the '99 World Cup win, and the iconic moment of Brandi Chastain scoring the winning goal for the US Women over China for the Gold:

May the US Women play hard, play clean, have no injuries, and bring back the Gold from Germany.

If She Keeps This Up, She Could Be The Next VP UPDATED

2011-06-06T11:15:00.001-04:00

Update below.

Debbie Wasserman Scultz, that is. Her twisting, looping, convoluted machinations to deflect for Re. Anthony Weiner should easily merit her the second spot with Obama on the ticket. I mean, really, someone who can stay the talking point repeatedly no matter how idiotic it sounds with a straight face surely does deserve a higher spot than just DNC Chair.

Don't take my word for it. Watch her respond to Wolf Blitzer's questions regarding Rep. Weiner (H/t to Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion):

Okay, we get it. You think it is a "personal matter" for a US Representative to be tweeting out photos of his, um, oh, hell - you know - to young women? Really? Well, at least you are consistent when it comes to matters of US Representatives engaging in some hinky behavior.

Oh, wait - no you're not, as Michael Alan of Le-gal-In-sur-rec-tion highlights in this piece:

[snip]Well, that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should really get acquainted with this Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:
This goes beyond Rep. Foley, it goes to the values of the Congressional leadership. These are not family values, these are not American values.

What was Wasserman-Schultz referring to in that 2006 quote? The behavior of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL . . . are you watching those party labels?), who made advances towards 18 and 21 year old young men.

In fact, she went as far as to demand the resignation of then Speaker Denny Hastert for not addressing the Foley matter quickly enough:
[snip] What I've called for is an investigation to be completed within 10 days. And quite honestly, yes, I do think that Denny Hastert should resign . . . I‘d like to see the Republican caucus call upon their leadership, Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Boehner, to get this resolved quickly. Do it before the election. And I haven‘t heard them say that. They‘re saying have the FBI investigate, have the House Ethics Committee investigate. They need to push their leadership to get this resolved so that they can move on, and we can make sure that we can restore the trust that they have shaken the public in Congress.

Now there are obviously some major differences between the two cases, but a big part of Wasserman-Schultz's complaint in 2006 was that Foley had not been previously sanctioned, despite evidence of a proclivity for hitting on much younger men.

But TNR's Jonathan Chait, who is one of the few lefty bloggers honestly covering this story, points out a Vanity Fair piece that suggests similar evidence of Weiner's issues as far back as 2001. [snip] (Click here to read the rest, and that goes for TNR piece, "Anthony Weiner's Skeeziness," too.)

Just to be clear, then, when a Republican Representative was caught engaging in less than seemly behavior, Wasserman-Schultz wanted the TOP Republican to resign as a result. But with Democrat Anthony Weiner, it is simply a "personal matter," and everyone should just leave him alone.

Is it just me, or is Wasserman Schultz digging a deeper and deeper hole since Obama wanted her to be the DNC Chair?

And WHAT is with these women defending men like this? Wasserman Schultz could not have deflected more to protect Weiner, and essentially declared this a hands-off matter. The National Enquirer has reported that Maria Shriver knew about Arnold's love child back in 2006, but Uncle Teddy wanted her to keep quiet lest it affect the family. (I know, I know, about the National Enquirer, but after they broke the John Edwards story, one has to give them props for getting it right sometimes.) And the list goes on.

Meanwhile, some of the Democratic BigWigs are all upset that Re. Weiner didn't show up for the Israel Day Parade in New York this past weekend. I am not kidding. These are some heavy hitters:

[snip] “I’d like to see him here,” Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said at the parade, the New York CBS affiliate reported. “He cares about Israel, [is] very active in the Jewish community, and he ought to be here.”

Former New York City comptroller Bill Thompson, who’s seen as one of Weiner’s top potential rivals in the 2013 mayor’s race, said that the situation surrounding Weiner is “becoming a huge circus” and “it’s unfortunate that the congressman didn’t deal with this quickly.”

Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y), also at the parade, noted Weiner’s absence but avoided criticism. “It’s going to be up to the congressman how he handles this and people will have their opinion when they actually have the facts,” he told the New York Post.

A handful of Weiner’s colleagues who represent New York City in the House refused to comment at the parade.

“I’m not here to pass judgment,” Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) told CBS. “I’m not trained in that area.”

“I know what you want to ask me, and I don’t want to answer,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney said. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Please tell me again how the DNC is the party for women? The one that stands up for women? Because I am not seeing it. When you have major Democrats like those mentioned above lamenting that Weiner isn't in attendance at an event afte rall of this information is coming out about him, well, that is telling indeed. Heck, even as I type, more and more is coming out about Anthony Weiner and his Tweets to women - I'm sorry, I meant to say, INAPPROPRIATE tweets to women.

But Rep. Wasserman Schultz will keep trying her, "nothing to see here, move along, move along, this is a private matter," and her colleagues will, apparently, act like his behavior is no big deal, so he should show up anyway, and on, and on, and on...

Yep - I think the DNC Chair is destined for bigger things the way she stands by her (Democratic) man when he treats women like crap. Don't you?

UPDATE: I know this will come as a shock to you, but Rep. Weiner has FINALLY admitted that he has been sending these kinds of tweets before, and AFTER, he got married. AND, he admitted the underwear photo was indeed of him, and he indeed did send it to some young co-ed. What a charmer.

But you know he is not resigning over this.

There is so much more to the crapola he said, and you can read it all HERE.

A Little Beach Music

2011-06-05T10:00:00.000-04:00

I am siting out on my (almost) completed breezeway (just waiting for them to finish screening it in), drinking a cappuccino, and enjoying a nice ocean breeze this morning. The birds are singing, the squirrels are doing their thing, and the sky is Carolina Blue. It doesn't get any better than this, at least for me.

Today's break is inspired by my partner, and the aroma of ocean in the air. It's time for a little beach music!

First up, a classic. This is the perfect song to do the SC state dance, the Shag, to, I might add:

Nothing like the Drifters first thing in the morning, right?

Oh, if you don't know what the Shag is, here's a little demonstration for you:

Now, I admit, while I did more than my share of Shag, it was not like these pros do! Still, it's fun, fun, fun...

How could I leave out the Chairman? No, Not Frank Sinatra. Nope, this would be General Johnson and the Chairman of the Board singing a pretty nice tune, "Carolina Girls":

This last one sums it all up, as I look out over the tidal creeks and marsh, enjoying this fine breeze and Carolina morning:

I hope you all have a lovely Carolina kind of day, filled with light breezes and a little beach music...

All Aflutter Over Palin's Paul Revere Comments

2011-06-04T12:00:00.001-04:00

Oh, my - Sarah Palin really stepped in it this time, didn't she? She completely bungled the history of Paul Revere while up North. Yes, this short little clip says it all:

What an idiot, right? I mean ALL the Lefty blogs and news channels are claiming so, from Think Progress above, to Mother Jones, to Chris Matthews (big surprise), to USA Today, and many news outlets in between. Yes, they are all laughing with glee at the ridiculous, preposterous account by Sarah Palin of Paul Revere's ride.

Except - she's right. Whoops.

I am sure all of these outlets are just RACING to correct the record. Ahahahaha - not. Of course they aren't. It is far too much fun to attack Palin for being the biggest idiot this side of George Bush, so why would they bother?

What I have really found funny is when people point out Obama's misspeaks, his minions are quick to defend him. Check out this comment from Mother Jones in response to someone's mentioning the 57 (and counting) states comment by Obama:

Nishant Srivastava; Except Obama, at the time a rookie national campaigner, said "We've visited 57 states", when he obviously meant stops in states at a press event he did as part of a campaign for President.

Palin has endured the heat of a prior political campaign, so one can reasonably argue that she should have more experience. [snip]

Uh huh. Except at that point, Obama had been on the campaign trail for months and months, and that was not the only stupid thing he said then, or now. And never mind that Palin had been riding around on a bus for hours and hours and hours - she couldn't possibly be the least bit tired when she said what she did about Revere.

Which, as I noted above, turned out to be correct, as this historical document highlights:

[snip] I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back, and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and added, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms. He then orderd them to advance, & to lead me in front. When we got to the Road, they turned down towards Lexington. When we had got about one Mile, the Major Rode up to the officer that was leading me, & told him to give me to the Sergeant. As soon as he took me, the Major orderd him, if I attempted to run, or any body insulted them, to blow my brains out. We rode till we got near Lexington Meeting-house, when the Militia fired a Voley of Guns, which appeared to alarm them very much. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

So, tell me where she was wrong?

Like Palin or not, the issue here is one of hypocrisy. We saw it with Hillary Clinton when she exaggerated a story about a trip in Bosnia, one that was fraught with danger, which was, of course, omitted from the accounts.

Obama has misspoken PLENTY, but his misstatements are often underreported by the media or just plain ignored. I don't recall ANY major news outlet going through his books the way they did Palin's book. If ANYONE else had said in a speech so blatant a lie as he did describing how the March on Selma enabled his (glorious) birth into this world, though he was born at least FOUR YEARS BEFORE the March, they would have been treated like, well, like Sarah Palin was for what she said about Paul Revere. Though, again, she was accurate, and Obama was not.
At least Hillary Clinton's claim about Bosnia had SOME truth to it - Obama was just a liar, and allowed to get away with it (then as now).

And they wonder why Palin doesn't like to talk with MSM? Sheesh.

Bottom line, I don't care if you love Palin, or think she is Demon Spawn, want her for president, or are horrified at the thought of it. What I DO care about is the media lambasting her for something she was actually correct about, when it fails repeatedly to acknowledge Obama's foibles (or other prominent Democrats - Biden's gaffes are now treated as routine), and to do so in such an incredibly juvenile manner. That is the purview of hacks and rags, not prominent news outlets.

My advice? Try checking your facts before you go on the attack, and grow the hell up already. Be a big enough person to admit you attacked her in error, and APOLOGIZE for it. There are legitimate reasons to question ANY politician in a rational manner. But the uproar over this alleged "gaffe" was far from reasonable, and far from adult. Issue a retraction, admit your mistake, and try and be a little less biased in your coverage. Just a thought.

Oh, and for all of those who jumped on this bandwagon just to attack Palin, this is for you:

Stories Too Good To Miss - TGIF!

2011-06-03T10:00:00.002-04:00

I just saw this headline, and had to grab this article: "MI6 attacks al-Qaeda in 'Operation Cupcake';British intelligence has hacked into an al-Qaeda online magazine and replaced bomb-making instructions with a recipe for cupcakes."

Oh, my - that is freaking HILARIOUS! Here is part of the article:

The cyber-warfare operation was launched by MI6 and GCHQ in an attempt to disrupt efforts by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular to recruit “lone-wolf” terrorists with a new English-language magazine, the Daily Telegraph understands.

When followers tried to download the 67-page colour magazine, instead of instructions about how to “Make a bomb in the Kitchen of your Mom” by “The AQ Chef” they were greeted with garbled computer code.

The code, which had been inserted into the original magazine by the British intelligence hackers, was actually a web page of recipes for “The Best Cupcakes in America” published by the Ellen DeGeneres chat show.

Written by Dulcy Israel and produced by Main Street Cupcakes in Hudson, Ohio, it said “the little cupcake is big again” adding: “Self-contained and satisfying, it summons memories of childhood even as it's updated for today’s sweet-toothed hipsters.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Isn't that, um, rich, that they used a recipe from the Ellen Degeneres Chat show? C'mon, that is FUNNY! Use a recipe in a magazine for Al Qaeda Would-Be Terrorists from an out-lesbian's show? That is fabulous! You know that had to make their little terrorist heads explode. Gotta love MI6! Well done!

Speaking of Al Qaeda, here's an interesting little tidbit that slipped by. Guess who invited the Libyan "rebels" new National Transitional Council to open an office in Washington, D.C.? Did you guess Obama? Well, then, you would be right. Yes, these are the same people whose connections are still unclear, though they CLAIM none of the people on the council have ties to Al Qaeda...Uh huh. Oh, and this is the same group that demanded Qatar return a rape victim, Eman al-Obeidy, to them, which Qatar did:

[snip] She said that, besides beating her and forcing her onto the plane, the Qataris had taken everything from her and her parents, including cell phones, her laptop, and money.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, yes - I can see why President Obama would offer to allow the NTC to open an office in DC. Oh, wait, no I can't. It is ludicrous. It is obscene.

Speaking of obscene, now it is time for a PSA from Monica Hesse of the Washington Post: Listen up, fellas: Naked man-parts? Not so sexy. Ms. Hesse is referring, of course, to the alleged tweet from Rep. Weiner (oh, wow) a leading Democrat from NY of a, well, um, how shall I say this - weiner. Weiner, of course, denies any such allegation, though - and this is just one of those, WTH kind of moments - he cannot say with certainty that the photo is NOT him.

Whaaaa? I don't know about you, but I sure as hell would know if somehow there was a photo traveling around of my private parts. How in the hell cannot he NOT KNOW FOR SURE??? I think that says a lot, and what it says is: EWWWWWWWWWWWW.

Back to Hesse's article. She has some suggestions from women in America about what they WOULD like to see:

[snip] “I would like a photo of a made bed,” says Kathryn Roberts, who works at a law firm in Washington. “I would take rose petals, but I want them on top of a made bed.” And not that fake kind of made, either, where the comforter is smooth but the sheets are a jumbled mess.

“Or laundry,” adds her friend Andrea Neurohr.

“Folded laundry,” elaborates Roberts. “Maybe in a wicker basket.”

Over the years, a handful of famous men — and a boatload full of unfamous, Craigslisty men — have landed in the news for sending women photos of their artfully framed packages. Brett Favre allegedly had a special delivery for Jenn Sterger, a sideline reporter for the New York Jets. Kanye West allegedly provided some of his female MySpace friends with some extra-friendly pictures. There are entire Web sites, aimed at men, teaching them the etiquette for public displays of private parts.

Men! Broaden your seduction techniques!

How about you move away from the below-the-waist close-up? How about you try going naked from the waist up? How about a picture of you, sweaty, cleaning out the storm drain? How about a photograph of you gently caressing the yogurt, as you rotate the soon-to-expire food to the front of the refrigerator? So sexy!

“The refrigerator,” says Gretchen LeMaistre. “That’s a big scenario.” LeMaistre is a San Francisco-based photographer who has worked on the “Porn for Women” series, tongue-in-cheek books purporting to tap into women’s most intimate pleasure zones. In the yet-unpublished “Porn for Working Women,” an attractive man cleans out the office fridge and asks, “Am I the only one who cares if we have a clean breakroom?” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah. I am guessing that would work.

I suppose at some point we will get to the, uh, bottom of all of this, though so far, for my money, Weiner seems a bit creative in his deflections. I'm thinking he did SOMETHING he shouldn't have. Oopsy daisy.

Speaking of someone who did something he shouldn't have, it looks like former NC Senator, VP candidate, and presidential candidate, John Edwards can anticipate criminal charges being filed against him. Again, oopsy daisy. I reckon that's what happens when you funnel campaign cash to your mistress and your love child. Seems that's against the law. You'd think an attorney would know that. Apparently not:

[snip] Edwards, a trial lawyer who represented North Carolina in the Senate before his 2004 and 2008 runs for the White House, met last week with benefactor Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, the donor believed to have funded Edwards’s attempt to cover up his affair and child with Rielle Hunter, ABC News reported. Mellon is said to have given Edwards $700,000 for the purpose. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley, that's a lot of green. I guess Ms. Hunter likes the finer things in life, huh?

I doubt that will be the color of the jumpsuit Edwards will be wearing if convicted. Ahem. I'm thinking orange. Sure hope it was worth it...

Oh, ick. I feel the need for a metaphorical shower, don't you? Hey, it is Friday, after all. Here is something just for fun. I hope it brings a smile to your face:

Thank Goodness It's Friday...

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Lying Ways Follow Obama's Lead

2011-06-02T12:00:00.001-04:00

And the Democrats' Magical Mystery Tour continues, from Obama on down, lying through their teeth about Paul Ryan's Medicare plan.

Bear in mind, first and foremost, that the Obamacare program, voted into law SOLELY by Democrats, contains MASSIVE cuts to Medicare. Doctors are now limiting Medicare patients as a result. But that doesn't stop the Democrats from railing at Ryan's plan, acting as if he is going to unplug machines or something.

Don't take it from me, though. FactCheck.org, a division of the Annenberg Foundation, just came out with an article highlighting the new DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's lies about this very program.

But first, astute readers may recall that the Annenberg Challenge is where Barack Obama and his good buddy, domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, served on the board together. This is no conservative organization coming out with this information, but one with a liberal past.

So, what did the DNC Chair say exactly? This, according to the FactCheck article, "DNC Chair Throws Truth To The Wolves," the headline of which says it all:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz falsely claimed that seniors with preexisting medical conditions would be denied Medicare coverage under the GOP's plan. The House GOP plan specifically says insurance companies “must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries.”

She also repeated a false Democratic talking point that future beneficiaries — those who are now younger than 55 — would be left on their own to buy insurance in the private market. The GOP plan, as we have written before, would provide subsidies for future beneficiaries to buy private insurance from a Medicare exchange set up by the government.

Wasserman Schultz, the new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, made her comments May 29 on "Face the Nation."

Wasserman Schultz, May 29: What they would do is they would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them, "You know what? You’re on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the — in the health care insurance market. We’re going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions. We’re going to give you 'x' amount of dollars and you figure it out."

She is simply wrong to say that the GOP plan would allow insurance companies to "throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions." [snip]

Not that you would know it from the attacks from Obama and his minions, but the Ryan Plan is not as Draconian as they want people to think. They are just blowing smoke to make sure no one pays attention to the cuts THEY made, which are affecting people on Medicare. But hey, why let the truth stand in your way? The Dems aren't, that's for sure:

The Republican plan — dubbed "Path to Prosperity" by its chief architect, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin — would make no changes in Medicare for those 55 and older. But it would make significant changes to Medicare for those younger than 55 — just not as described by the Florida Democrat. The plan would provide future beneficiaries with government subsidies to purchase health insurance through a Medicare exchange set up by the government.

Path to Prosperity: Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.
DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said "we stand by the statement" that the GOP plan would deny coverage to future beneficiaries with preexisting conditions. (Emphasis mine.) Sevugan provided excerpts of testimony given April 5 by Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian CATO Institute, at a hearing of a House oversight subcommittee. But in that testimony, Cannon said that "all seniors under the chairman's proposal, as I understand it, will be able to obtain health insurance coverage." And those with preexisting conditions "will get larger vouchers" because payments will be "risk-adjusted so that people with severe illnesses will get larger vouchers."

Sevugan made the point that the government subsidies — or "vouchers," as Cannon calls them — won't keep up with insurance premiums and, as a result, seniors would be forced to go without coverage. But that's not what the DNC chairwoman said. She said the GOP plan would allow private insurers to "drop you for preexisting conditions," and that's just not true. [snip]

Lies, lies, and more lies. But what I love is that the DNC spokesman, in the face of facts to the contrary, claims that they "stand by their statements." They are misrepresenting a plan to the American people to cast Ryan's plan in as negative a light as possible, even if what they say is not true. Wow. That takes some chutzpah. Or complete and utter lack of ethics. You decide.

The conclusion of this article (and there is more to it, so I urge you to click here to read the rest), is this:

[snip ]It's fair game to debate whether the subsidies are adequate to cover insurance costs. But it's wrong to say that the GOP plan would "throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage."

When FactCheck.org is telling you you're lying, and you keep doing it, that is disingenuous at best, and deplorable at worst. They are simply trying to gin up votes, and just like 2008, they don't care how much they lie to do it.

Of course, Rep. Wasserman Schultz is just following Obama's lead. He is the one who started this BS back in April, lying through his teeth, as FactCheck.org made clear. I think Rep. Paul Ryan is a bit over it, this Hill article makes clear from the meeting between Republicans and Obama on Wednesday,
"Ryan to Obama: 'Leadership Should Come From The Top'". Why, yes, it should, Rep. Ryan. Yes, leadership should come from the top. But Obama isn't a leader, he is a liar, which he has demonstrated time and time again. Why would you expect anything less than that from him, or his hand picked DNC chair?

Ahem. To his credit, Ryan stood firm:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) confronted President Obama over his attack on the Republican budget plan in the most dramatic moment of a White House meeting with the House GOP conference.

Saying he wanted to “clear the air” amid a deficit debate marred by partisan rancor, Ryan, the author of the House GOP budget, told the president he was wrong to characterize Republicans as turning their backs on children and senior citizens.

“Leadership should come from the top,” Ryan said to Obama, according to Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), who described the exchange to The Hill.

Ryan also called out the president for his speech at George Washington University in April, where Obama castigated the Republican budget in harsh terms while Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, sat just a few feet away.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Ah, yes - Obama the picture of decorum and good manners. Not.

Both Rep. Ryan and FactCheck.org have tried to set the record straight about Ryan's Budget plan. The Democrats will have none of it. Better to stick with the lie than the truth, especially if it will score a bunch of points, right? They are intentionally manipulating people, scaring some, and pissing off others as a result of their continued false meme. That is reprehensible.

You know, I still cannot believe that this is how the DNC has always operated, and I was just too blind to see it. But if the past 3 years is any indication, that is exactly what they were doing, I am ashamed to admit. Is it really so hard for Democrats and Republicans to work together on the behalf of ALL AMERICANS? To not worry about who gets the most points for it? Is it really so hard to put the country first, and our worsening economic situation, over partisan sides?

Evidently. And that just makes me mad. How about you?

The Reality Of The Egyptian Military's Rule (I Told You So)

2011-06-01T10:30:00.000-04:00

This headline caught my eye, and disgusted me, all at the same time, "Egyptian General Admits 'Virginity Checks' Performed On Some Protesters." As one would deduce, the headline means WOMEN protesters.

This is disturbing on so many levels, not the least of which how women continue to be treated. At first there were denials that any such thing had occurred:

A senior Egyptian general admits that "virginity checks" were performed on women arrested at a demonstration this spring, the first such admission after previous denials by military authorities.

The allegations arose in an Amnesty International report, published weeks after the March 9 protest. It claimed female demonstrators were beaten, given electric shocks, strip-searched, threatened with prostitution charges and forced to submit to virginity checks.

At that time, Maj. Amr Imam said 17 women had been arrested but denied allegations of torture or "virginity tests."

And now, there is the justification for these, um, "tests" by the military:

But now a senior general who asked not to be identified said the virginity tests were conducted and defended the practice.

"The girls who were detained were not like your daughter or mine," the general said. "These were girls who had camped out in tents with male protesters in Tahrir Square, and we found in the tents Molotov cocktails and (drugs)."

The general said the virginity checks were done so that the women wouldn't later claim they had been raped by Egyptian authorities.

"We didn't want them to say we had sexually assaulted or raped them, so we wanted to prove that they weren't virgins in the first place," the general said. "None of them were (virgins)."

This demonstration occurred nearly a month after Egypt's longtime President Hosni Mubarak stepped down amid a wave of popular and mostly peaceful unrest aimed at his ouster and the institution of democratic reforms.

Afterward, Egypt's military -- which had largely stayed on the sidelines of the revolution -- officially took control of the nation's political apparatus as well, until an agreed-upon constitution and elections. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Wow. I scarcely know what to say about that admission. It is despicable, deplorable, and horrifying.

Of course, women were not the only ones tortured, as the video below makes clear:

As horrible as the treatment sustained by some of these male protesters is, and it is, it does not compare to the torture, and threat of MORE torture, the women endured. The threat of electrocution or surrender to "virginity tests" is not much of an option, is it?

And here is where the "I told you so" part comes in. Many of the Lefty stripe were celebrating turning over Egypt to the military. Picture Alfred E. Newman when you read this: "What could go wrong?"

Plenty. Not only are they teaming up with the Muslim Brotherhood (told you so about that, too), but women continue to bear the brunt of the anti-woman structure there. Can you imagine any woman in the United States, or Europe, being forced to decide between Electrocution and a Virginity Test? Hell to the no. And it is not okay that our Egyptian Sisters are being forced to do so at the hands of the military.

The rights, and dignity, of women are being subjugated in Egypt. Amnesty International is all over this, thank heavens (I am a card carrying, regular contributor to AI). But between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military, I continue to fear for the safety of women in Egypt.

And I still want to know why Obama wants to send them so damn much money given these human rights abuses, and the strong role of the Muslim Brotherhood. Again, I must ask - where is the hue and cry? So far, the silence is deafening...

The Meaning Of Memorial Day

2011-05-30T10:30:00.001-04:00

On this Memorial Day, I thought it was fitting to remind us just how this day came to be. It isn't just to give folks a long weekend, after all, though for many of us, that is what it has become. That, and the official beginning of summer.

The history of Memorial Day is a long and storied one, beginning shortly after the Civil War ended:

[snip] Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in hisGeneral Order No. 11, and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery. The first state to officially recognize the holiday was New York in 1873. By 1890 it was recognized by all of the northern states. The South refused to acknowledge the day, honoring their dead on separate days until after World War I (when the holiday changed from honoring just those who died fighting in the Civil War to honoring Americans who died fighting in any war). It is now celebrated in almost every State on the last Monday in May (passed by Congress with the National Holiday Act of 1971 (P.L. 90 - 363) to ensure a three day weekend for Federal holidays), though several southern states have an additional separate day for honoring the Confederate war dead: January 19 in Texas, April 26 in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi; May 10 in South Carolina; and June 3 (Jefferson Davis' birthday) in Louisiana and Tennessee.
In 1915, inspired by the poem "In Flanders Fields," Moina Michael replied with her own poem:

We cherish too, the Poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led,
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies.

(Michael) then conceived of an idea to wear red poppies on Memorial day in honor of those who died serving the nation during war. She was the first to wear one, and sold poppies to her friends and co-workers with the money going to benefit servicemen in need. Later a Madam Guerin from France was visiting the United States and learned of this new custom started by Ms.Michael and when she returned to France, made artificial red poppies to raise money for war orphaned children and widowed women. This tradition spread to other countries. In 1921, the Franco-American Children's League sold poppies nationally to benefit war orphans of France and Belgium. The League disbanded a year later and Madam Guerin approached the VFW for help. Shortly before Memorial Day in 1922 the VFW became the first veterans' organization to nationally sell poppies. Two years later their "Buddy" Poppy program was selling artificial poppies made by disabled veterans. In 1948 the US Post Office honored Ms Michael for her role in founding the National Poppy movement by issuing a red 3 cent postage stamp with her likeness on it.
[snip]

The piece above continues on by highlighting those who have upheld this tradition religiously for years, and more recent actions, too:

[snip] Since the late 50's on the Thursday before Memorial Day, the 1,200 soldiers of the 3d U.S. Infantry place small American flags at each of the more than 260,000 gravestones at Arlington National Cemetery. They then patrol 24 hours a day during the weekend to ensure that each flag remains standing. In 1951, the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts of St. Louis began placing flags on the 150,000 graves at Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery as an annual Good Turn, a practice that continues to this day. More recently, beginning in 1998, on the Saturday before the observed day for Memorial Day, the Boys Scouts and Girl Scouts place a candle at each of approximately 15,300 grave sites of soldiers buried at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park on Marye's Heights (the Luminaria Program). And in 2004, Washington D.C. held its first Memorial Day parade in over 60 years. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Saturday, I attended the funeral of a dear friend's father. It was a lovely service, attended to by Air Force Honor Guard as his father served proudly. It was incredibly powerful as the Honor Guard removed the flag, and folded it. One of the members then walked off a short distance, and played Taps. And so, I add Wayne's name to those who have passed on, and who served this nation.

On this day, allow me to offer my deepest thanks to those who have served this nation in uniform and have passed on. And to those whose lives were lost while serving, paying the ultimate sacrifice, thanks are hardly sufficient. I am indebted to you all, and honor your memories today. Thank you.

"A Little Bit Of This, And A Little Bit Of That"

2011-05-28T17:30:00.001-04:00

Those are some lyrics written by Woody Guthrie which the incomparable Jonatha Brooke put to music. And since it's Saturday night, time for a little break from the realm of politics.

So, here is Jonatha Brooke performing "The Works," the lyrics by Woody Guthrie. This is for my Okie friends:

Great song, and she is so much fun to see in concert. She used to be a dancer, and it shows when she's on stage.

Now for a real classic, a song I played a lot on my old guitar when I lived up North. From the one and only, James Taylor:

One might wonder why James Taylor would be singing about "Carolina." His father was a professor at UNC - Chapel Hill. When my sister was there, she'd see him cruising around campus.

You may know that Dolly Parton, Linda Ronstadt, and Emmylou Harris have made a couple of cds as "Trio." Talk about an embarrassment of riches. Each one is phenomenal in her own right, but put them all together, and it is just a blessing. Here they are performing "High Sierra":

This next song is for my friend, Rob, who buried his father this morning. For Rob, and his mom, and his beautiful partner, this is for you:

And now, friends, this is open to you. Add a song, if you wish, or share whatever else is on your minds.

I Have Some Questions UPDATED

2011-05-27T12:00:00.005-04:00

On Thursday, Obama signed - via computer - an extension for the Patriot Act, after it was passed by the House and Senate. This allows it to be in effect until June 1, 2015.

You remember the Patriot Act - it is the one many of us were furious about when the Bush Administration came up with it. It is the one that permits warrant-less wiretapping on US citizens. The very one Obama, as Candidate Obama, took time out from pandering to the masses to vote to extend the last time, though Senators Clinton and McCain were opposed to it.

And you may recall, Obama's minions were adamantly opposed to the Patriot Act. Adamantly opposed. When he pulled that stunt, going to vote for it, their eyes glossed over, their ears closed, and their brains shut down so they wouldn't go into apoplexy. My younger brother, a stalwart Obamabot, said it was "disappointing" that Obama voted for it. "Disappointing." Right.

So, what is it now that President Obama has signed an extension, huh? Where is MoveOn.org NOW? Where is Code Pink? Where is DailyKos? I'm just wondering.

Another question I have is, why does Barney Frank not think it is a conflict of interest for him to push his then-lover to work for Fannie Mae? He doesn't think there are any "ethical" problems with it at all:

[snip] “If it is (a conflict of interest), then much of Washington is involved (in conflicts),” Frank told the Herald last night. “It is a common thing in Washington for members of Congress to have spouses work for the federal government. There is no rule against it at all.”

Frank said he helped his former longtime companion, Herb Moses, land a job at Fannie Mae in 1991 after Moses graduated with a master’s degree in business administration from Dartmouth College. Frank said he was approached by a Fannie Mae executive and vouched for Moses, who formerly worked as an economist in the Department of Agriculture. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh huh. Yeah, this is just how Washington does it, so what's the big deal? Well, this is:

[snip] OK. But Barney’s problem with this latest “bias and vitriol” is that it doesn’t come from the Herald. It comes from a New York Times [NYT] reporter, Gretchen Morgenson — a Pulitzer Prize winner — in a new book, “Reckless Endangerment.”

Morgenson accused Barney of getting a job for his boyfriend on a show a couple of days ago on, of all places, National Public Radio.

[snip]

Can anyone dispute that the New York Times/Boston Globe protects and venerates Barney Frank? And yet here is what the Times’ Pulitzer Prize winner says:

“Frank actually called up the company (Fannie Mae) and asked them to hire his companion, who had just gotten an MBA from the Amos Tuck School of Business (at Dartmouth). . . . Of course the company was happy to provide a job for his companion and rolled out the red carpet in a series of interviews with a variety of executives, and it ultimately did hire the man.”

Another nationwide search!

“And he stayed there for, I believe, seven years.”

[...]

The Pulitzer Prize winner from the Times interviewed Barney about his Significant Other, and Mr. Hot Bottom assured her he never, ever went to bat for his boyfriend’s employer at congressional hearings. Not true, says the NYT reporter.

“The record shows that he was very aggressive and really tough on those who were testifying in Congress about reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

True love is what it was. Later on, Barney had an epiphany about Fannie Mae’s corruption. But as Morgenson puts it, “He had been a vocal supporter for so long that it was sort of an odd turnabout.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I'll say it was. And if you recall, Fannie and Freddie have had wide ranging, far reaching, effects on our economy. So, thanks a lot for that, Barney. And of course, you did NOTHING wrong. Ahahahahahaha. Right.

Update below, and it is a doozy about Fannie and Freddie.

And then there is this final, sillier, question: why would the new DNC Chair, Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, feel compelled to attack Republicans for not supporting throwing money at GM and Chrysler, thus not supporting American cars, when she drives an Infiniti? I'm just asking, since she said this:

[snip] "If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars; they would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes," she said at a breakfast for reporters organized by The Christian Science Monitor. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I'd also like to know why Obama is wanting to shell out billions of OUR taxpaying dollars to go to Egypt and other so-called "Arab Spring" countries? I understand he wants to send money there for job creation? What about job creation in his OWN country??

And not for nothing, but this money will be going to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, the "rebels" in Libya, who are not all freedom loving would be Democrats. Not at all, since some of them have ties to Al-Qaeda. And we are going to help fund them WHY, exactly?

See, I have questions, though the above are just the beginning. Anyone have some answers?

UPDATE: I just saw what the Obama Administration has paid the six top executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the past two years - $34.4 MILLION. Yes, you read that right. Read more here:

[snip] Over the last two years, the Obama administration has approved a whopping $34.4 million in compensation to the top six executives of the financially troubled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage giants, and lacks the necessary protections to ensure such compensation is even warranted.
The largesse flowed to the six executives even though the two companies they run struggle to staunch billions of dollars in losses, remain in government conservatorship, and must compensate taxpayers for assuming the companies’ liabilities during the mortgage crisis. To compensate taxpayers, Fannie and Freddie are tapping Treasury Department funds to pay required 10 percent dividends each quarter to the U.S. government.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

These two mortgage behemoths have helped to throw this country into an economic tailspin, and are still bleeding money. And WE are paying them that kind of money?? This is insane. It is absolutely insane. Wow...

A Better Use Of One Hundred Thousand Tax Paying Dollars...

2011-05-26T16:00:00.001-04:00

Instead of paying for a "Teleprompter Coach" for the White House might be an actual, honest-to-goodness protocol officer. Someone who knows protocol or can at least familiarize themselves, and thus the president, before a State function in another country.

Seriously. What is wrong with Obama? You may have seen his faux pas at the State Dinner with the Queen the other night when he continued blathering on after asking everyone to rise - once the Queen is standing, the anthem is played. But watch closely at the 3:36 mark (or so). She has to tell Obama to put down his damn glass (H/t to Creeper00):

Sigh.

And notecards? Really, Obama? If you are SO damn smart, like your minions keep telling us you are, you cannot remember 3 1/2 minutes of a TOAST? Hell, Bill Clinton recited his entire State of the Union address when his teleprompter went out early on, and you can't remember a little quote from Churchill? Good grief.

If only this was the FIRST breach of protocol and decorum, but it is not. It is a continuing series of breaches by this Administration (remember the box of dvds for Prime Minister Gordon Brown as an Official State Gift? The iPod loaded with Obama's speeches for the Queen?). But hey, that's what happens when you surround yourself with people like this:

(Photo credit to FamousDC.com)

Yep, those are a bunch of White House Staffers at a Georgetown bar winding down. Just to give you some context, this was taken at the height of the BP oil spill.

And in case you forgot, one of the guys above, is Jon Favreau, the Chief White House Speechwriter. You know, the guy on the left:

Yeah. That's the kind of people we have in the White House.

You know, we have a saying down South - when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. It's one thing when you do that in your personal life, but quite another when you are representing the United States of America. To be so completely clueless when dealing with foreign heads of states is inexcusable. But that's what happens when you are clueless, and then surround yourself with a bunch of know-nothings who are just too cool to bother with manners or decorum.

Not for nothing, but royalty have been around for quite some time - centuries, in fact - and there are set rules for how one conducts oneself while in their company. It is incumbent upon the president, and his Administration, to know these rules. Maybe instead of playing a little ping pong himself while hanging out in the UK, Obama could have familiarized himself with the basic rules of a State Dinner in the UK. Just a thought.

And hey, that suggestion was free of charge, Obama.

"O'Bama? Oh, Puh-lease!"

2011-05-25T11:00:00.001-04:00

That is the headline of this entertaining, and accurate, assessment of Obama's Ireland visit by James Delingpole, "O'Bama? Ph, Puh-lease!". Many of us saw his visit there as overblown, but only someone in the UK could pull this off:

Ah Bejaysus and Begorrah! Oi’ll be swearin’ boi the auld shrine to the Vorgin with the shamrocks growin’ round it next to the hill where Cuchullain slew the Great Leprechaun of Kildare on St Patrick’s Day that Barack Seamus O’Toole Flaherty Joyce O’Bama is the most Irish US president that ever set foot on the Emerald Oisle, so he is, so he is.

Except, when he’s in Africa, of course, when he disappears into the dry ice and re-emerges with a grass skirt and a bone through his nose and declares himself to be Mandingo, Prince of the Bloodline of the Bonga People, Drinker of Cattle Urine, Father of A Thousand Warrior Sons, Keeper of King Solomon’s Mines, Barehanded Slayer of Lions, Undaunted Victim of the Evil Colonial British Empire.

[...]

Tony Blair used to do this trick too, his accent mutating from broad Glaswegian to genteel Edinburgh to Mummerset to Estuary to Richard E Grant to Sarf London Grime – often in the course of one Downing Street reception – the better to persuade his target audience that he was their kind of guy. And it is, of course, the hallmark of an unutterable charlatan.

I’ve argued before that Tony Blair and Barack Obama have an awful lot in common. Both are lawyers; both are snake-oil-salesman; both claim to be post-partisan, and Third Way and consensual; both play the acceptable, moderate-seeming public face of a regime chock full of Communists, class warriors, single issue rabble rousers, malcontents, communitarians and eco-loons hell bent on destroying every last vestige of what once made their country great. And both do (or did) the things dodgy political leaders always do when the going gets tough at home and their domestic audience finally wises up to how totally useless they are: they hop on the plane and pose as international statesman instead.

No kidding. Is it any surprise that Obama went abroad given the very, very brief bump in his poll numbers, and the continued Spring of Discontent in this country? I am only surprised he didn't go to the West Bank after his disastrous speech about Israel.

Perhaps he knew that Netanyahu's speech to Congress was going to be better received than Obama's was from the State Department. And that Netanyahu would get more standing ovations than Obama did for his State of the Union address. Ahem. Perhaps that is why he felt compelled to get the hell out of Dodge and to get some of that adoration he thrives on so much...

It is all about the spin, isn't it? Like the spin the MSM is putting on the special election up in NY State. They are making it sound like the Democrat, Kathy Hochul, won by a landslide, and that it is a HUGE referendum on The Republicans' position on Medicare.

There are two problems with this logic: 1. Hochul had all of 4% more votes than the Republican, Jane Corwin; and 2. the alleged Tea Party candidate, Jack Davis, siphoned off 9% of the votes. Do the math.

And about Davis, I think it is safe to say that Davis, who has run a number of times as a Democrat in that region, was a spoiler, and a successful one at that.

The major spin here, though, as Dana Perino pointed out, is that The DEMOCRATS cut $500 million to Medicare in the DEMOCRATIC passage of Obamacare. How is it that they are now going to be the ones to save it from those evil Republicans? Good grief.

It is clear, though, that this is how the MSM is going to spin it - it is the primary headline for a number of outlets. Wow.

This kind of hoodwinking and bamboozling seems to be the stock and trade these days, and is certainly a hallmark of Obama's. Along those lines, I will leave the conclusion to Mr. Delingpole, who sums up Obama's trip to the UK, and his presidency in general, beautifully:

[snip] Obama can’t stand Britain (his wife likes us even less): he made that clear enough when he sent back Winston Churchill’s bust and dissed our Prime Minister with those dodgy DVDS. He blames us for what happened to his grandfather during Mau Mau. He doesn’t believe in the Special Relationship. Are we honestly supposed to believe in that during the subsequent year in office, Obama has since acquired such wisdom and insight that he suddenly realises how special we are?

Of course he hasn’t. Obama is just doing now what all bullies and losers start doing when they realise how unpopular they are and that everyone is abandoning them. They suck up to anybody and everybody. They whore themselves piteously before enemies they once considered beneath their contempt. Fain will they fill their bellies with husks that swine eat – but which no man will give them: and serve them jolly well right, too!

By all means let us enjoy watching Obama smarm and grovel and ingratiate himself like seome presidential Uriah Heep. But for heaven’s sake let us never give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s a cold fish and would certainly never show any mercy towards us were the roles to be reversed.

Amen to that...

Obama's New "Truthiness*" Office

2011-05-24T11:00:00.001-04:00

* As Stephen Colbert might say.

Mr. Transparency has added yet another position to the White House. That would be the Director of Progressive Media & Online Response. The point of this position? Well, it would seem to smack down any negative story that might arise about Obama. We can't have THAT, after all.

I am not kidding. This new position will be directed primarily at the online community:

[snip] The post is a new one for this White House. Rapid response has been the purview of the Democratic National Committee (and will continue to be). Lee's hire, however, suggests that a portion of it will now be handled from within the administration. It also signals that the White House will be adopting a more aggressive engagement in the online world in the months ahead.

Lee has played that role in the past, including writing a semi-infamous White House blog post that said Fox News' Glenn Beck was lying about the administration on his show. His new gig comes with its own Twitter account, precisely for the purposes of disseminating push back.

An equally telling requirement of Lee's new job, however, is that of crafting strategy for outreach to the progressive community. Lee has been tasked with that responsibility in his previous incarnations, both as a member of the DNC online team during the '08 election and as a senior new media adviser with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, yes - we cannot have anything negative to say about The One, can we? I mean, really - no one can acknowledge when the Emperor Has No Clothes.

Along those lines, you likely know that Obama is off on another European Vacation, including going to Moneygall, Ireland to meet a very distant relative. (I am pretty sure my Irish connections are far closer than the 8th cousin Obama will be glad-handing, but hey - I would have to pay for my own damn trip to Ireland., so...) While there, he and Michelle went to a pub and tossed back a pint of Guiness:
(May 22, 2011 - Photo by Pool/Getty Images Europe)

Huh - rather a somber look for someone hanging out in a pub, but whatever. Ahem. He did lighten up, but I thought that photo was intriguing...

But get this - the White House INSISTED upon taking its own water to - wait for it - Buckingham Palace. In London. That one. Where the Queen of England lives. Not just that The Emperor would not drink the water there, he wouldn't even drink THEIR bottled water. Again, I am not making this up - how could I? I never would even DREAM of something like that.

It is LONDON, not East Jesus, Timbuckto, for heaven's sake. What is WRONG with this man? His people were worried it might upset his tummy, is the explanation for this (new) slight. He can toss back a Guiness, but not accept a bottle of water from the TRUE Royals. Now that takes some chutzpah, doesn't it?

Well, who knows how much longer bloggers like me will be able to write these kinds of things before the Office Of "Truthiness*" rains down hard making sure everyone still believes the Emperor has clothes? I guess I better get them in while I can, huh?

One last thing - just what kind of bottled water IS it that His Highness requires? I'm just wondering. Is it laced with gold, frankincense, and myrrh? What do you think?

How Dare She?!

2011-05-23T11:00:00.002-04:00

You are never going to believe this. A woman in Saudi Arabia had the AUDACITY to get behind the wheel of a car. The nerve of her! Who does she think she is, wanting to drive herself. Good grief, what IS the world coming to, I ask you?!

Ahem. I wish I could tell you that this is just some "Onion" type parody, but it is, in fact, true. Yes, Manal Al-Sherif, was detained by the religious police because she got into the driver's seat:

Authorities detained a Saudi woman on Saturday after she launched a campaign against the driving ban for women in the ultraconservative kingdom and posted a video of herself behind the wheel on Facebook and YouTube to encourage others to copy her.

Manal al-Sharif and a group of other women started a Facebook page called "Teach me how to drive so I can protect myself," which urges authorities to lift the driving ban. She went on a test drive in the eastern city of Khobar and later posted a video of the experience.

"This is a volunteer campaign to help the girls of this country" learn to drive, al-Sherif says in the video. "At least for times of emergency, God forbid. What if whoever is driving them gets a heart attack?"

Human rights activist Walid Abou el-Kheir said al-Sherif was detained by the country's religious police, who are charged with ensuring the kingdom's rigid interpretation of Islamic teachings are observed. [snip]

Al-Sherif has a point - at the very least, women should know the basics of driving a car for emergencies, but also because, well, it's assholic for them to be barred from something so many of us take completely for granted. Especially since the only reason they are barred from driving is their gender.

But wait - there is more:

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world to ban women - both Saudi and foreign - from driving (emphasis mine). The prohibition forces families to hire live-in drivers, and those who cannot afford the $300 to $400 a month for a driver must rely on male relatives to drive them to work, school, shopping or the doctor.

Women are also barred from voting, except for chamber of commerce elections in two cities in recent years, and no woman can sit on the kingdom's Cabinet. Women also cannot travel without permission from a male guardian and shouldn't mingle with males who are not their husbands or brothers.

[...]

Dressed in a headscarf and the all-encompassing black abaya all women must wear in public, al-Sharif said not all Saudi women are "queens" who can afford to hire a driver. She extolled the virtues of driving for women, saying it can save lives, and time, as well as a woman's dignity. Al-Sharif said she learned how to drive at the age of 30 in New Hampshire.

[...]

"We want to live as complete citizens, without the humiliation that we are subjected to every day because we are tied to a driver," the Facebook message reads. "We are not here to break the law or demonstrate or challenge the authorities, we are here to claim one of our simplest rights." (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, golly gee - that's just a little demanding, isn't it? Wanting to live as "complete citizens" in their own country? Pushy, pushy, pushy...

All snark aside, isn't it just remarkable that in the 21st century, one of our allies treats women as subhuman based on religious practices? We engage with Saudi Arabia on a regular basis (they have oil, you know). Hell, our president bowed down to their king (!) as if he was one of his subjects. (There is more we are doing for them, too, about which you likely have not heard about in terms of the US crafting a "private security force." My friend, Diamond Tiger, has the story at her blog, Logistics Monster. Check it out.)

And yet, women there do not have the most basic of rights, ones we take for granted every single day. How would we fare if women in this country had to have a driver, or take a taxi, to work, to school to pick up the kids, to go grocery shopping, to do ANYTHING?? Never mind should an emergency arise. I reckon the women in Saudi Arabia are just SOL.

But, hey, they are our allies, religious police notwithstanding. Heaven forfend we expect better from them in their treatment of half the population. Don't want to upset them, after all. That would be politically and culturally insensitive of us. I mean, we're just talking about women, right? Right?

I don't know if the action al-Sharif and the other women there will be successful or not, but I sure hope so. I wouldn't expect a whole lotta help from the US on this - it isn't like we have been adamant that women have more rights there anyway. Oh, we acknowledge there are problems, but when our president bows to their king, I just wouldn't hold my breath if I was them. Would you?

A Little Night Music

2011-05-21T18:00:00.003-04:00

A few of us were *talking* over at No Quarter about how nice it would be to just have an internet folk coffeehouse of sorts. I think it is a great idea. We all need a break from the world of politics, troubles across the country from tornadoes to massive floods to continuing high unemployment, and eruptions around the world.

I firmly believe that music is salve for the soul, balm for the heart, and enables a calming of the mind. So here are a few of my favorite folk singers and some of my favorite songs of theirs.

First, is Shawn Colvin. She is just a brilliant songwriter, and in this clip, she is accompanied by another favorite of mine, Alison Krauss. The song is a classic, "Shotgun Down The Avalanche":

Staying with Alison Krauss, a renowned bluegrass fiddler, and her band, Union Station, here is "Lucky One:"

I have been fortunate enough to see Shawn Colvin, Alison Krauss and Union Station, and my next favorite, in concert (Alison Krauss and her band will be in Charleston this summer, too - you better believe we'll be going).

My next fave up is Mary Chapin Carpenter. Get this - I got to see her, Shawn Colvin, Dar Williams, and Patty Griffin TOGETHER doing an acoustic set. They had four regular old chairs on the stage, and just sang together. It was freakin' awesome.

Staying with luck, here is "I Feel Lucky":

Finally, in case you have not heard of Dar Williams before, this song of hers just makes me smile. I can't help it. I love it:

So, what sounds would you like to add on a Saturday night/Sunday morning? Folk? Jazz? Classical? Eighties? Whatever you are in the mood for, let's have it. And if you are inclined to say why you picked that particular piece, that would be cool, too. Have a good evening/morning...

Obama V. West, And What About Hillary?

2011-05-20T11:00:00.000-04:00

President Obama made quite the speech Thursday on the Middle East, including Israel, our ally, right before Prime Minister Netanyahu visits. And oh, what an, um, interesting speech it was.

If you have the time, inclination, and intestinal fortitude to watch Obama deliver this 35 minute long speech (he does go on), here it is:

If that is too much to bear, here is a link from the State Department of Obama's speech. There is a lot at which to look in this speech, from the brief comment about women (you can definitely see Hillary Clinton's input there - Obama's words are very similar to what Clinton has been saying for some time - communities do best when the women who live there are treated fairly), to the comments about Israel. The latter are receiving a great deal of attention. Here is what Obama said:

[snip] So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state. [snip]

Some people have taken exception to Obama's wanting to push Israel back 44 years, including Rep. (Col.) Allen West (FL-R) (h/t to Hokma):

[snip]From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, controlled by Jordan’s Arab army.

The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism.

Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.

In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world’s 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley - West sure doesn't mince words, does he?

Obama does, though. Many of the talking heads are saying this morning that Obama was hard on Palestine, too, that he isn't totally caving into them. You might know that Hamas, an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, has controlled the Gaza Strip since 2007. Hamas does not support Israel's right to exist.

So, what were Obama's stern words to Palestine about what THEY would have to give up for Israel to return to 1967 boundaries? Oh, he is so tough: [snip] In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fata

h and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.[snip]

Ooooohhhh, so strong, so forceful! NOT.

Obama has set Israel up from the get-go, which is what Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to think, too. He had an angry phone call with Secretary Clinton Thursday before the speech was given, trying to get Obama to back down on his assertions. Clearly, Obama did not.

The question has been asked repeatedly, how involved was Hillary Clinton in this decision by the Administration. Why? Because of her previous solid support for Israel.The National Jewish Democratic Council had a fact sheet on Clinton's positions when she was running for president to highlight just how strong her support for Israel was. Here is just a portion of that fact-sheet:

[snip] Senator Clinton has an outstanding record of leadership in the U.S. Senate on issues related to the U.S. Israel relationship. Since her election in 2000, Senator Clinton has compiled a very strong voting record on pro-Israel issues. She has cosponsored key pieces of pro-Israel legislation, including the Syria Accountability Act and Palestinian Anti-Terror Act, and signed numerous letters urging action on behalf of the State of Israel. She has repeatedly voted for foreign aid. Senator Clinton introduced legislation calling for the immediate release of the three Israeli soldiers captured by Hamas and Hezbollah.

Clinton has been a leading voice against the anti-Semitism in Palestinian school textbooks. She joined with the Palestinian Media Watch in February 2007 in releasing a report exposing the continuation of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic language in Palestinian school textbooks. Her full statement on this issue is available (here).

Senator Clinton sponsored legislation that limited U.S. contributions to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) until it recognized the Magen David Adom (MDA), Israel’s version of the Red Cross. This pressure resulted in the ICRC finally admitting MDA into the International Red Cross in the summer of 2006. [Senator Clinton’s position paper on the U.S.-Israel relationship]

Clinton’s strong support for Israel has been recognized time and again in the Jewish Community. For example, the Orthodox Newspaper, The Jewish Press, which opposed Clinton in 2000, wrote in support of her candidacy for re-election to the Senate in 2006: "As regards Israel, she has become an important supporter of the Jewish state both in public and, perhaps more importantly, behind the scenes. She is held in the highest regard by those who regularly plead Israel's cause in the halls of government. For those who initially were wary of her positions on Middle East issues - and we include ourselves in that category - Ms. Clinton has proved to be a pleasant and welcome surprise." [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

You can see why Prime Minister Netanyahu might be confused by Secretary Clinton standing behind Obama on this, and having this speech made at the State Department. That is as clear a message as she can send.

I imagine the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu will be a bit testy, to be sure, but I also imagine that Netanyahu feels he has lost a dear friend and ally in Secretary Clinton.

There will be more to come from Obama's speech as it is parsed. I imagine there will be more fallout as well. I have to say, whooey - I would love to be a fly on the wall in the White House today. How about you?

Former IMF Head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, A Serial Offender?

2011-05-19T13:00:00.001-04:00

By now, I am sure everyone has heard about the alleged rape of a Sofitel maid in Manhattan by IMF leader, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Strauss-Kahn is currently being held at Riker's Island, in New York. The list of charges against him include first degree rape, and kidnapping. He's in a boatload of trouble, and finally resigned his post as the head of the IMF Wednesday. (As of this writing, Strauss-Kahn is at court on a bail hearing, hoping to get out on a $1 million bail, and ankle bracelet monitored 24 hour home imprisonment.)

But here's the thing - this man apparently has a history of treating women horribly. From another maid in Mexico, to a reporter doing an interview, to prostitutes in New York City, he has a history of rape in the worst cases, and rough treatment in the cases of the prostitutes (provided by the same madam, Kristin Davis, who provided prostitutes to former NY Governor, Eliott Spitzer).n A recent book details the rape of the maid in Mexico (which went unreported), along with 14 other women who claim sexual assaults by this man.

Aforementioned madam, Ms. Davis, would not provide any more prostitutes to Strauss-Kahn due to his abusive behavior. The last time was when Strauss-Kahn was going to NYC for a conference with President Clinton:

[snip]Kristin Davis said she provided young women for the IMF chief in 2006, as he ran for the French Socialists' presidential nomination, and that one complained about his "aggressive" behaviour.

"He was a client of my agency," she told The Daily Telegraph. "When men abuse women I'm no longer going to protect their identities".

[...]

Miss Davis, 35, who claims to have a long list of celebrity clients, said Mr Strauss-Kahn called her directly on her mobile phone and paid $1,200 cash for two-hour sessions in hotel rooms.

"He wanted an 'All-American girl', with a fresh face, from the mid-West," she said. "A girl in January 2006 complained he was rough and angry, and said she didn't want to see him again".

In September 2006, Mr Strauss-Kahn travelled to New York for a conference hosted by Bill Clintonn September 2006, Mr Strauss-Kahn travelled to New York for a conference hosted by Bill Clinton. Miss Davis claims that month, she sent him a Brazilian-born prostitute who reported that "he was rough", said Miss Davis, adding: "She told me not to send any new girls to him." [snip]

Well, I would think not. Sheesh.

As to the other women, I do have a nagging question, which the author of this Telegraph article alluded to, as well:

A deluge of fresh allegations of sexual misbehaviour engulfed Dominique Strauss-Kahn yesterday.

The 62-year-old International Monetary Fund chief, who is accused of the attempted rape of a chambermaid, is said to have targeted young students, ‘behaved like a gorilla’ with an actress and had flings with the widow of an Italian academic.
As Strauss-Kahn languished on suicide watch in New York’s Rikers Island prison following the alleged sexual assault at a Manhattan hotel, the new claims sent further shockwaves reverberating through France and the financial world.

The revelations will trigger more questions about how the IMF’s managing director escaped censure during his rise to become one of the world’s most powerful money men and a potential president of France.[snip]

NO FREAKING KIDDING. That is what I would like to know. With all of these women, in a number of countries, being on the receiving end of, at best, inappropriate advances, and at worse, rape, how is it that NO ONE went after this man?? Go check out this article, and see the long list of women that we KNOW about who had dealings with Strauss-Kahn, just to give you an idea:

[snip]The mother of Tristane Banon, a Parisian novelist who claims to have been subjected to a frenzied sex attack by Strauss-Kahn nine years ago, used the Facebook website to deliver a scathing attack on her daughter’s alleged aggressor.

[...] French socialist politician Auriele Filippetti said the IMF chief had groped her in 2008 and from then on vowed to make sure she was never alone in a room with him.

Piroska Nagy, a Hungarian economist who had a brief affair with Strauss Kahn when both were married in 2008, told investigators that he had a problem and that she felt coerced into sleeping with him because of his senior position and aggressive advances. [snip]

Now that is a story we have heard all too often, isn't it?

And what was the response to Strauss-Kahn's arrest in France? Now, let me just say - I love France. I have had great interactions with the French when I have visited there, so this is disturbing to me:

[snip]President Sarkozy is said to have rolled his eyes and said ‘We did warn him’ after hearing of his arrest.

[...]

Most French people believe fallen Strauss-Kahn is the ‘victim of a plot’ over the charge that he tried to rape a hotel chambermaid.

A poll found that 57 per cent of French people think he was ‘framed’ in a bid to ruin him.

Among socialist voters, 70 per cent believe the Left-wing politician has been set up. (Click here to read the rest.)

I guess that answers my question as to why no one has censured this man, or brought charges against him before: because they will not be believed, and he will be held blameless, considered the "victim" of some nefarious plot, not as an (alleged) rapist/serial sexual abuser.

Though the President of France saying they "warned him" is telling - about just what DID they warn him? And was their concern for HIM, or for the WOMEN? I think we can guess the answer to that, can't we?

Well, hopefully he will not get away with it this time, though. It is far past time, if these claims are accurate (and I have no reason to believe they aren't, especially since they are coming from all different sectors from a number of different women in a number of different countries). I would not be at all surprised to see more women come forward to levy charges against Strauss-Kahn. Thank heavens for the courage of the maid in NYC, though had other women done so previously, perhaps she would have been spared this horrendous fate, at least at the hands of Strauss-Kahn (allegedly).

Perhaps now, he will get his comeuppance, not just a roll of the eyes and a "warning." One can hope, anyway...

Want To Opt Out Of Obamacare? Try Nancy Pelosi's District UPDATED

2011-05-17T11:00:00.003-04:00

Update below.

I am sure this will be a shock to you, but fully 20% of Obamacare waivers are in Nancy Pelosi's district. (Okay, I cannot restrain myself - how much does it look like Obama is telling Nancy, "don't you worry, sweetie, I will always love you" or something along those lines? Feel free to add your own caption below.)

You are just not going to believe this. Well, maybe you would, but it is just a tad aggravating, as The Daily Caller reports:

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

[...]

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

Gee, aren't you also surprised to learn that union chapters were also getting waivers? Oh, I am so sure.

But allow me to give you a glimpse into the kinds of restaurants these are in Former Speaker Pelosi's district getting waivers:

For instance, Boboquivari’s restaurant in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivari’s advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners.

Then, there’s Café des Amis, which describes its eating experience as “a timeless Parisian style brasserie” which is “located on one of San Francisco’s premier shopping and strolling boulevards, Union Street,” according to the restaurant’s Web site.

“Bacchus Management Group, in partnership with Perry Butler, is bringing you that same warm, inviting feeling, with a distinctive San Francisco spin,” the Web site reads. Somehow, though, the San Francisco upper class eatery earned itself a waiver from Obamacare because it apparently cost them too much to meet the law’s first year requirements.

The reason the Obama administration says it has given out waivers is to exempt certain companies or policyholders from “annual limit requirements.” The applications for the waivers are “reviewed on a case by case basis by department officials who look at a series of factors including whether or not a premium increase is large or if a significant number of enrollees would lose access to their current plan because the coverage would not be offered in the absence of a waiver.” The waivers don’t allow a company to permanently refrain from implementing Obamacare’s stipulations, but companies can reapply for waivers annually through 2014. [snip] (Click here to read the rest of this story.)

Not to be too cynical or anything (!), but sure seems like a bit of a payback for Pelosi shoving through this monstrosity of a bill. But that's just a guess on my part.

And if THESE companies are struggling to pay for Obamacare with their high dollar menu, what does this administration think is going to happen with small business owners who AREN'T charging comparable rates for comparable services? Will they, too, get waivers? I wouldn't hold my breath on that one, if I were them. Well, unless they happen to be in Nancy's district, and likely a place she frequents (okay, I made that up, but c'mon, it's pretty likely, isn't it, that she patronizes the restaurants mentioned above? I think so.), otherwise, they are just SOL.

Just like the rest of us are.

Once again, this is a glaring example of just how much this is less about the people of this country, and more about political payback. All I can say is I hope the courts do the right thing for US and rule this new law un-Constitutional.

Caption time - what is Obama saying to Pelosi? And consider this an Open Thread. Feel free to talk abt the Govinator's love child, why this IMF chairman, Dominque Strauss-Kahn still has his job after raping someone but Wolfowitz lost his for a consensual relationship, or Trump, Obama's bin Laden bounce already bouncing away, or whoever/whatever is on your mind...

UPDATE: I advise you to not be drinking anything when you read this. Ready? Okay - so, HHS is claiming that Pelosi had NOTHING to do with the 20% of waivers granted in April going to HER district. Nope, zippo, zilch, nada, the big donut hole. Huh uh, nothing at all. Oh, you believe them, don't you? After all, they're the government - they wouldn't lie to you, would they?! Wow...

The End Of An Era For Endeavour

2011-05-16T13:00:00.002-04:00

The Endeavour Space Shuttle, commanded by Mark Kelly, husband of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, blasted off for its final voyage this morning. Rep. Giffords was able to make the trip back to Florida, and watched her husband take off into space.

The liftoff of Endeavour was, in short, spectacular:

I love that this video shows how fast Endeavour is moving through space. It is just mind boggling.

"Expanding our knowledge, expanding our lives, in space."

It is impossible, at least for me, to not be moved by the liftoff itself, and for what this voyage of Endeavour represents - the second to last space shuttle liftoff. One final launch of the Atlantis in July, and the program is ended. At this point, future plans for our space program are still a bit uncertain. No doubt, the corps of astronauts will continue to be reduced, and space enterprises will become private affairs (think Richard Branson), less US Government:

[snip] It's the beginning of the end of the US astronaut corps as generations of Americans have known it. Fifty years after its birth, the astronaut program – one of America's most iconic ventures and an integral part of the nation's self-image – is undergoing a transformation.

The program, to be sure, won't vanish. But as the final two shuttles – the astronauts' main ride into space – are retired and funding for space ventures dwindles, the nation's astronaut corps will become smaller, its role redefined, and more of the space duties likely turned over to private firms.

The move will accelerate the corps's transition from a group once dominated by test pilots to one increasingly made up of scientists and specialists who can live on the International Space Station (ISS) for extended periods, conducting experiments and doing everything from cleaning air filters to cooking meals.

Nor will the astronauts likely be as visible. In the early years of the space program, they were national heroes – John Waynes in moon suits. Virtually everything they did was pioneering – the first American to journey around the Earth, the first American spacewalk, the first human on the moon. To this day, Neil Armstrong's line – "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" – is one of the most quoted phrases in the English language. The astronauts graced the cover of magazines. Books were written about them.

With the advent of the shuttle program, journeys into space became more regular, the feats more commonplace. Today, as the astronauts undergo another transition, their identities may become even more anonymous, their work more quotidian, to the extent working 210 miles above Earth can be quotidian. Yet the astronaut corps remains a source of fascination to many Americans – and will remain an integral, if diminishing, part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.[snip] (Click here to read the rest of this informative article.)

As this period of space exploration comes to an end, I cannot help but think of the president who first supported its development, and the subsequent results:

As Buzz Lightyear would say, "To Space, and Beyond!" I hope that the opportunity to do so will long continue...

There's A Lesson To Be Learned Here

2011-05-14T13:00:00.001-04:00

I have friends visiting from NY, just for the weekend. In anticipation of their arrival, I had worked on a post, and scheduled it to go up while they were here. Well, Blogger had other plans. Let's just say, it ate my post. Argh. In the slim chance it is resurrected, I'll hold off re-writing it - it was pretty time consuming anyway, and I just don't have the time this weekend.

But then I started to think, maybe this is just the universe's way of saying a little shift in focus wouldn't be bad. A blessing in disguise, if you will. So I thought about something my cousin sent me recently by the acclaimed chef, Robert St. John, out of Mississippi, and a discussion a bunch of us were having over at my other home, No Quarter, about being Southern.

First to Chef St. John. A while back, he wrote a piece entitled, "My South," inspired by an insipid person who seemed to think the South had no fine dining establishments, well, ANYWHERE, much less Mississippi. Chef St. John took a bit of umbrage at that, and listed all of the things "My South" has. He has since come out with "My South II," some of which I will share with you here:

As far as Hollywood is concerned, the South is still one big hot and humid region full of stereotypes and clichés (they got the humidity part right). We are either Big-Daddy-sitting-on-the-front-porch-in-a-seersucker-suit, sweating and fanning while drinking mint juleps beside a scratching dog— or— the poor-barefooted-child-in-tattered-clothes, walking down a dusty-dirt road beside a scratching dog. There is no middle ground. Most of the time, we are either stupid or racist or both.

[...] The South of movies and TV, the Hollywood South, is not my South. [snip]

~~In my South little girls wear bows in their hair.

~~In my South banana pudding is its own food group.

[...]

~~In my South the back porches are screened and the front porches have rocking chairs and swings.

~~In my South the ham is as salty as the oysters.

~~In my South everyone waves.

[...]

~~In my South we use knives, forks and spoons, but we let cornbread and biscuits finish the job.

~~My South has tar-paper shacks but it also has tall-glass skyscrapers.

~~In my South people will put crabmeat on almost anything.

~~My South has tire swings hanging under live oak trees.

~~In my South grandmothers will put almost anything inside a mold filled with Jell-O.

~~In my South “cobbler” is a dessert, not a shoemaker.

~~In my South the only things that “squeal like a pig” are pigs.

~~In my South ice cream is made on the back porch instead of in a factory.

~~In my South grandmothers always have a homemade cake or pie on the counter.

~~My South has bottle trees.

~~In my South we give a firm handshake.

~~In my South “sopping” is an acquired skill and could be an Olympic sport.

~~My South is oleander and honeysuckle.

~~In my South we celebrate Easter a month-and-a-half early with a two-week long party called Mardi gras.

~~In my South fried chicken is a religion with its own denomination.

~~My South has sugar-sand beaches, pine forests, plains, hills, swamps and mountains.

[...]

~~In my South it’s OK to discuss politics and religion at the dinner table. As a matter of fact, it is required.

[...]

~~My South has shrimp boats and multi-colored sunrises.

~~In my South we move slowly because we can.

~~My South has covered dish suppers and cutting-edge fine dining restaurants.

~~In my South young boys still catch fireflies in washed out mayonnaise jars.

~~In my South 50% of the dinner conversation deals with someone’s genealogy. [snip]]
(Click here to read the rest, and read the first one, too. It's good!)

Yep, that's my South, too. Right now, I have the windows open, and the breeze is carrying in the smell of the ocean a few miles away, with a hint of the gardenias blooming down below the deck. My friends are out for a walk in this 77 degree weather (it isn't even 10:00am yet), enjoying the birds singing, the Spanish moss swaying, marsh grass smelling day.

That's my South. This is too:

So there is a lesson to be learned. Sometimes, having one's homework (as it were) being eaten by some nebulous entity is a good thing. Sometimes, it makes one just slow down a bit, and smell the gardenias. Sometimes, it is more important to just enjoy the day, the people, the weather, the South, than to deal with some political issue. That day is today.

One more tune for you to send you on your way today, whether you are lucky enough to live in the South, or not (!). We only have this one life in this incarnation, and sometimes we just need to Slow Down:

Have a great day, friends. And feel free to add to the list above, or start a new one for your part of the country. Take your time...

Obama Seal Action Figure?

2011-05-13T14:32:00.001-04:00

Blogger has been acting up, which is why this post disappeared. Sorry for any inconvenience!

I barely know what to say about this:

Holy shit. Are you KIDDING me with this? Check out the "rationale" from the maker of this "Hero" figure:

Navy SEALs have become national heroes since news broke that they took down Osama bin Laden, so it’s fitting that the newest action figure from a Connecticut company is a fierce-looking President Barack Obama as a SEAL.

The minute Obama said late on the night of May 1 that the U.S. had found and killed bin Laden, Emil Vicale knew which his action figure company’s would make next — Rambama.

On Wednesday morning, Hero Builders released the Obama SEAL Team 6 action figure — a muscular President in fatigues armed with an M1-A4.

Vicale, who owns the custom action figure company in Oxford, said the speech was a pivotal moment in the Obama presidency.

It was also a parallel to the speech that inspired the company in the first place almost 10 years earlier.

On Sept. 14, 2001, Vicale listened to then-President George Bush’s bullhorn speech from Ground Zero and was inspired to create Hero Builders. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Never mind that Obama did not GIVE the order to take out bin Laden, and had to be yanked off the golf course by the adults in the White House, HE did nothing to get bin Laden. HE did not risk his life. HE likely doesn't even know how to OPERATE a gun, which I think I can say without fear of contradiction given this:

Yeah, doesn't sound to me like someone who would have an M-1 in his arms, does it to you? Much less someone I think it is safe to label a "milquetoast," as someone did in the comments.

Okay - I am too busy being disgusted to write more. What is your reaction?

Obama Can't Claim Credit For This...

2011-05-11T11:00:00.000-04:00

As predicted, Obama is running around the country preening and strutting about HIS getting Osama bin Laden. Amazing since he wasn't even in the room when the decision was made, but whatever. And hypocritical since his Brain, Valerie Jarrett steadfastly told him NOT to order it. Well, she got her wish, he didn't, but he is basking in the light of the work of others anyway. What else is new?

Oh, and you knew it was coming - he is using bin Laden's death already in his re-election bid. And is "renewing Muslim Outreach" so they won't be too mad at him.

Blech.

Below is something for which Obama can claim no credit whatsoever, especially since he can't dance. This is a celebration of the recent nuptials of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. And it is just fun:

I hope this brought a smile to your face and a respite, even if a brief one, from the Obama Show.

If You Can Read This...

2011-05-10T11:00:00.001-04:00

Chances are 50-50 you probably aren't from Detroit.

As it turns out, about half of the adult population in Detroit is functionally illiterate. Almost HALF. That is a staggering number.

How in the sam hill can that possibly be? I am serious - how in the world, in the United States of America, can this be? Here are just some of the issues they face:

“The National Institute for Literacy estimates that 47% of adults (more than 200,000 individuals) in the City of Detroit are functionally illiterate, referring to the inability of an individual to use reading, speaking, writing, and computational skills in everyday life situations,” a report from the Detroit Regional Workforce Fund reads.

Karen Tyler-Ruiz, the Fund’s director, explained the difficulties this presents to the average illiterate.

“Not able to fill out basic forms, for getting a job — those types of basic everyday [things]. Reading a prescription; what’s on the bottle, how many you should take…just your basic everyday tasks,” she said. “I don’t really know how they get by, but they do. Are they getting by well? Well, that’s another question,” she told WWJ Newsradio 950. [snip]

Uh, yeah - not being able to fill out basic forms is a bit of a problem.

Who is to blame for this deplorable condition? Well, depending upon whom you ask, it is either the teachers' union, or the city. Let's start with the union:

In a town where unions rule, some have pointed to the teachers’ union as a possible reason for the city’s high illiteracy rate.

Andrew J. Coulson, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, told The Daily Caller that the teachers’ union monopoly has contributed to much of the educational deterioration in the city.

“Apparently [the school system is] not learning that the cause of the problem is the monopoly because they would have gotten rid of it by now. That is the big message from this report, [it] is not what this particular organization is doing to try to alleviate the problem,” Coulson told TheDC. “What they need to do is get rid of the monopoly.”

According to Coulson’s calculations, Detroit spent $15,945 per pupil for the 2010-2011 school year. By comparison, the average per pupil expenditure during the 2007-2008 school year nationally was $10,259.

It is embarrassing as hell for a city, and its teachers, to have this result, especially since they pay over a THIRD more per student in Detroit than the national average. Sounds to me like they are not getting their money's worth there. Ahem. Wow.

Who do the teachers blame? The city:

The Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT), however, is adamant that the problem actually lies with the city’s failure to effectively enforce school attendance.

“I don’t think that that the teachers’ union has a responsibility for making sure that adults can read,” DFT president Keith Johnson told TheDC.

“I think the unfairness of the criticism [against the union] comes from the fact that there is a direct correlation between student attendance and student performance,” Johnson added. “During the 2008-2009 school year, the average Detroit school student — you ready for this — missed 46 days of school. That was on average. There were 10 percent of our students that missed 100 days or more. It may shock you to know that Detroit public schools do not have an attendance standard.”

According to Detroit’s attendance policy statement in their “Orientation Kit,” students are expected to attend 92 percent of classes, or miss no more than 14 days annually. Johnson believes there have to be harsher consequences for those who miss significantly more days.

Uh huh. Okay. Well, there may be some truth in that since students do need to be there.

But there's one more group who deserves some blame:

Some say the responsibility for the absentee epidemic falls at the feet of parents who fail to supervise their children. Richard Rivers, a counselor at Cody’s Academy of Critical Thinkers and Medicine and Community Health, said that the best way to fix the literary problem is to get parents involved.

“I talk to truants all the time, and I call their parents,” he told the Detroit Free Press. “I do believe that truancy can be prevented when parents are working with me to get the students to school every day and on time.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Indeed, parents must be active participants in the education of their children, especially when it is something so basic, so necessary, as literacy.

It sounds to me like there is plenty of blame to go around. The citizens of Detroit are certainly not getting their money's worth, not with this outcome. Whatever the truancy policy is, it sounds like it might use some revamping. And parents need to get involved with their own children and what they are learning (or not). Regardless of with whom the lion's share of blame lies, something needs to change, and now.

Speaking of reading, I just have to quickly share this article with you. My aunt sent it to me yesterday, and I just could not believe my eyes. Here is the headline: ‘Burn a Bush’? Michelle Obama Invites Rapper Common To A Poetry Reading.

Say wha? Oh, yes:

[snip] First Lady Michelle Obama has scheduled a poetry evening for Wednesday, and she’s invited several poets, including a successful Chicago poet and rapper, Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr., AKA “Common.” However, Lynn is quite controversial, in part because his poetry includes threats to shoot police and at least one passage calling for the “burn[ing]” of then-President George W. Bush.

[...]

By the way, ‘Uzi’ is slang for a compact machine gun:

A Letter to the Law

Dem boy wanna talk… [indistinguishable]

Whatcha gon do if ya got one gun?

I sing a song for the hero unsung

with faces on the mural of the revolution

No looking back cos’ in back is what’s done

Tell the preacher, god got more than one son

Tell the law, my Uzi weighs a ton

I walk like a warrior,

from them I won’t run

On the streets, they try to beat us like a drum

In Cincinnati, another brother hung

A guinea won’t see the sun

with his family stung

They want us to hold justice

but you handed me none

The same they did to Kobe and Michael Jackson

make them the main attraction

Turn around and attack them

Black gem in the rough

You’re rugged enough

Use your mind and nine-power, get the government touch

Them boys chat-chat on how him pop gun

I got the black strap to make the cops run

They watching me, I’m watching them

Them dick boys got a lock of cock in them

My people on the block got a lot of pok* in them

and when we roll together

we be rocking them to sleep

No time for that, because there’s things to be done

Stay true to what I do so the youth dream come

from project building

Seeing a fiend being hung

With that happening, why they messing with Saddam?

Burn a Bush cos’ for peace he no push no button

Killing over oil and grease

no weapons of destruction

How can we follow a leader when this a corrupt one

The government’s a g-unit and they might buck young black people

Black people In the urban area one

I hold up a peace sign, but I carry a gun.

Peace, ya’ll.”

Wowie zowie. Gosh, so glad the Lefties got Laura Bush to cancel HER scheduled poetry reading of Emily Dickinson, Langston Hughes, and Walt Whitman, those crazy rabble rousers (and I oughta know. Cough, cough.)

Who here is surprised by this? Yeah, me neither. As my aunt noted, such a classy, classy bunch the Obamas are. Not. And, I might add, this is what passes for poetry these days? Yikes. I'll stick with my Maya Angelou, Willa Cather, Emily Dickinson...

Want To Know Who Really Ordered The Mission Against Bin Laden? It Wasn't Obama...

2011-05-09T12:00:00.001-04:00

"The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.” The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold." So says the White House Insider as told to Ulsterman (H/T to NQ regular, Noogan, for linking to the initial report after bin Laden's killing). Can one say, "Deep Throat"?

Wow. I am not surprised by this news, though, in all honesty. The photo released by the White House as the Powers-That-Be watched the mission unfold (or at least some of it), made that abundantly clear:

From the get-go, it looked to me like Obama was sitting in the "Kid's Chair," while the adults were around the big table. If the White House Insider is accurate, and Larry Johnson is now stating after intel he's received that the insider is at least 80% accurate, that's exactly what was going on here. The decision had been made, and not by Obama. As the Insider stated in a previous interview, it was a coup, a term the insider stands by in the update on May 3, 2011 to SocyBerty.

Make no mistake - this is huge. Huge.

So, who did give the order to go after Osama bin Laden? It was Leon Panetta, backed by Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. Not Barack Obama, despite his taking credit for it (though that is not a surprise, either - that has been his MO for years and years). If you have not had your fill of Obama BS, just watch his "60 Minutes" interview in which he blathers on and on about his "plan." As you will read below, there was no such plan, at least not from him.

There is so much to this interview, and I urge you to read the complete post, but here are some key components:

Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?

A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president. (Emphasis mine.)

I mentioned above who was doing the overruling - a star-studded group if ever there was one (well, except for maybe Jim Clapper - you remember him - the Director Of Intelligence who seemed woefully ignorant of Intelligence, who claimed the Muslim Brotherhood was "largely secular." Yes, that guy.). Anyway, it was this group against Valerie Jarrett, and her puppet, Obama:

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

Wow. Yes, those should be our primary concerns when it comes to National Security, would it make Obama look bad, and angering Muslims? Good grief. That does confirm what many of us have thought, though. Our National Security has been couched by how it will appear to Muslims around the world, not about what is best for the United States of America. There is something seriously, seriously wrong with that.

The interviewer then asked about how they got Obama to change his opinion, to which the insider said they didn't - Obama didn't HAVE an opinion. The complete response is too long to include here, but the term "masterful manipulation" was used to describe how Leon Panetta made this happen. Here is just part of the response by the Insider:

[snip] Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval (emphasis mine). Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

At this point, you may be wondering just who Valerie Jarrett is, and why she has so much influence over Obama, more so than a number of top Cabinet officials. Well, she is the Senior Advisor to the President now, but prior to that worked for Mayor Richard Daley, and hired Michelle Obama as an assistant to the mayor. Oh, but get this - only after "...re-assuring Michelle's fiancé, Barack Obama, that the job was right for her." Gee, sexist much?

Anyway, here are some of the ways in which she has been described:

Chicago businesswoman Valerie Jarrett has earned all sorts of nicknames as an aide to President-elect Barack Obama — from "First Friend" to "big sister" to "the other half of Obama's brain." As co-chair of his transition team, Jarrett has spent the past week denying rumors, parsing policy changes and insisting that she doesn't know where she'll end up in the new administration (although Beltway gossip suggests she may be appointed to Obama's seat in the Senate). Of her relationship with the 44th commander-in-chief, Jarrett says simply: "He is my dear friend. I would do anything the President of the United States asked me to do." [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And apparently, she has a tremendous amount of sway over Obama in terms of policy, foreign and national. That is quite something for someone who was not elected, or had to pass Congressional scrutiny.

But that is not all there is to Valerie Jarrett (or Michelle Obama). There is more that is not so glowing:

[snip]But not a word about Jarrett’s involvement in Michelle Obama’s patient-dumping scheme at the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Jarrett sat of the board of directors.

And not a word about Jarrett’s involvement in Grove Parc — the Chicago slum complex managed by Jarrett’s company, Habitat, Inc. To this day, Jarrett refuses to answer questions about the dilapidated housing development. [snip](Click here to read the rest.)

Yeah, she's a piece of work, the embodiment of a Chicago-style politics. But she also is someone who has WAY too much power in the White House, and way too much power over affairs of State.

Again, if only 80% of what the White House Insider says is true, this is damaging stuff, indeed. It explains a lot, though, including Obama's look while sitting in the Kiddy chair while the mission unfolded, and how fortunate we are that there are actual grown ups in this Administration willing to stick their necks out to protect our nation. One thing is for sure - that does not include Obama or Valerie Jarrett. When push came to shove, Obama continued to cave to Jarrett rather than listen to the people in positions to know better. His incompetence is dwarfed only by his narcissism for taking credit for results for which he had no involvement whatsoever.

One thing is crystal clear - Obama is not presidential material, and he sure as hell should not be president again. At least that's what I think. How about you?

To All The Mothers

2011-05-08T10:00:00.001-04:00

In truth, mothers should be appreciated, and celebrated, every day. But in the day to day hustle and bustle, it is often too easy to take our mothers, blood, surrogate, or chosen, for granted.

So on this day, for all of the love, support, understanding, lessons learned, and setting us on our paths, thank you. Those two words may seem small, but their meaning is large - thank you for all you have done to rear us, and let us go.

For those of us who have lost our mothers, whether recently, or long ago, may your memories comfort you, bring a smile to your face, and warm your heart. While she may be gone, she is never forgotten, nor far from the heart.

This is for you:

Another Honor Killing In The USA, Though You Probably Didn't Hear About It

2011-05-07T14:00:00.000-04:00

Yes, this past week, in the midst of all of the bin Laden coverage, and bungled PR from the White House (seriously, how can they mess up something like that? As Kirsten Powers said on the Fox News All Stars 5/6/11, that is PR 101.), there was yet another "honor" killing here in the United States.

Oh, no, you shouldn't be surprised if you haven't heard about it. It was hardly reported at all. Only a few people picked it up, including Phyllis Chesler. You can imagine while we are busy trying to appease Muslim extremists for killing bin Laden, that this was not going to be Front Page news. Not even close.

This one occurred in Michigan by Rahim Alfewahi, who lives in Minnesota. There is little doubt as to why he killed his stepdaughter, Jessica Mokdad:

A Minnesota man is accused of killing his 20-year-old stepdaughter in Michigan because she left home and wasn't following Islam, police said Tuesday.

Rahim Alfetlawi, 45, was being held without bond Tuesday in the Macomb County Jail after being charged with first-degree murder in the death of Jessica Mokdad on Saturday at her grandmother's home in the Detroit suburb of Warren. [snip]

That is to say, there is little doubt that this was an "honor" killing.

There's more:

[snip]Warren Police Detective Lt. Michael Torey said Alfetlawi went to police in neighboring Center Line to report the shooting. Torey said Alfetlawi told police the gun discharged accidentally when he pulled it out, but police believe he intentionally shot Mokdad in the head.

Torey said Mokdad had left her mother and stepfather to live with her father near Flint in Grand Blanc because she did not like their rules.

"He's a strict Muslim, she was more Americanized," Torey said. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Sigh. Another young life lost to what can only be described as a barbaric belief system in which women, and girls, are treated as property, at best.

As far as I can tell, only The New Agenda highlighted this incident by running Phyllis Chesler's post, "Jessica Mokdad, 20, Killed by her Stepfather — When Will the Media & Muslim Groups Break Their Silence on This American Honor Killing?"

It begs the question, why? Why does the mainstream media, and women's organizations, Muslim or otherwise, continue to ignore these kinds of horrific events? How many more women are going to die in this country (or any country, for that matter), before these groups, and the media, fully cover this despicable practice?

Again, it begs this question - WHY? Why are these "honor" killings going under-reported?

Seems Some Folks Aren't Happy About Bin Laden's Death

2011-05-06T14:00:00.003-04:00

That would be Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood, to name just two.

Yep, Hamas has "condemned" the killing:

While many Middle East leaders welcomed America’s military action, the mixed reaction across the region cast a shadow over both the “Arab Spring” and the future of talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

[...]

The Hamas prime minister of the Gaza strip, Ismail Haniya, said: “We condemn the assassination of a Muslim and Arab warrior and we pray to God that his soul rests in peace.

“We regard this as the continuation of the American oppression and shedding of blood of Muslims and Arabs.”

The Hamas reaction put it immediately at odds with Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, with which it is due to sign a unity deal today to join the Palestinian government.

Oops. Still, good to know where they stand, isn't it? Not that I really expected anything different from Hamas.

And how about its parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood? (And yes, Hamas grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood as its "political arm in December 1987...") Well, this headline pretty much says it all:
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Sticks With Bin Laden Uh, yeah. That does pretty much say it all, but of course, you know there is more, beginning with the lovely slogan behind the head of Mohamed Badie below:

Mohamed Badie, the leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, talks during a news conference in Cairo on November 30, 2010. The banner in the background reads: "Islam is the solution." By Amr Dalsh/Reuters

Oh, yes - they are such a moderate group, that Brotherhood, aren't they? Ahem.

Back to the article:

[snip] Most of yesterday's headlines proclaiming the death of Osama bin Laden used epithets like "terror mastermind" or "bastard" to refer to the internationally feared mass murderer. (That latter headline is from the New York Post.) But in its first public statement on the killing of bin Laden, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood used the honorific term "sheikh" to refer to the al-Qaeda leader. It also accused Western governments of linking Islam and terrorism, and defended "resistance" against the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as "legitimate."

The Muslim Brotherhood's response to bin Laden's death may finally end the mythology -- espoused frequently in the U.S. -- that the organization is moderate or, at the very least, could moderate once in power. This is, after all, precisely how Muslim Brothers describe their creed -- "moderate," as opposed to al-Qaeda, which is radical. "Moderate Islam means not using violence, denouncing terrorism, and not working with jihadists," said Muslim Brotherhood youth activist Khaled Hamza, for whom the organization's embrace of "moderate Islam" was the primary reason he joined.

Yet the Muslim Brotherhood's promise that its "moderation" means rejecting violence includes a gaping exception: the organization endorses violence against military occupations, which its leaders have told me include Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, and Palestine -- in other words, nearly every major conflict on the Eurasian continent. "I never fought in Afghanistan," Mehdi Akef, the former Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, told me in January, just before the revolt. "But I encouraged them and sent money to Bosnia and Palestine until now." Muslim Brotherhood leaders have endorsed attacks on Israeli civilians as an exception to their no-violence-except-against-occupation exception, viewing all of Israel as an occupation. "Zionism is gangs," said Akef. "It's not a country. So we will resist them until they don't have a country."

Huh. So, let's recap - the Muslim Brotherhood fancies itself "moderate" because they are not "jihadists," yet they have a jihad against the United States, and think it is A-Okay to target Israeli civilians. But they are "moderates." Got it.

Get this, though - there are even more contradictions for the Muslim Brotherhood to deal with in its propaganda attempts. Oops, I mean, in stating their credo:

The attacks of September 11, 2001, however, created a real problem for the Muslim Brotherhood's paradigms, since it was a violent attack against civilians on territory that could not be considered occupied. Rather than denounce the attacks, however, the organization chose to argue, outrageously, that Islamists were not responsible.

In some cases, Muslim Brothers have simply expressed doubts about the "theory" that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks. "I don't believe it was jihadists. It was too big an operation," said Abdel Monem Aboul Fotouh, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood Guidance Office who is often touted as one of the organization's reformers. "This was done by a country, not individuals. It's not a conspiracy theory -- it's just logical. They didn't bring this crime before the U.S. justice system until now. Why? Because it's part of a conspiracy."

Uh huh. So, even though Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda took credit for 9/11 (and a bunch of other attacks), we aren't to believe them, or retaliate for them because the Muslim Brotherhood thinks it's some cockamamie conspiracy theory? Hmm. How do I respond to that? Oh, I know - they can bite me.

Oh, but wait - it gets worse. Guess who they actually blame? This should not be a surprise:

More frequently, Muslim Brotherhood leaders blame a more predictable target. "The Jews and the Zionist lobby," Muslim Brotherhood legal thinker and former parliamentarian Sobhi Saleh declared to me one March afternoon in his Cairo office, when I asked him who was responsible for the attacks. "And this study is well-known in America and it's on the Internet. And a Christian preacher in Lebanon gave me a book on this at a conference. And it was a scientific research."

But of course, it's all Israel's fault. That's right. Sure it was. I mean, really, how can one disagree with such blinding logic? I jest - this is not logic. It's something (fill in the blank), but logic it ain't.

Finally, check out the Muslim Brotherhood's statement on the death of bin Laden. Pay close attention to their victim-hood claims:

[snip]"The whole world, and especially the Muslims, have lived with a fierce media campaign to brand Islam as terrorism and describe the Muslims as violent by blaming the September 11th incident on al-Qaeda." It then notes that "Sheikh Osama bin Laden" was assassinated alongside "a woman and one of his sons and with a number of his companions," going on to issue a rejection of violence and assassinations...

[...]

In a way, the Muslim Brotherhood's statement is vintage bin Laden: it's Muslim lands, not America, that are under attack; it's Muslims, not American civilians, who are the ultimate victims; and, despite two American presidents' genuine, effusive promises to the contrary, Islam is the target. It's an important indicator that despite its increased responsibility in post-Mubarak Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood may well remain deeply hostile toward even the one of the most basic and defensible of American interests in the Middle East -- that of securing Americans from terrorism. (Click here to read the rest.)

Indeed. Poor pitiful things - everyone is SO mean to them. Blech.

Their claims against violence are a bit of a stretch, are they not? Especially when Hamas is a part of this very organization, and they have declared Jihad against the USA, as well as violence against Israeli citizens. Honestly, though, it still boggles my mind how many Americans happily went along with this group taking over Egypt, and how many were even DEFENDING them. But you know, you just can't make some people see reason or accept facts. One would think, though, that as long as groups like this keep speaking up, those Americans who had/have no problem with the MB might just think again.

Hey, a woman can dream, can't she?