In light of yesterday’s massacre at Virgina Tech, Senator Leahy cancelled the testimony of Alberto Gonzales. Now, I’m fine with his testimony being cancelled. I still feel this whole thing is a witch hunt. However, speculation immediately arose that Leahy cancelled the testimony because the testimony would have gotten absolutely zero air time. He would have been correct in that assumption. However, Leahy’s given reason for cancelling was that he expected Gonzales to be dealing with what was going on in Blacksburg. Now, I don’t particularly care for Leahy. However, I buy his excuse. Not only would it have gotten zero air time, it would have looked rather sanctimonious to be haggling over who fired who and who knew about it during such an event unfolding. I would imagine that besides the zero air time, everyone in that room would have been distracted. If they weren’t, I would have to question their sanity. So, I’m going to dismiss Leahy cancelling that testimony for publicity purposes as yet another unbased conspiracy theory that has zero evidence to support it.
13
Apr
Yesterday the Senate passed a bill expanding stem cell research. That could be a big deal. I’m not all that excited as a ton of this research is already being done in the private sector where the long arm of federal restrictions and red tape don’t apply. However, people like Michael J. Fox felt differently and made sure some candidates with no experience in getting things done and certainly no research into the topic got elected. So, having made sure the Democrats took control, what’s the payback people like Fox got?
The bill was introduced by a Republican. The Republicans supported it 100%. Nearly half the Democrats voted AGAINST it. Those opposing stem cell research include:
| Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Clinton (D-NY) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) |
Inouye (D-HI) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) |
Obama (D-IL) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Wyden (D-OR) |
Now, Fox’s McCaskill did vote for it. But she couldn’t seem to convince her party leaders to back her up. Thanks the Republicans, it passed. It still has to make it through the House, and even less likely, has to be signed by President Bush. So, it’s probably going to die somewhere on the vine. However, I just can’t WAIT to see all the media headlines that have
“Obama supports banning stem cell research!”
or
“Clinton supports banning stem cell research!”
or
“Feinstein supports banning stem cell research!”
or
“Obama supports banning stem cell research!”
or
“Boxer supports banning stem cell research!”
Are you gonna hold your breath too?
10
Apr
Senator Ted Kennedy has once again proven beyond a shadow of a doubt he’s never existed in the real world. Besides deciding welfare is something everyone should enjoy, at the expense of employers and taxpayers, he’s now decided to shorten the work week to 30 hours a week. In essence, S.910 provides that any employee that works 30 hours a week for a year gets one week paid leave. Now, that standard has sort of been in practice, as decided by the private sector. However, that’s not good enough for Ted. So, what’s going to happen is full time people will get no more than what they get now, and part time people will work less than 30 hours a week as opposed to being able to work 34 to 39. I manage about 300 people. That’s the decision I’ve already come to, it’s a no-brainer. I imagine just about any employer, and only a few of those will be the big corporate giants everyone assumes when this debate is made, will be forced to make the same decision because when you provide a benefit to a class of people, they are all expected to receive the same benefits, by law. So, if you give a full time employee a week’s vacation per year, those receiving that benefit can be assumed to be in the same working class. Therefore, the argument could be made they receive the same retirement, insurance, and any other benefits anyone else receiving that benefit makes. As an employer, that gets REAL expensive, REAL quick. That part’s muddy if this bill passes. When in doubt, employers stick to the side of caution. The easy decision to make is part timers work less and get less money. Therefore, the working class stays the same, and the people making the least money will make even less. What’s annoying to me is the goof-ball legislation is already endorsed by several other Senators. Some names you should recognize real quick:
| Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI] | Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [DE] |
| Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] | Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] |
| Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] | Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] |
| Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] | Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] |
| Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] | Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] |
| Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] | Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] |
| Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] | Sen Levin, Carl [MI] |
| Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] | Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] |
| Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] | Sen Murray, Patty [WA] |
| Sen Obama, Barack [IL] | Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV] |
| Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] | Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] |
These people don’t believe in leaving the private sector alone apparently. This is actually a true partisan issue where the parties are defined as they historically had been pre-1980. Smaller government or larger government? That’s the root of the differences between parties regardless of social issues that come and go and can be interchanged between parties from one election to the next.
10
Apr
I could care less about Imus.? I have never liked nasty broadcasters.? The world’s got enough negativity in the world to need more on the airwaves.? So, I am including a poll someone else put up on Vizu, it’s not mine.? I don’t care enough about Imus to even make a poll.
I do however, care about the intense double standard over this issue.? It’s been fine for Imus to insult everyone else over the last few decades.? He insults blacks and BAM! everyone’s calling for his resignation.? I’m not condoning his insulting blacks, I’m a bit put out that his trash talking hadn’t been condemned before this.? It was just a matter of time before he insulted the wrong race.
8
Apr
Senator Ted Kennedy has once again proven beyond a shadow of a doubt he’s never existed in the real world. Besides deciding welfare is something everyone should enjoy, at the expense of employers and taxpayers, he’s now decided to shorten the work week to 30 hours a week. In essence, S.910 provides that any employee that works 30 hours a week for a year gets one week paid leave. Now, that standard has sort of been in practice, as decided by the private sector. However, that’s not good enough for Ted. So, what’s going to happen is full time people will get no more than what they get now, and part time people will work less than 30 hours a week as opposed to being able to work 34 to 39. I manage about 300 people. That’s the decision I’ve already come to, it’s a no-brainer. I imagine just about any employer, and only a few of those will be the big corporate giants everyone assumes when this debate is made, will be forced to make the same decision because when you provide a benefit to a class of people, they are all expected to receive the same benefits, by law. So, if you give a full time employee a week’s vacation per year, those receiving that benefit can be assumed to be in the same working class. Therefore, the argument could be made they receive the same retirement, insurance, and any other benefits anyone else receiving that benefit makes. As an employer, that gets REAL expensive, REAL quick. That part’s muddy if this bill passes. When in doubt, employers stick to the side of caution. The easy decision to make is part timers work less and get less money. Therefore, the working class stays the same, and the people making the least money will make even less. What’s annoying to me is the goof-ball legislation is already endorsed by several other Senators. Some names you should recognize real quick:
| Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI] | Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [DE] |
| Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] | Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] |
| Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] | Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] |
| Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] | Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] |
| Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] | Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] |
| Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] | Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] |
| Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] | Sen Levin, Carl [MI] |
| Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] | Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] |
| Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] | Sen Murray, Patty [WA] |
| Sen Obama, Barack [IL] | Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV] |
| Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] | Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] |
These people don’t believe in leaving the private sector alone apparently. This is actually a true partisan issue where the parties are defined as they historically had been pre-1980. Smaller government or larger government? That’s the root of the differences between parties regardless of social issues that come and go and can be interchanged between parties from one election to the next.
First we had Nancy Pelosi meeting with Syria and telling them Israel and the US had basically surrendered to every demand they had.
Now, to one-up Nancy, Steny Hoyer has met with Mohammed Saad el-Katatni, head of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. I guess he’s doing this in his capacity as a member of the Minor League Baseball Caucus?
New game plan for the world emerging. Organize as a terrorist group, kill a bunch of innocent people, and negotiate what you want with the Democrats.
They all got mad when Bush et al said they were soft on terror. He was way wrong. Looks like they LOVE a good terrorist.
Maybe I can help her.
Saudi Arabia is what is called an absolute monarchy. Now, what that means is there is no constitution. There are no civil rights. Women are subject to men, men are subject to the king. That’s it. That’s that. If Nancy Pelosi were living in Saudi Arabia, she would not be in government. Period. Nothing she says or does will change that because the king controls basically the only source of revenue in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the country is a third-world welfare state existing off the handouts from said king. I’m sure the people she talked to about women in government got a good chuckle from her amazing ignorance. Yeah, they’re gonna tell the king he needs to hire more women because Nancy said so.
Now, here’s the real fun eye-opener for Nancy. Saudi Arabia is quite liberal compared to Syria. Although Syria is a Republic as a lot of people assert, they sponser Hezbollah and Hamas. If she had asked that same question in the presence of either of those two, say in Palestine, she could have been shot or beheaded on spot and no laws would have been broken. That’s the people Nancy is selling the US out to right now. That’s who she’s legitimizing.
Just thought someone needed to elaborate just a little bit since the media won’t.
The report then goes on to add:
Many demographers associate shrinking populations with economic problems, typically poor job markets or prohibitive housing prices.
"A lot of cities rely on immigration to prop up their housing market and prop up their economies," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
And:
"Maybe those metro areas should think about what it would take to make Americans want to live there," Camarota said.
Now, it’s been my contention that in this day and age, we don’t need massive cities. They completely destroy the environment, alter the climate in and around, and generate human cesspools that generate generation after generation of unproductive people that sap resources for the rest of the country. With the advent of modern communications, a person can be as productive sitting in the middle of Kansas as they are sitting in a huge skyscraper in New York City or Los Angeles. So, I say tighten the borders as is needed and let the huge cities shrink some. Sure, it’ll hurt their housing market, but I think that would only be for a short time as those affected cities could start shutting down ghettos and moving those people into abandoned houses. Ownership would generate a lot more self esteem than living in the ghettos of Detroit. Secondly, when the purpose of a city’s largesse is no longer applicable, the people will go where the purpose goes as well. Propping them up by artificial temporary means such as illigeal immigrants doesn’t solve the problem, it just replaces traditional tax-generating revenues with non-traditional non-tax-generating revenues. And, that is very bad. So, let em shrink. Tell me what you all think. If you dare.
A lot of people were very anxious to get an earmarks database. Well,
it’s finally here. The prevailing assumption was it would be the nail in
the Republicans coffin since they were in charge and Nancy Pelosi et al were
screaming about the culture of corruption that most media was more than happy to
go along with. Well, these figures are from 2005. This predates the
2006 elections so it occurs during the most rabid complaining of fiscal
irresponsibility and patronage. What you’ll find is not what you were told
you’d find. Without further ado, let’s look, shall we?
I have put together a chart ( I love charts! ). What you have is the
state, total earmarks, percentage of all earmarks for that state, population of
the state, percentage of all US population that state represents, and finally,
the difference between the state’s percentage of earmarks and the percentage of
the population. What this does is make a per capita comparison IMO of what
a state SHOULD have received vs what they actually did. The difference IMO
is political patronage and power. The Republicans were in charge, so you’d
expect strong Republican states at the top with the strongest Democrat states at
the bottom to justify Pelosi and the Dean’s claims. Again, remember, this is
ONLY EARMARKS. So, here we go:
| STATE | Earmarks | Population | Diff | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALASKA | $700,088.00 | 3.68% | 663,661.00 | 0.22% | 34.54 |
| DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA | $683,024.00 | 3.59% | 550,521.00 | 0.19% | 34.02 |
| VIRGINIA | $889,045.00 | 4.67% | 7,567,465.00 | 2.55% | 21.17 |
| HAWAII | $432,150.00 | 2.27% | 1,275,194.00 | 0.43% | 18.40 |
| WEST VIRGINIA | $442,176.00 | 2.32% | 1,816,856.00 | 0.61% | 17.10 |
| PENNSYLVANIA | $1,071,674.00 | 5.63% | 12,429,616.00 | 4.19% | 14.36 |
| MARYLAND | $599,904.00 | 3.15% | 5,600,388.00 | 1.89% | 12.62 |
| ALABAMA | $506,319.00 | 2.66% | 4,557,808.00 | 1.54% | 11.22 |
| MISSISSIPPI | $394,244.00 | 2.07% | 2,921,088.00 | 0.99% | 10.85 |
| NEW MEXICO | $309,836.00 | 1.63% | 1,928,384.00 | 0.65% | 9.77 |
| MONTANA | $186,892.00 | 0.98% | 935,670.00 | 0.32% | 6.66 |
| NEVADA | $271,017.00 | 1.42% | 2,414,807.00 | 0.81% | 6.09 |
| VERMONT | $131,084.00 | 0.69% | 623,050.00 | 0.21% | 4.78 |
| NEW HAMPSHIRE | $170,033.00 | 0.89% | 1,309,940.00 | 0.44% | 4.51 |
| SOUTH CAROLINA | $352,765.00 | 1.85% | 4,255,083.00 | 1.44% | 4.17 |
| MISSOURI | $432,674.00 | 2.27% | 5,800,310.00 | 1.96% | 3.16 |
| KENTUCKY | $320,802.00 | 1.69% | 4,173,405.00 | 1.41% | 2.77 |
| IDAHO | $142,639.00 | 0.75% | 1,429,096.00 | 0.48% | 2.67 |
| NORTH DAKOTA | $87,022.00 | 0.46% | 636,677.00 | 0.21% | 2.42 |
| SOUTH DAKOTA | $84,898.00 | 0.45% | 775,933.00 | 0.26% | 1.84 |
| IOWA | $214,604.00 | 1.13% | 2,966,334.00 | 1.00% | 1.27 |
| RHODE ISLAND | $92,163.00 | 0.48% | 1,076,189.00 | 0.36% | 1.21 |
| CONNECTICUT | $245,731.00 | 1.29% | 3,510,297.00 | 1.18% | 1.07 |
| OKLAHOMA | $242,030.00 | 1.27% | 3,547,884.00 | 1.20% | 0.74 |
| DELAWARE | $61,195.00 | 0.32% | 843,524.00 | 0.28% | 0.37 |
| WYOMING | $31,623.00 | 0.17% | 509,294.00 | 0.17% | -0.06 |
| KANSAS | $169,717.00 | 0.89% | 2,744,687.00 | 0.93% | -0.34 |
| WASHINGTON | $394,717.00 | 2.07% | 6,287,759.00 | 2.12% | -0.48 |
| MAINE | $75,599.00 | 0.40% | 1,321,505.00 | 0.45% | -0.49 |
| UTAH | $140,157.00 | 0.74% | 2,469,585.00 | 0.83% | -0.97 |
| MASSACHUSETTS | $391,924.00 | 2.06% | 6,398,743.00 | 2.16% | -1.00 |
| NEBRASKA | $66,205.00 | 0.35% | 1,758,787.00 | 0.59% | -2.46 |
| OREGON | $177,160.00 | 0.93% | 3,641,056.00 | 1.23% | -2.98 |
| ARKANSAS | $107,359.00 | 0.56% | 2,779,154.00 | 0.94% | -3.74 |
| WISCONSIN | $257,969.00 | 1.36% | 5,536,201.00 | 1.87% | -5.13 |
| ARIZONA | $267,258.00 | 1.40% | 5,939,292.00 | 2.00% | -6.00 |
| MINNESOTA | $213,732.00 | 1.12% | 5,132,799.00 | 1.73% | -6.09 |
| LOUISIANA | $166,360.00 | 0.87% | 4,523,628.00 | 1.53% | -6.52 |
| COLORADO | $175,068.00 | 0.92% | 4,665,177.00 | 1.57% | -6.54 |
| TENNESSEE | $254,685.00 | 1.34% | 5,962,959.00 | 2.01% | -6.74 |
| INDIANA | $234,488.00 | 1.23% | 6,271,973.00 | 2.12% | -8.84 |
| OHIO | $454,872.00 | 2.39% | 11,464,042.00 | 3.87% | -14.78 |
| NEW JERSEY | $278,050.00 | 1.46% | 8,717,925.00 | 2.94% | -14.81 |
| GEORGIA | $272,967.00 | 1.43% | 9,072,576.00 | 3.06% | -16.27 |
| NORTH CAROLINA | $217,128.00 | 1.14% | 8,683,242.00 | 2.93% | -17.89 |
| MICHIGAN | $293,805.00 | 1.54% | 10,120,860.00 | 3.41% | -18.71 |
| ILLINOIS | $461,506.00 | 2.42% | 12,763,371.00 | 4.31% | -18.82 |
| FLORIDA | $694,914.00 | 3.65% | 17,789,864.00 | 6.00% | -23.51 |
| NEW YORK | $576,033.00 | 3.03% | 19,254,630.00 | 6.50% | -34.70 |
| CALIFORNIA | $1,631,044.00 | 8.57% | 36,132,147.00 | 12.19% | -36.22 |
| TEXAS | $734,581.00 | 3.86% | 22,859,968.00 | 7.71% | -38.54 |
What’s that? Texas is at
the very bottom of the entire country? A strong Republican state?
The President’s HOME state? Something’s amiss with the Democrats’ claims.
You saw it here first. And, most likely,
you’ll only see it here. This kind of stuff just doesn’t excite CNN or CBS
that much.
A couple of years ago President Bush hinted the Democrats were soft on terror. They wigged out. We heard basically every Democrat there was whining about how incredulous they were that ANYONE would question their patriotism or question their resolve in the war on terror. So, today alone, we get this:
- Nancy Pelosi is in Syria chatting with the Syrians about getting along a little better. The reason Bush felt we weren’t getting along is because they are supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, who very routinely blow up innocent women and children in their quest to annihilate Israel because they aren’t Muslim enough. That’s not good enough for Nancy. If she’s not soft on terrorism, then she must not consider Syria a sponsor of terrorism even tho pretty any rational mind would, including the 911 Report she uses to justify the trip.
- The House Armed Services Committee sent out a memo that contained this highlited section:
You’re not even allowed to mention the "global war on terror" any more.
Now, someone define "soft" again for me.
This is unreal and surreal. I’m waiting for this expose on CBS.
