Ivana Trump Escorted Off Plane: Napolitano Declares 'The System Worked'
In response to a Nigerian Muslim trying to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day, the government will now prohibit international travelers from going to the bathroom in the last hour before the plane lands.
Terrorists who plan to bomb planes during the first seven hours of the eight-hour flight, however, should face no difficulties, provided they wait until after the complimentary beverage service has been concluded.
How do they know Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab didn't wait until the end of the flight to try to detonate explosives because he heard the stewardess announce that the food service was over and seats would have to be placed in their upright position? I can't finish my snack? This plane is going down!
Also prohibited in the last hour of international flights will be: blankets, pillows, computers and in-flight entertainment. Another triumph in Janet Napolitano's "Let's stay one step behind the terrorists" policy!
For the past eight years, approximately 2 million Americans a day have been subjected to humiliating searches at airport security checkpoints, forced to remove their shoes and jackets, to open their computers, and to remove all liquids from their carry-on bags, except minuscule amounts in marked 3-ounce containers placed in Ziploc plastic bags -- folding sandwich bags are verboten -- among other indignities.
This, allegedly, was the price we had to pay for safe airplanes. The one security precaution the government refused to consider was to require extra screening for passengers who looked like the last three-dozen terrorists to attack airplanes.
Since Muslims took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, every attack on a commercial airliner has been committed by foreign-born Muslim men with the same hair color, eye color and skin color. Half of them have been named Mohammed.
An alien from the planet "Not Politically Correct" would have surveyed the situation after 9/11 and said: "You are at war with an enemy without uniforms, without morals, without a country and without a leader -- but the one advantage you have is they all look alike. ... What? ... What did I say?"
The only advantage we have in a war with stateless terrorists was ruled out of order ab initio by political correctness.
And so, despite 5 trillion Americans opening laptops, surrendering lip gloss and drinking breast milk in airports day after day for the past eight years, the government still couldn't stop a Nigerian Muslim from nearly blowing up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day.
The "warning signs" exhibited by this particular passenger included the following:
His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
He's Nigerian.
He's a Muslim.
His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
He boarded a plane in Lagos, Nigeria.
He paid nearly $3,000 in cash for his ticket.
He had no luggage.
His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
Two months ago, his father warned the U.S. that he was a radical Muslim and possibly dangerous.
If our security procedures can't stop this guy, can't we just dispense with those procedures altogether? What's the point exactly?
(To be fair, the father's warning might have been taken more seriously if he had not simultaneously asked for the U.S. Embassy's Social Security number and bank routing number in order to convey a $28 million inheritance that was trapped in a Nigerian bank account.)
The warning from Abdulmutallab's father put his son on some list, but not the "no fly" list. Apparently, it's tougher to get on the "no fly" list than it was to get into Studio 54 in the '70s. Currently, the only people on the "no fly" list" are the Blind Sheik and Sean Penn.
The government is like the drunk looking for his keys under a lamppost. Someone stops to help, and asks, "Is this where you lost them?" No, the drunk answers, but the light's better here.
The government refuses to perform the only possibly effective security check -- search Muslims -- so instead it harasses infinitely compliant Americans. Will that help avert a terrorist attack? No, but the Americans don't complain.
The only reason Abdulmutallab didn't succeed in bringing down an airplane with 278 passengers was that: (1) A brave Dutchman leapt from his seat and extinguished the smoldering Nigerian; and (2) the Nigerian apparently didn't have enough detonating fluid to cause a powerful explosion.
In addition to the no blanket, no computer, no bathroom rule, perhaps the airlines could add this to their preflight announcement about seat belts and emergency exits: "Should a passenger sitting near you attempt to detonate an explosive device, you may be called upon to render emergency assistance. Would you be willing to do so under those circumstances? If not we will assign you another seat ..."
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Drunk With Power
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana) seems to be a little tipsy on the floor of the United States Senate.
Outrageous.
Outrageous.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Muslims Brothers Sell Sister At Auction
The Nation reports that members of the "Religion of Peace" sold their sister at a public auction.
JACOBABAD - A 20-year-old girl was auctioned at village Badani Bhutto of Taluka Kashmore in consideration of Rs2,70,000 on Saturday.
Azizan, daughter of late Allah Bux Bhutto, was divorced on the allegation of Karo-kari some time back. She is stated to be mother of two children and was residing with her brother who held the open auction for her 'sale' at village Badani Bhutto.
A large number of villagers showed interest in the auction that started with Rs50,000 and ended at Rs270,000. Bilawal Bhutto, 50, of the same village purchased her for the said amount. Initially he paid Rs210,000 for the girl.
Maulana Azizullah Bhutto performed their nikah [marriage] later.
It is irony of the situation that no one condemned the inhuman act. The groom will take the bride to his house after paying the rest of the amount. The auction money was distributed equally among all the brothers of the girl.
JACOBABAD - A 20-year-old girl was auctioned at village Badani Bhutto of Taluka Kashmore in consideration of Rs2,70,000 on Saturday.
Azizan, daughter of late Allah Bux Bhutto, was divorced on the allegation of Karo-kari some time back. She is stated to be mother of two children and was residing with her brother who held the open auction for her 'sale' at village Badani Bhutto.
A large number of villagers showed interest in the auction that started with Rs50,000 and ended at Rs270,000. Bilawal Bhutto, 50, of the same village purchased her for the said amount. Initially he paid Rs210,000 for the girl.
Maulana Azizullah Bhutto performed their nikah [marriage] later.
It is irony of the situation that no one condemned the inhuman act. The groom will take the bride to his house after paying the rest of the amount. The auction money was distributed equally among all the brothers of the girl.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The Beginning of An Exodus?
The Politico has reported that Parker Griffith, a freshman Democratic Representative from Alabama, will leave the DemocRATic party to become a Republican.
A radiation oncologist who founded a cancer treatment center, Griffith plans to blast the Democratic health care bill as a prime reason for his decision to switch parties—and is expected to cite his medical background as his authority on the subject.
While the timing of his announcement was unexpected, Griffith’s party switch will not come as a surprise to those familiar with his voting record, which is one of the most conservative among Democrats.
He was one of only 11 House Democrats to vote against the stimulus.
In August — one month after Republicans picked up his former state legislative seat in a special election — Griffith told a local newspaper that he wouldn't vote for Nancy Pelosi to remain as House Speaker because she's too divisive. He joked that if she didn’t like it, he’d provide her with a gift certificate to a mental health center. (Don't you love this guy?!)
Harry Reid Tribute. (I Can't Wait 'Till The 2010 Election)
Harry Reid Before the Surge: Iraq War Is Lost
Rush Announces eBay Charity Auction of Harry Reid's Letter
GOP Ad: Harry Reid and AIG - "In the Room When The Deals Are Made"
Reid Claims: Taxation is "Voluntary"
Reid tries to sneak Card Check into Health Bill.
Reid calls Bush and his mother a b*tch.
From Rush's Site.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
White House Contacts Morning Joe While Show Is On Air
During the 'Morning Joe' Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski show on MSNBC the other morning the White House was upset with all the guests that were coming on the show. So they got ahold of the hosts of the show directly to complain or tell them that they need allow equal time to those who are in favor of Obamacare.
The next day they had Axelrod on to rebutt what had been said the previous day about the healthcare bill.
We know this because Ed Schultz, who also works for MSNBC, witnessed the whole thing.
Is it really possible that the White House has a direct line to MSNBC's hosts, communicating with them during their live broadcasts? Now THAT'S state control!
Now, imagine if Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, or another non-"progressive" host had been caught taking orders from Bush during the program. When would we ever hear the end of that?
Thanks to Radioequalizer.
The next day they had Axelrod on to rebutt what had been said the previous day about the healthcare bill.
We know this because Ed Schultz, who also works for MSNBC, witnessed the whole thing.
Is it really possible that the White House has a direct line to MSNBC's hosts, communicating with them during their live broadcasts? Now THAT'S state control!
Now, imagine if Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, or another non-"progressive" host had been caught taking orders from Bush during the program. When would we ever hear the end of that?
Thanks to Radioequalizer.
Rock The Vote's New Ad Campaign
Here is an ad for the new Rock The Vote campaign. It tells young people to use sex to get those who don't want UK-style healthcare intetested in the topic and to support it. It also tells them to withold sex from those who oppose it. Outrageous.
Thanks non-partisan Rock The Vote. Thanks for telling our kids it's ok to use their bodies as bargaining chips to get supporters for HELLthcare. I hope STDs are covered under the plan... if it passes.
Thanks non-partisan Rock The Vote. Thanks for telling our kids it's ok to use their bodies as bargaining chips to get supporters for HELLthcare. I hope STDs are covered under the plan... if it passes.
Monday, December 21, 2009
SOLD! You Just Bought Sen. Ben Nelson's Healthcare Vote.
Read my finger. Your tax dollars are mine!
Harry did it again.Late last night Harry Reid was busy promising Sen. Nelson that his state wouldn't have to pay for the new Medicaid expansion in the HELLthcare bill....because the Federal Government would pick up the tab.
That's right. Reid promised our money to a Senator for a needed 60th vote to pass the health care bill.
Read it here.
Ann Coulter's Latest Column...A Must Read.
LESS HEALTH CARE FOR MORE MONEY: WHAT'S THE CATCH?
The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof recently wrote a column about John Brodniak of Oregon, who developed a cavernous hemangioma, causing him great pain as blood leaks into his brain.
According to Kristof, Brodniak can't get medical help because we don't have universal health care. Senators who vote against ObamaCare, Kristof said, are morally equivalent to someone who would walk past a man "writhing in pain on the sidewalk."
In another article in the Times, William Yardley wrote about Melvin Tsosies -- also of Oregon -- who ended up with $200,000 in medical bills after having a heart attack.
As of March 2008, Yardley reported, Tsosies was waiting to find out if he would win the Oregon lottery for health insurance. But with 600,000 uninsured state residents and a "universal" health care program with only enough money to pay for about 24,000 of them, Tsosies is more likely to win a Powerball lottery.
How can this be happening? Oregon already has "universal health care"! (Probably just a coincidence, but isn't Oregon also the only state with physician-assisted suicide?)
Once again forgetting about the existence of the Internet, the Times neglects to mention its own erstwhile enthusiasm for Oregon's universal health care plan, introduced back in 1990.
Back then, the Times published an editorial titled "Oregon's Brave Medical Experiment," hailing this technocratic monstrosity as an example of "hardheaded compassion" designed to make "health coverage available to many more families."
Ron Wyden -- then a congressman from Oregon, now a U.S. senator at the forefront of pushing "universal health care" onto the nation -- said: "This is a strong dramatic step toward universal access of health care." He predicted, "this is going to be copied everywhere."
No wonder Wyden is such an ardent proponent of national health care -- it will force states that didn't adopt these idiotic universal health care schemes to bail out the ones that did.
Liberals cite medical horror stories from the very states they once cheered for enacting universal health care in order to argue for a national health care plan that will wreck the entire nation's medical care the same way liberal states already wrecked their own medical care.
Only Democrats could propose fixing one Bernie Madoff-style scam with an even bigger Bernie Madoff-style scam.
Maybe when national universal health care fails, we'll be able to go international. Then interplanetary -- then interstellar! Why should I pay for my gall bladder surgery when some Venusian could?
Eighty-five percent of Americans are happy with their health care, but Democrats have a plan to make it worse for more money. As a bonus, national health care will add trillions of dollars to the national debt, and your insurance rates will skyrocket.
Democrats are being utterly disingenuous to say that you won't have to leave your current plan under national health care. Maybe, but it won't be your choice: Your employer will be making that decision for you.
Recall that one of the big selling points of national health care is that it is supposed to reduce costs for American businesses. The only way national health care will make American companies "more competitive" is if they dump their employees into the public health care system.
It's so weird! We expected X number of people to show up for health care and instead 75X showed up! Yeah, just like every other government program in the history of the world.
Ten years from now, we'll be talking about cost overruns of $6 trillion -- but by then, national health care will be an untouchable "third rail" of politics, just as Medicare is now. (Ironically, injuries sustained from actually touching the third rail won't be covered under ObamaCare.)
As with Medicare, voters will be terrified to go back to even the wisp of a free market system we have now, afraid that they'll never be able to get health insurance without the government providing it. Having been dragged unwillingly into the government plan, how will a 58-year-old be able to leave the public system and get insurance on the free market?
Speaking of which, how many of you are planning to retire on your Social Security benefits? Just you there, with the shopping cart full of cans?
The only solution will be for the government to keep running up gigantic deficits and raising taxes on "the rich," which, in turn, will stifle job creation and economic growth in a phenomenon known to economists as "the Carter years."
In addition to forcing Americans into dealing with surly government workers in order to obtain medical care, sooner or later, there's no free lunch. (And if government X-rays are anything like the photos the DMV takes for your license, count me out. I don't want my lungs looking like they had a bad hair day.)
Even if national health care puts the screws to doctors and pharmaceutical companies by reimbursing them below cost -- so all future doctors will soon resemble DMV employees and no new drugs will ever be invented -- the government is still going to have to cut services and pay for the system with massive tax hikes.
Which is exactly what happened with Oregon's "Brave Medical Experiment."
Saturday, December 19, 2009
UK: The Supreme Court this week effectively made the Jewish religion illegal
The Jewish Free School (JFS), a very successful secondary school in Brent, is run along Orthodox Jewish lines. A dispute arose about the admission of a boy known as M. M's mother became Jewish by conversion, but only after giving birth to M. According to Orthodox rules (see that chapter of Deuteronomy), Jewishness passes through the female line. M, therefore, was not Jewish, and so did not have the right of admission to the JFS.
The Supreme Court, however, decided by a majority of five to four that the decision to exclude M was in contravention of section one of the Race Relations Act. He was excluded on racial grounds, it held.
The court is effectively saying that a religion's way of defining its own membership, practised over 3,500 years, is illegal. This is an acute problem for Jews, who are at great pains to maintain their own rules while respecting the law of the land. It will also be used by anti-Jewish groups, which are growing in strength, to bolster their argument that Judaism is racist and that the state of Israel is the equivalent of apartheid South Africa. So the Race Relations Act, set up to help minorities, ends up punishing them.
The judgment goes wider still. It is part of a current idea of equality and of human rights which, in the name of freedom, is beginning to look like tyranny.
\
Read the whole article.
The Supreme Court, however, decided by a majority of five to four that the decision to exclude M was in contravention of section one of the Race Relations Act. He was excluded on racial grounds, it held.
The court is effectively saying that a religion's way of defining its own membership, practised over 3,500 years, is illegal. This is an acute problem for Jews, who are at great pains to maintain their own rules while respecting the law of the land. It will also be used by anti-Jewish groups, which are growing in strength, to bolster their argument that Judaism is racist and that the state of Israel is the equivalent of apartheid South Africa. So the Race Relations Act, set up to help minorities, ends up punishing them.
The judgment goes wider still. It is part of a current idea of equality and of human rights which, in the name of freedom, is beginning to look like tyranny.
\
Read the whole article.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Lead Negotiator For The Small Island Nation Of Tuvalu Cries At Climate Conference
Ian Frye
Ian Frye cried in Copenhagen this week as he pleaded with world leaders to take aciton:
"I woke up this morning crying, and that's not easy for a grown man to admit," Mr Fry said on Saturday, as his eyes welled with tears.
The fate of my country rests in your hands," he concluded, as the audience exploded with wild applause.
Correction: The fate of his career rests in world leader's hands:
A career environmentalist who once worked as a Greenpeace political liaison officer, Mr Fry has found his niche in global climate change talks over the past 10 years, representing small Pacific nations and running the climate negotiations for the Association of Small Island States.
He's not the only one turning on the water works for the Gaia religion either.
Meet Bill McKibben.
In his article he says:
This afternoon I sobbed for an hour, and I'm still choking a little. I got to Copenhagen's main Lutheran Cathedral just before the start of a special service designed to mark the conference underway for the next week. It was jammed, but I squeezed into a chair near the corner. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, gave the sermon; Desmond Tutu read the Psalm. Both were wonderful.
But my tears started before anyone said a word. As the service started, dozens choristers from around the world carried three things down the aisle and to the altar: pieces of dead coral bleached by hot ocean temperatures; stones uncovered by retreating glaciers; and small, shriveled ears of corn from drought-stricken parts of Africa. As I watched them go by, all I could think of was the people I've met in the last couple of years traveling the world: the people living in the valleys where those glaciers are disappearing, and the people downstream who have no backup plan for where their water is going to come from. The people who live on the islands surrounded by that coral, who depend on the reefs for the fish they eat, and to protect their homes from the waves. And the people, on every corner of the world, dealing with drought and flood, already unable to earn their daily bread in the places where their ancestors farmed for generations.
Weather (like that?) to secure your career or to force your religion on others, this kind of behavior is silly when the evidence isn't in.
WAR!
Civil war has begun in both the Domocrat and Republican parties.
Howard Dean (former Democratic National Committee Chairman) this week called on everyone to "KILL THE (healthcare) BILL" because it had no public option. Soon afterwards Obama's main squeeze David Axelrod called him "insane." (I agree with Axelrod, but for other reasons.)
Gibbs also called Dean irraitonal. These are Obama's guys attacking one of the most liberal guys in the party.
Joe Lieberman is also being attacked via his wife. Some have called for her to be released from a global ambasador position while others have called Lieberman "not really Jewish" for not wanting to vote with the Obamaites.
Michael "Capitalism Sucks" Moore has even threatened to boycott the whole state of New Hampshire because of Lieberman's inaction.
There are also many moderate Democrats now who are calling for the President to get with it and be the president and make the bill pass.
Inside the Republican party, there has been a rift as well.
On December 7th Rasmussen reported that on a generic ballot, the Tea Party (23%) had more voters than the Republican Party (18%).
Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.
Seventy percent (70%) of Republican voters have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement while only seven percent (7%) offer an unfavorable view.
GOP members are just sick of the Republicans not standing up for their principles and values and have taken a few steps to the left in recent years.
Will the Tea Party become America's third political party? I don't think so. There are too many hurdles for the party to leap over. Although it has been registered as a party in Florida.
Howard Dean (former Democratic National Committee Chairman) this week called on everyone to "KILL THE (healthcare) BILL" because it had no public option. Soon afterwards Obama's main squeeze David Axelrod called him "insane." (I agree with Axelrod, but for other reasons.)
Gibbs also called Dean irraitonal. These are Obama's guys attacking one of the most liberal guys in the party.
Joe Lieberman is also being attacked via his wife. Some have called for her to be released from a global ambasador position while others have called Lieberman "not really Jewish" for not wanting to vote with the Obamaites.
Michael "Capitalism Sucks" Moore has even threatened to boycott the whole state of New Hampshire because of Lieberman's inaction.
There are also many moderate Democrats now who are calling for the President to get with it and be the president and make the bill pass.
Inside the Republican party, there has been a rift as well.
On December 7th Rasmussen reported that on a generic ballot, the Tea Party (23%) had more voters than the Republican Party (18%).
Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.
Seventy percent (70%) of Republican voters have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement while only seven percent (7%) offer an unfavorable view.
GOP members are just sick of the Republicans not standing up for their principles and values and have taken a few steps to the left in recent years.
Will the Tea Party become America's third political party? I don't think so. There are too many hurdles for the party to leap over. Although it has been registered as a party in Florida.
The Happiest States Are Conservative
The University of Warwick and Hamilton College have ranked the states and DC in order of the peoples happiness.
In the top 10 there are 2 light blue states and one that could go either way. Is it coincidence that New York, Michigan, and Massachusetts are near the bottom?
This is a direct refleciton of how liberal policies hurt people and economies.
One researcher concluded:
This suggests that life-satisfaction survey data might be very useful for governments to use in the design of economic and social policies.
Here is the list:
1. Louisiana
2. Hawaii
3. Florida
4. Tennessee
5. Arizona
6. Mississippi
7. Montana
8. South Carolina
9. Alabama
10. Maine
11. Alaska
12. North Carolina
13. Wyoming
14. Idaho
15. South Dakota
16. Texas
17. Arkansas
18. Vermont
19. Georgia
20. Oklahoma
21. Colorado
22. Delaware
23. Utah
24. New Mexico
25. North Dakota
26. Minnesota
27. New Hampshire
28. Virginia
29. Wisconsin
30. Oregon
31. Iowa
32. Kansas
33. Nebraska
34. West Virginia
35. Kentucky
36. Washington
37. District of Columbia
38. Missouri
39. Nevada
40. Maryland
41. Pennsylvania
42. Rhode Island
43. Massachusetts
44. Ohio
45. Illinois
46. California
47. Indiana
48. Michigan
49. New Jersey
50. Connecticut
51. New York
In the top 10 there are 2 light blue states and one that could go either way. Is it coincidence that New York, Michigan, and Massachusetts are near the bottom?
This is a direct refleciton of how liberal policies hurt people and economies.
One researcher concluded:
This suggests that life-satisfaction survey data might be very useful for governments to use in the design of economic and social policies.
Here is the list:
1. Louisiana
2. Hawaii
3. Florida
4. Tennessee
5. Arizona
6. Mississippi
7. Montana
8. South Carolina
9. Alabama
10. Maine
11. Alaska
12. North Carolina
13. Wyoming
14. Idaho
15. South Dakota
16. Texas
17. Arkansas
18. Vermont
19. Georgia
20. Oklahoma
21. Colorado
22. Delaware
23. Utah
24. New Mexico
25. North Dakota
26. Minnesota
27. New Hampshire
28. Virginia
29. Wisconsin
30. Oregon
31. Iowa
32. Kansas
33. Nebraska
34. West Virginia
35. Kentucky
36. Washington
37. District of Columbia
38. Missouri
39. Nevada
40. Maryland
41. Pennsylvania
42. Rhode Island
43. Massachusetts
44. Ohio
45. Illinois
46. California
47. Indiana
48. Michigan
49. New Jersey
50. Connecticut
51. New York
Thursday, December 17, 2009
A bunch of $%*& Coming From the Mo&*er F&*#ing White House
-Sorry. I found this in the archives. I should have posted it long ago. -
The Politico
recently reported that expletives are more common than not at the White House these days.
President Barack Obama called rap star Kanye West “a jackass.” Vice President Joe Biden told a senator to “Gimme a f—-ing break!” Economic adviser Christina Romer declared that Americans had yet to have their "holy s—-” moment over the economy.
Those who pay attention to political rhetoric say an unusual amount of profanity has emanated from this White House – even without counting famously colorful White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. But before this statement becomes fodder for yet another partisan debate (with conservatives saying Obama is disgracing the presidency, and liberals that the media are once again being unfair), they quickly add that Team Obama is no crasser than administrations past. It’s just that they are being quoted more accurately.
What’s different, according to linguists, media analysts and reporters who’ve covered past administrations is the media: Networks and newspapers have become far more willing to run with quotes, video and audio of political figures and their aides saying things that never used to be repeated. They attribute the growth of the political potty mouth alternately to the proliferation of recording technologies; intense interest in all things Obama; the explosion of new media platforms that both circumvent and push traditional media while sharpening competition; a general coarsening of the public dialogue; or some combination of all of those factors.
“Cursing happened all the time, across the board, wherever you went in the White House or on the trail or in campaign offices – it simply wasn’t written about,” said Haynes Johnson, a former reporter for The Washington Post who covered the campaigns or presidencies of every president from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton, and has written books about the working White House, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and, most recently, the 2008 presidential election.
Presidents Johnson and Nixon were known for their salty tongues. And though they were seldom quoted cursing in contemporary media accounts, coverage of the Watergate tapes – in which Nixon was recorded liberally tossing around vulgarity, as well as disparaging Jews and African Americans– marked the first time many newspapers printed the slang word for manure, and foreshadowed a dilemma common for media outlets in the YouTube era.
The occasion was the release of a secret recording from the infamous White House tapes in which Nixon urged an aide to cover-up the White House’s role in the Watergate break-in, saying in part “I don't give a s—- what happens, I want you all to stonewall it."
Then- New York Times editor Abe Rosenthal explained at the time that the paper did not intend to put the word in regular circulation, famously declaring “We'll only take s—- from the president."
At the Post, Johnson said “we had a huge discussion about this and it finally got in,” but he added “in most of these conversations that I am talking about, there was an understanding that you weren’t going to quote that language. The same way you didn’t write about Jack Kennedy and sex. It was the same attitude."
“You protected your sources. You did not want to embarrass them. You really wanted to know who these people were, and you wanted them to be honest with you and if they were going to watch their words and watch their language, they’re not going to talk to you.”
Johnson said the more frequent quoting of politicians’ profane proclamations or airing of clips containing them “is part of today’s media environment and the competition to get hot stuff,” but he warned the trend risks making it even more difficult for reporters to get unfiltered access to and information from politicians.
“It erodes further the trust between the government and the news gatherers,” he said. “I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t report what someone said if it’s illuminating. I’m only saying you should tread lightly. Just sprinkling four letter words into your quotations, I think, is ridiculous.”
A story in the Oct. 12 New Yorker about Obama’s economic team was a good example of the kind of unexpurgated language reporters now feel freer to quote.
In the story, Emanuel demands to know "what the f--- are you guys doing" when Treasury officials spring complicated ideas on him, Biden calls economic adviser Larry Summers "the smartest son of a bitch" and Obama political guru David Axelrod refers to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner as "that poor son of a bitch."
Ryan Lizza, who wrote the story and has become known for his ability to elicit candid talk from key members of Obama's inner circle, said he included the language to give his readers insight into the personalities of the people shaping national economic policy.
“I always try to use quotes that tell the reader a little bit about how this person actually speaks in real life, which hopefully will tell you a little bit about what they’re like,” said Lizza, who described swearing as “one of the signifiers of authenticity.”
In a story about the presidential race that ran after Election Day, Lizza quoted top Obama aide Jim Messina saying that being in charge of the campaign's record-setting budget was "like getting the keys to a f---ing Ferrari" and scheduler Alyssa Mastromonaco recounting being told that because of no-drama Team Obama ethos "you can't be a bitch" while working on the campaign. Both are now working in the White House.
Though Lizza, who is also writing a book about Obama’s first year in office, conceded that one of the people quoted cursing in the economic crisis story “would have preferred not to have the word used,” he professed to be unconcerned that reporting that kind of language would curtail his access. No one quoted swearing in his economic crisis story responded to messages from POLITICO asking whether they avoid talking to reporters who quote them so accurately.
As for the New Yorker, which specializes in nuanced, long-form narrative journalism, Lizza said, "we don't have an official policy that I know of" dictating when profanity can - and can't - be used.
POLITICO generally discourages including swearing, and many more traditional media outlets have stricter policies, requiring profanity to somehow be essential to a story in order to be included, even in quotes from a politician.
The Los Angeles Times flatly states in its internal policy that “Obscenities, profanity, vulgarities and coarse language, even in their milder forms, should not be used in The Times -- in print or online -- unless they are germane to the essence of a story. … attempts to be merely colorful, vivid, clever or conversational, or to reflect common practices of other media, do not meet that standard.”
The New York Times in 2006 quoted former President George W. Bush, unknowingly recorded during an international summit in Russia, swearing in describing Hezbollah aggression towards Israel. But the paper – and many others – did not quote Bush in 2000 when another live microphone caught him describing one of the Times’s own reporters, Adam Clymer, as a “major league a—hole,” and Vice President Dick Cheney agreeing with him.
“I was a little disappointed that he didn’t call me ‘world class,’” Clymer joked to POLITICO. A veteran of nearly 40 years covering national politics, Clymer remembers it being a lot more difficult to get a quoted curse into print years ago. He recalled that when he covered the 1972 presidential election for The Baltimore Sun, he had to go over the national editor’s head to include a quote from Democratic nominee George McGovern telling a heckler in Michigan: “Kiss my a--!’
McGovern is "really a very mild-mannered guy, so it was evidence of the degree of frustration with his political situation," Clymer said. He thinks that swearing has become more common in political coverage in recent years "because of the general coarsening of the American vocabulary. These words are used by more people who wouldn't have used them before, and so it seems like a more normal part of speech.”
Another factor, according to Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, is that the mainstream media are being pushed to expand the range of acceptable language by bloggers, tweeters and YouTube users, who are able to post audio and video files documenting the words of politicians.
“We’re rapidly approaching the point where anybody in public life is going to have to assume that anything they say outside of the privacy of their personal staff or family could actually be not just quoted verbatim, but also recorded on video,” said Rosensteil. “And once it’s on YouTube, it could show up on the CBS Evening News.”
That dynamic, he said, makes it almost impossible “for politicians to maintain the kind of formality that politicians could maintain in the middle of the 20th century.”
Stories quoting politicians cursing sometimes seem intended to elicit shock by playing to American puritanical instincts, but may actually help make those quoted seem more sympathetic, according to Timothy Jay, a psychology professor at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts who’s written two books on the subject: “Cursing in America” and “Why We Curse.”
“In a way, it makes these politicians seem more real,” Jay said, “like they have emotions and they get angry and they get excited about things.”
The mixed reactions to off-color language on the part of the media came to the fore after Obama in a video feed received by television stations before an interview with CNBC called the rapper West “a jackass” for interrupting a presentation at a music video awards show.
“Obama just looks like a regular guy telling it like it is,” wrote columnist Henry Blodget in a blog post that deemed the remark “brilliant.”
But ABC News reporter Terry Moran in the Twitter post – or tweet – that first drew wide notice to Obama’s insult, wrote "Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a "jackass" for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won. Now THAT'S presidential."
Moran quickly removed the tweet and ABC News apologized for his “prematurely tweet(ing) a portion of those remarks that turned out to be from an off-the-record portion of the interview.”
POLITICO, which had posted the video, later removed it.
The Politico
recently reported that expletives are more common than not at the White House these days.
President Barack Obama called rap star Kanye West “a jackass.” Vice President Joe Biden told a senator to “Gimme a f—-ing break!” Economic adviser Christina Romer declared that Americans had yet to have their "holy s—-” moment over the economy.
Those who pay attention to political rhetoric say an unusual amount of profanity has emanated from this White House – even without counting famously colorful White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. But before this statement becomes fodder for yet another partisan debate (with conservatives saying Obama is disgracing the presidency, and liberals that the media are once again being unfair), they quickly add that Team Obama is no crasser than administrations past. It’s just that they are being quoted more accurately.
What’s different, according to linguists, media analysts and reporters who’ve covered past administrations is the media: Networks and newspapers have become far more willing to run with quotes, video and audio of political figures and their aides saying things that never used to be repeated. They attribute the growth of the political potty mouth alternately to the proliferation of recording technologies; intense interest in all things Obama; the explosion of new media platforms that both circumvent and push traditional media while sharpening competition; a general coarsening of the public dialogue; or some combination of all of those factors.
“Cursing happened all the time, across the board, wherever you went in the White House or on the trail or in campaign offices – it simply wasn’t written about,” said Haynes Johnson, a former reporter for The Washington Post who covered the campaigns or presidencies of every president from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton, and has written books about the working White House, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and, most recently, the 2008 presidential election.
Presidents Johnson and Nixon were known for their salty tongues. And though they were seldom quoted cursing in contemporary media accounts, coverage of the Watergate tapes – in which Nixon was recorded liberally tossing around vulgarity, as well as disparaging Jews and African Americans– marked the first time many newspapers printed the slang word for manure, and foreshadowed a dilemma common for media outlets in the YouTube era.
The occasion was the release of a secret recording from the infamous White House tapes in which Nixon urged an aide to cover-up the White House’s role in the Watergate break-in, saying in part “I don't give a s—- what happens, I want you all to stonewall it."
Then- New York Times editor Abe Rosenthal explained at the time that the paper did not intend to put the word in regular circulation, famously declaring “We'll only take s—- from the president."
At the Post, Johnson said “we had a huge discussion about this and it finally got in,” but he added “in most of these conversations that I am talking about, there was an understanding that you weren’t going to quote that language. The same way you didn’t write about Jack Kennedy and sex. It was the same attitude."
“You protected your sources. You did not want to embarrass them. You really wanted to know who these people were, and you wanted them to be honest with you and if they were going to watch their words and watch their language, they’re not going to talk to you.”
Johnson said the more frequent quoting of politicians’ profane proclamations or airing of clips containing them “is part of today’s media environment and the competition to get hot stuff,” but he warned the trend risks making it even more difficult for reporters to get unfiltered access to and information from politicians.
“It erodes further the trust between the government and the news gatherers,” he said. “I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t report what someone said if it’s illuminating. I’m only saying you should tread lightly. Just sprinkling four letter words into your quotations, I think, is ridiculous.”
A story in the Oct. 12 New Yorker about Obama’s economic team was a good example of the kind of unexpurgated language reporters now feel freer to quote.
In the story, Emanuel demands to know "what the f--- are you guys doing" when Treasury officials spring complicated ideas on him, Biden calls economic adviser Larry Summers "the smartest son of a bitch" and Obama political guru David Axelrod refers to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner as "that poor son of a bitch."
Ryan Lizza, who wrote the story and has become known for his ability to elicit candid talk from key members of Obama's inner circle, said he included the language to give his readers insight into the personalities of the people shaping national economic policy.
“I always try to use quotes that tell the reader a little bit about how this person actually speaks in real life, which hopefully will tell you a little bit about what they’re like,” said Lizza, who described swearing as “one of the signifiers of authenticity.”
In a story about the presidential race that ran after Election Day, Lizza quoted top Obama aide Jim Messina saying that being in charge of the campaign's record-setting budget was "like getting the keys to a f---ing Ferrari" and scheduler Alyssa Mastromonaco recounting being told that because of no-drama Team Obama ethos "you can't be a bitch" while working on the campaign. Both are now working in the White House.
Though Lizza, who is also writing a book about Obama’s first year in office, conceded that one of the people quoted cursing in the economic crisis story “would have preferred not to have the word used,” he professed to be unconcerned that reporting that kind of language would curtail his access. No one quoted swearing in his economic crisis story responded to messages from POLITICO asking whether they avoid talking to reporters who quote them so accurately.
As for the New Yorker, which specializes in nuanced, long-form narrative journalism, Lizza said, "we don't have an official policy that I know of" dictating when profanity can - and can't - be used.
POLITICO generally discourages including swearing, and many more traditional media outlets have stricter policies, requiring profanity to somehow be essential to a story in order to be included, even in quotes from a politician.
The Los Angeles Times flatly states in its internal policy that “Obscenities, profanity, vulgarities and coarse language, even in their milder forms, should not be used in The Times -- in print or online -- unless they are germane to the essence of a story. … attempts to be merely colorful, vivid, clever or conversational, or to reflect common practices of other media, do not meet that standard.”
The New York Times in 2006 quoted former President George W. Bush, unknowingly recorded during an international summit in Russia, swearing in describing Hezbollah aggression towards Israel. But the paper – and many others – did not quote Bush in 2000 when another live microphone caught him describing one of the Times’s own reporters, Adam Clymer, as a “major league a—hole,” and Vice President Dick Cheney agreeing with him.
“I was a little disappointed that he didn’t call me ‘world class,’” Clymer joked to POLITICO. A veteran of nearly 40 years covering national politics, Clymer remembers it being a lot more difficult to get a quoted curse into print years ago. He recalled that when he covered the 1972 presidential election for The Baltimore Sun, he had to go over the national editor’s head to include a quote from Democratic nominee George McGovern telling a heckler in Michigan: “Kiss my a--!’
McGovern is "really a very mild-mannered guy, so it was evidence of the degree of frustration with his political situation," Clymer said. He thinks that swearing has become more common in political coverage in recent years "because of the general coarsening of the American vocabulary. These words are used by more people who wouldn't have used them before, and so it seems like a more normal part of speech.”
Another factor, according to Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, is that the mainstream media are being pushed to expand the range of acceptable language by bloggers, tweeters and YouTube users, who are able to post audio and video files documenting the words of politicians.
“We’re rapidly approaching the point where anybody in public life is going to have to assume that anything they say outside of the privacy of their personal staff or family could actually be not just quoted verbatim, but also recorded on video,” said Rosensteil. “And once it’s on YouTube, it could show up on the CBS Evening News.”
That dynamic, he said, makes it almost impossible “for politicians to maintain the kind of formality that politicians could maintain in the middle of the 20th century.”
Stories quoting politicians cursing sometimes seem intended to elicit shock by playing to American puritanical instincts, but may actually help make those quoted seem more sympathetic, according to Timothy Jay, a psychology professor at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts who’s written two books on the subject: “Cursing in America” and “Why We Curse.”
“In a way, it makes these politicians seem more real,” Jay said, “like they have emotions and they get angry and they get excited about things.”
The mixed reactions to off-color language on the part of the media came to the fore after Obama in a video feed received by television stations before an interview with CNBC called the rapper West “a jackass” for interrupting a presentation at a music video awards show.
“Obama just looks like a regular guy telling it like it is,” wrote columnist Henry Blodget in a blog post that deemed the remark “brilliant.”
But ABC News reporter Terry Moran in the Twitter post – or tweet – that first drew wide notice to Obama’s insult, wrote "Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a "jackass" for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won. Now THAT'S presidential."
Moran quickly removed the tweet and ABC News apologized for his “prematurely tweet(ing) a portion of those remarks that turned out to be from an off-the-record portion of the interview.”
POLITICO, which had posted the video, later removed it.
Jack Cafferty All But Endorses Global One-Child Policy to Fight Climate Change
If Jack (and all folowers of the Global Climate Change religion) thinks that we should adhere to the One-Child Policy , then he should start by offing himself. He's old and about to die anyway. No one watches his show. And he could be the first martyr for his Green Religion.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
No Jesus Allowed!
A class of second graders in Taunton, MA. was asked to draw a picture of what Christmas means to them. The boy drew the above picture. It's Jesus on the cross.
The teacher was outraged and sent him home after telling him his picture was "violent." He us due to undergo phychiatric evaluating.
I guess it's only ok to talk about fisting in schools.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Obama to Oprah: I'd give first year a B-plus
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Martha Coakley unfit to replace Ted Kennedy as Senator
The Attorney General of the state of Massachusetts, Martha Coakley, was voted as the Senate nominee for her state by Massachusetts democrats in Tuesday's primary election. If elected she will replace the late Ted Kennedy.
In short, the Amirault family, Gerald, Violet, and Cheryl, owned a day care center and it had been running smoothly for years. During the 1980's child molestation hysteria they were all charged with multiple counts of child sex abuse. The kids claimed to have been raped by Gerald who was wearing a clown costume at the time in a "magic room." Others said they were sodomized with 2 foot knives and a lobster. And most of these alegedly took place on the front lawn in plain view of the nearby highway.
Bodily fluids were never found, kids never complained of pain, and parents didn't find any evidence of sexual abuse on their kids. Not one child admited to the abuse...until therapists got there and they were pressured to "admit." The interviewing techniques in the Amirault case were so successful that the children also made accusations against three other teachers, two imaginary people named "Mr. Gatt" and "Al" and even against the child therapist herself.
Coakley didn't put them in jail or prosecute the case. She did something worse.
In July 2001, the notoriously tough Massachusetts parole board voted unanimously to grant Gerald Amirault clemency. Although the parole board is not permitted to consider guilt or innocence, its recommendation said: "(I)t is clearly a matter of public knowledge that, at the minimum, real and substantial doubt exists concerning petitioner's conviction."
Enter Martha Coakley. Gerald Amirault had already spent 15 years in prison for crimes he didn't commit. But Coakley put on a full court press to keep Amirault in prison simply to further her political ambitions.
By then, every sentient person knew that Amirault was innocent. But instead of saying nothing, Coakley frantically lobbied Gov. Jane Swift to keep him in prison to show that she was a take-no-prisoners prosecutor, who stood up for "the children." As a result of Coakley's efforts -- and her contagious ambition -- Gov. Swift denied Amirault's clemency.
Thanks to Martha Coakley, Gerald Amirault sat in prison for another three years.
Friday, December 11, 2009
SoCal councilman wears a Stalin-ized Pelosi
Last Friday, a group rented a room at the Irvine Hilton to protest the Democratic Party of Orange County's 15th Annual Harry Truman Awards and headliner House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Joining the demonstration was Irvine Councilman and Assembly candidate Steven Choi.
An OC Register photographer caught Choi roaming the Hilton lobby before Pelosi's address. Choi is seen in a suit, tie and a depiction of Pelosi as Joseph Stalin, the Soviet dictator who killed millions under his Great Terror campaign. Another photo shows Choi posing with a woman who is wearing a Pelosi-SS guard illustration.
Choi told the Register:
"I'm a Republican Party member and went there to express my disapproval of her policies. I have big concerns with what is going on with the government pushing down the mandated health issues... As a small businessman it would impact me."
Congress Rates Lower Than Car Salesmen In Ethics Category
Not quite sure how this is news. Or why it should have taken so long for Gallup to notice.
And notice how Gallup’s chart still puts Congress above car salesmen, even though their aggregate number is lower.
By the way, note too who are at the very top of the Gallup rankings.
People from our supposedly despised healthcare system.
Thanks to sweetnessandlight
Jesus Nearly Banned from Obama White House Christmas
Ms. Desiree Rogers who is Obamas Social Secretary mentioned in a meeting recently that the Obamas were planning a "non-religious" Christmas. She also said that the Obamas were not planning on putting up the manger scene which is the tradition in the White House, (it goes in the East Room.) This caused caused quite a bit of chatter amoung those at the meeting and within earshot.
So the idea was scrapped. Who's idea was it to keep the creche? I don't know but it was a good move by whoever made the decision.
Why do liberals always have to attack the baby Jesus? They do it in the name of tolerance of other's religion. They lay dormant all year long and then WHAMMO!, Christmas is here and they put up signs like this one:
How bout be good and not attack another's religion?!
Why wait 'till Christmas time to attack and beat up on a poor baby?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
MSM Is Hiding Felon Robert Creamer's White House Visit. But Why?
Unless you've been under a rock for the last week or so you've seen these two in the news. Mainly because the MSM has been pushing them on us so that we don't pay attention to this guy.
He was at the same party.
He is a felon convicted for bank fraud and was indicted on 34 counts involving misuse of $2.4 million and was in prison when he wrote Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win.
Why would Obama invite this guy and his wife to the State Dinner? A felon to visit the White House? (I guess he is buddies with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.)
The reason Obama and Creamer are buds is found in Creamer's book.
In the book Creamer discussed 10 planks for social and fundamental change in the American way of life. They are:
1. The idea that healthcare as a right must be established. (pg.527) Obama agrees.
2. Create the idea that the healthcare system is in a crisis. (pg.527)
(:20 - :29)
3. Reduce the credibility of the insurance companies. (pg 528)
(:45 - 1:45) and (3:35 - 4:10)
(10:50 - 11:33)
4. The book calls for making deals with bug businesses to help change the healthcare system. We have already seen AARP give in as well as big pharma.
5. Convince politicians that they "owe there elections to the support for universal healthcare and that they face political peril if they fail to deliver."
The fact is that 35% want universal care which is the same percentage that wanted Hillary care which was treated like it leprosy when it was introduced. So why are politicians pushing for it so much? They've been fooled. They've been arm twisted. They've been bought. (Think Mary Landrieu.)
6. Get people not so much agree in advance on a plan, but "foster a process that will lead to consensus."
A 2000 page healthcare bill that no one understands (if they even read it at all) but all agree on.
7. Organize a national field program.
8. "Mobilize the labor movement and the faith community." (pg 529)
Many churches are preaching social justice now.
9. Leaverage the resources of "institutions an organizations of all types." (pg 529)
Can you say ACORN?
Listen here.
10. "Put in place commitments for hundreds of millions of dollars to be used to finance paid communications and mobilization once the battle is joined." (pg 529)
SEIU spent 60 Million dollars to elect Obama. HCAN spent 25 Million dollars last year to help pass HELLthcare.
11. "To win we must not just generate understanding, but emotion-fear, revulsion, anger, disgust." (pg. 529)
Obama is using this "Creamer plan" to get HELLthcare passed. And that's why no one in the MSM covered this felon's presence.
All thanks to Glenn B.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Man Stays In Line All Night To Throw Tomatoes At Sarah Palin And Misses....Hits Cop!
Beautiful.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Gallup: Obama's Job Approval Rating
Gallup: Obama's Job Approval Rating (47%) at lowest of any president at this point in their term.
-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent
Have Yourself a Godless Little Christmas
Once again we are in the Christmas season, and the coal-in-your-stocking crowd is back at it. This year the American Humanist Association is putting up bus ads in selected cities that say: "No God? No Problem! Be Good for Goodness' Sake." The picture accompanying the text shows a group of young people wearing Santa hats. Ho, ho, ho.
The virulently anti-God group "Freedom from Religion" has launched a second front. It is celebrating Christmas in Las Vegas with ads that say: "Yes, Virginia, there is no God."
Nice.
The question is: Why bother? Why spend money at Christmastime to spread dubious will among men?
The reason, I believe, is that atheists are jealous of the Yuletide season. While Christians have Jesus and Jews have the prophets, nonbelievers have Bill Maher. There are no Christmas carols for atheists, no pagan displays of largesse like Santa Claus. In fact, for the nonbeliever, Christmas is just a day off, a time to consider that Mardi Gras is fewer than two months away.
But there is a serious side to this, and the American "Humanists" should listen up. Christmas is a joyous time for children, the big upside of celebrating the birth of Jesus. Why, then, do people who want to "be good" spend money denigrating a beautiful day? Could it be that the humanists are not really interested in good at all?
The head Humanist, Roy Speckhardt, says the anti-God signs are worthy because they send a message that atheists shouldn't be vilified as immoral. Well, old Roy needs to wise up. The signs actually create resentment and hostility toward atheists. Here's a bulletin: Many parents don't want their children to see bus signs proclaiming that God is a big hoax. That message may be constitutionally protected, but it is not going to engender much good will among believers.
Of course, Speckhardt knows that and is being disingenuous with the "just looking out for atheists" posture. What many nonbelievers enjoy doing is mocking those who embrace theology. I guess that makes some atheists feel better, because there is no other reason to run down Christmas. It is a happy day for most human beings.
The latest Rasmussen poll on the season says that 72 percent of Americans like saying "Merry Christmas," while just 22 percent prefer the greeting "Happy Holidays." So the evidence suggests that despite the ACLU, atheist groups and a politically correct media, Christmas is actually gaining in relevance and, perhaps, reverence.
Most folks know a good thing when they see it, and the converse is true, as well. They know these anti-God signs at Christmastime are dumb and unnecessary. Isn't that right, Virginia?
That was by Bill O.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Copenhagen Climate Summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
Here are the highlights:
On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.
Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier.
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel.
The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.
And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.
At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent"... That is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by more than 60 of the world's smaller countries in an entire year -- combined.
The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Mormons Back Gay Rights!
The LDS church has recently endorsed a Salt Lake City ordinance which would ban discrimination against gays in housing and employment. This means that if you own a business you can't not hire someone who is LGBT or not allow them to rent your property because of their orientation. The LDS church has taken a step further to the left than Obama has on the issue.
Keeping a job from someone or a place of residence from someone because of their orientation is wrong. But what if it is good business sense.
Say you ran a conservative religious bookstore. Suppose a flamboyantly gay person, or a cross-dressing person came in to apply for a job. Such a person would make your customers – given their conservative religious views – uncomfortable and less apt to shop in your store. Hiring that person with those characteristics would hurt your business.
Would you still be forbidden by penalty of law from considering those things as you made your hiring decision? I hope not.
Say you had a day care, and a flamboyantly gay person or a cross-dressing person came to you wanting a job. Clearly, such a person would alienate many parents and, consequently, hurt your business. You should be able to refuse them work since it might bankrupt you. Basing the decision on business might be away around this silly law...I would hope.
Probably not though.
Now say you had a gay bar and a heterosexual person came to you seeking employment. If you wanted gay people working in your bar, to make your customers feel more comfortable, you would be completely within your rights to deny that straight person a job.
Common sense and principle still say that creating special rights for specific classes of people is unwise and un-American. Further, this specific set of protections threatens to spread mischief and inequality.
In a country whose founding document claims that “all men are created equal,” the idea of creating special classes of people with special legal protections is simply wrong. Further, the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under law, a promise broken by the creation of protected classes of people.
Thanks to Bob L.
Keeping a job from someone or a place of residence from someone because of their orientation is wrong. But what if it is good business sense.
Say you ran a conservative religious bookstore. Suppose a flamboyantly gay person, or a cross-dressing person came in to apply for a job. Such a person would make your customers – given their conservative religious views – uncomfortable and less apt to shop in your store. Hiring that person with those characteristics would hurt your business.
Would you still be forbidden by penalty of law from considering those things as you made your hiring decision? I hope not.
Say you had a day care, and a flamboyantly gay person or a cross-dressing person came to you wanting a job. Clearly, such a person would alienate many parents and, consequently, hurt your business. You should be able to refuse them work since it might bankrupt you. Basing the decision on business might be away around this silly law...I would hope.
Probably not though.
Now say you had a gay bar and a heterosexual person came to you seeking employment. If you wanted gay people working in your bar, to make your customers feel more comfortable, you would be completely within your rights to deny that straight person a job.
Common sense and principle still say that creating special rights for specific classes of people is unwise and un-American. Further, this specific set of protections threatens to spread mischief and inequality.
In a country whose founding document claims that “all men are created equal,” the idea of creating special classes of people with special legal protections is simply wrong. Further, the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under law, a promise broken by the creation of protected classes of people.
Thanks to Bob L.
Iran To Enrich Uranium To 20% For...FUEL?! Wwwaaaaaaahhhhhaaaaahhhhaaaa!
Press TV has reported that Iran will enrich uranium to 20% to meet their fuel needs. They just built ten new industrial scale enrichment plants so this is the obvious next move right?
This from a counrty that sits on the 3rd largest oil reserve in the world and has the larest natural gas reserve 2nd only to Russia.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Obama's Speech
The speech Obama gave on 1 December was the same speech he gave 27 March.
Here are some excerpts:
OBAMA MARCH 27TH: Al-Qaeda and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks, are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that Al-Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from a safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows Al-Qaeda to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill some of our people as they possibly can.
OBAMA DECEMBER 1ST: ...I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by Al-Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and Al-Qaeda can operate with impunity.
OBAMA MARCH 27TH: For six years Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq. Now we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals.
OBAMA DECEMBER 1ST: The Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
OBAMA MARCH 27TH: We have a clear and focused goal: To interrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.
OBAMA DECEMBER 1ST: Our overarching goal remains the same: To disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
If he knew what he was gonna say on 1 December months ago, why all the dithering? 116 US Troops died in Afghanistan while Obama "decided" what to do.
The only difference between the two speeches was the in the 1 December speech he gave us a withdrawl date.
Here are some excerpts:
OBAMA MARCH 27TH: Al-Qaeda and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks, are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that Al-Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from a safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows Al-Qaeda to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill some of our people as they possibly can.
OBAMA DECEMBER 1ST: ...I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by Al-Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and Al-Qaeda can operate with impunity.
OBAMA MARCH 27TH: For six years Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq. Now we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals.
OBAMA DECEMBER 1ST: The Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
OBAMA MARCH 27TH: We have a clear and focused goal: To interrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.
OBAMA DECEMBER 1ST: Our overarching goal remains the same: To disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
If he knew what he was gonna say on 1 December months ago, why all the dithering? 116 US Troops died in Afghanistan while Obama "decided" what to do.
The only difference between the two speeches was the in the 1 December speech he gave us a withdrawl date.
Obama and Cloward-Piven
The following chart is from a JP Morgan research report. It shows private sector experience for presidents cabinet officials back to 1990. It includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—432 cabinet members in all.
Why not pick those best suited for the positions in the cabinet? Well according to The President, they are. They are the ones with the ideas that will help him achieve his goals.
Another peak into Obama's mindset is that in his book "Dreams From My Father," he wrote about his short time in the pricate sector as time spent "behind enemy lines."
He went to Harvard Law school so we know he's no dummy, he knows what the Laffer Curve is. The only logical conslusion is that he is trying to strategically dismantle the US economy so that he can fundamentaly change the United States.
Another peak into Obama's mindset is that in his book "Dreams From My Father," he wrote about his short time in the pricate sector as time spent "behind enemy lines."
He went to Harvard Law school so we know he's no dummy, he knows what the Laffer Curve is. The only logical conslusion is that he is trying to strategically dismantle the US economy so that he can fundamentaly change the United States.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Definition Of Karma
Remember this?
Well the guy that threw the shoes was at a press press conference bragging about what he'd done or something when this happened:
Well the guy that threw the shoes was at a press press conference bragging about what he'd done or something when this happened:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
