10
Oct
Al Martinez decided to get something off his chest. Now, Al’s not your ordinary newspaper hack, he’s a hack for the LA Times. I’m not sure exactly what set him off, but here’s some of what he had to say about blogs:
- When I first heard the term, I thought it defined a loathsome place of brackish water and quicksand where little children and lost drunks were swallowed up in the gooey mess, never to be heard of again.
- Since then I have learned that, with some notable exceptions, blogs are largely the habitat of unemployed writers, enraged misanthropes, retired teachers, aging journalists and people who normally pass their time doodling or making obscene telephone calls.
- A blogger occupies a website from which comments emerge in various forms to clutter cyberspace with his or her opinions on politics, war, movies, sex, music, medicine, health, aerobics, food, marriage, animals €¦ and, well, just about everything. No subject is too lofty or too inane for the blogger.
- The computer allows one to do just that in a sense, to hurl messages at us whether we want them or not. And once in a while, they’re hurled at me. ( Looks like he learned well. )
Thanks ( I guess? ) to Independent Sources for filling me in that the LA Times, especially Al Martinez, are finally getting the message that before too long, the way things are looking, most paper media will be occupied by unemployed writers, enraged misanthropes, retired teachers, aging journalists and people who normally pass their time doodling or making obscene telephone calls. Unless of course, they do a better job than bloggers who are tired of the LA Times and other papers getting the story wrong and using their venue to promote their own political agendas.
I have decided to post a challenge to the entire Middle East. Although right now Lebanon is the hot spot, it just seems to meander all over the Middle East wherever the radicals feel like taking it. Five years ago it was the US, a couple of years ago it was Spain, most recently it’s been Israel, Britain was apparently next on the list ( or maybe upper Michigan ), but it just floats around the world with reckless abandon.
IMO, it’s because they’ve only had one interpretation of the ultimate reward of dieing in their imaginary holy war. That being of course, the reward of seventy-two babes who have never learned how to have sex, or apparently never wanted to. Now, stay with me here for a second. Since I actually have read some of the Koran, and I can not find anywhere in there where it states that if you die killing innocent people you will receive this reward, I am making this challenge not so much for the thousands upon thousand of innocents who have died as the result of this misconstrued imaginary war, but for the eternal life of the people who are mistakenly killing children all over the planet because they apparently can not get laid and therefore seek babes in the afterlife similarly experienced. Since that reward is actually not in the Koran, why not tweak it a little and see who can go the longest without killing innocent people? If you make it your entire life without killing a single person, you’ll be rewarded with said inexperienced dead babes in the afterlife.
Deal?
May not sound like a good plan, but nothing else is working, including the most recent UN cease-fire agreement.
( I wonder if that’s how Condi handled it? )
25
Jul
This folks, believe it or not, is a REPUBLICAN fundraiser:
This folks, is what the partying Democrats are offering at the same time:
( Yeah, I know, I’ve run that pic before. )
17
Jul
President Bush got caught using the S word due to an open mike he obviously wasn’t aware of. You can see the video at Expose the Left. Now, once you get past the shock and awe of hearing Bush use the S word, you’ll notice Blair doesn’t miss a beat with the conversation. He’s not shocked, he’s not awed, he doesn’t even notice it other than to flip the mike off a minute or so later.
Now folks, this tells me something clear. Apparently Bush using the S word isn’t new to Blair. And, IMO, that’s a good thing. It’s one thing to pander to the masses by stuttering and stammering trying to find the proper words to express very strong feelings. It’s totally another to do that in private. Bush’s message was very clear. That’s the way, and I imagine a lot of people, like it. IMO, that’s the very message Bush needs to be sending to the Middle East right. We’ve had it with that shit, it needs to stop.
5
Jul
From MSNBC:
Facing a stronger-than-expected Democratic primary challenge from millionaire businessman Ned Lamont and sagging poll numbers because of his support of the Iraq war, Lieberman said Monday he’ll collect signatures to assure an independent ballot spot for the November election if he loses the Aug. 8 primary.
I’ve been around politics my whole life. I’ve worked a few campaigns in the past. I’ve worked with winners and losers as well. The one thing the winners pretty much all had in common is they decided the path their campaign would take and how to execute it early. And didn’t sway. You could almost always know who was losing because they were the one that suddenly started doing unpredictable things. This throws your campaign in chaos and re-affirms to the voting public that what you were doing apparently wasn’t working. In all cases, it creates doubt. Doubt kills campaigns. Lieberman is a seasoned campaigner and extremely experienced politician. For him to start coming up with a serious Plan B with a month to go amazes me. It’s one thing to have a back-up plan, it’s another fall back on it when Plan A isn’t even completed yet. He’s blinked first. IMO, he’s already conceded defeat. In 34 days he’ll know for sure.
It’s actions like Lieberman’s that pretty much convinced me to take a back seat in politics. You can work your heart out for a candidate and then they’ll do something like this and just totally destroy your faith. But, you’re committed already. So, you just keep meeting people trying to convince them to support a candidate that you don’t even fully trust yourself. This was a boner of a move by Lieberman. I’m really surprised. And, quite honestly, since I don’t think the people he serves can do any better than Joe, I’m disappointed since I’m quite certain he’s paid too much attention to the media and let them get to him. He should have known better than that. I mean, according to that same media, he should be Vice-President right now.
19
Jun
I get about five emails every day telling me how much money I can save on my mortgage. I got one yesterday that offered me up to 80% equity on my appraised value of $830,000. For what it’s worth, my current value is about 1/5th that. I should have taken that one I guess. However, ARM’s have been stealing traditional bank mortgages for about a decade with promises of cheaper mortgages. However, this is what the reality is becoming for those that took them:
Folks, for lack of a simpler term, ARMs are the Universal Life Insurance policies of the 21st century. They look great when the numbers are cooked. Promises of future value, as in trading back to a normal mortgage, make them look safe. As with anything that offers no value for a cheaper price, they’ll screw you when you can’t afford to be screwed. When you’re least able to switch to a traditional policy, that’s when the rates go up. Although the minimum rate is set by the feds for the most part, the maximum rate is totally at the discretion of the lender within federal law. But, if you maxed out your credit at the cheaper rate, bumping it up 5% is not unlawful, and they will have your asset for a discounted price. That asset will most likely be your home.
When you’re buying a home, get a fixed quote for 30 years. If you can’t afford that, find a cheaper home. Leave the creative financing to the speculators and those that can afford to lose that asset.
In 2003, Bob Ney introduced the Responsible Lending Act. It would have regulated brokers and defined some illegal activities. It however, did not address what I consider the bait and switch tactics of ARMs. 25 Congressmen co-signed the legislation:
| Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] – 6/19/2003 | Rep Beauprez, Bob [CO-7] – 9/23/2003 |
| Rep Boyd, Allen [FL-2] – 9/17/2003 | Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] – 4/8/2003 |
| Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] – 5/13/2004 | Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] – 5/8/2003 |
| Rep Cox, Christopher [CA-48] – 10/8/2003 | Rep Fossella, Vito [NY-13] – 7/9/2003 |
| Rep Gillmor, Paul E. [OH-5] – 2/13/2003 | Rep Hart, Melissa A. [PA-4] – 9/23/2003 |
| Rep Hill, Baron P. [IN-9] – 7/9/2003 | Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] – 10/8/2003 |
| Rep Lucas, Ken [KY-4] – 2/13/2003 | Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] – 11/4/2003 |
| Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] – 2/13/2003 | Rep Myrick, Sue [NC-9] – 6/18/2003 |
| Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] – 7/25/2003 | Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] – 9/17/2003 |
| Rep Rehberg, Dennis R. [MT] – 6/19/2003 | Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] – 9/5/2003 |
| Rep Stenholm, Charles W. [TX-17] – 7/25/2003 | Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] – 5/19/2003 |
| Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] – 5/13/2004 | Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] – 10/28/2003 |
| Rep Weller, Jerry [IL-11] – 4/8/2003 |
However, it promptly died in the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. Oddly enough, Bob Ney is chairman of that subcommittee:
| Robert W. Ney OH Chairman | ||
| Gary G. Miller CA Vice Chairman Richard H. Baker LA Walter B. Jones, Jr. NC Christopher Shays CT Patrick J. Tiberi OH Ginny Brown-Waite FL Katherine Harris FL Rick Renzi AZ Stevan Pearce NM Randy Neugebauer TX Michael G. Fitzpatrick PA Geoff Davis KY John Campbell CA |
Maxine Waters CA Nydia M. Velázquez NY Julia Carson IN Barbara Lee CA Michael E. Capuano MA Bernard Sanders VT * Stephen F. Lynch MA Brad Miller NC David Scott GA Artur Davis AL Emanuel Cleaver MO Al Green TX |
|
Now, what I’d like to see, is that legislation re-introduced, but with legislation addressing the abuses of ARMs added to it. Unless the worst case scenario is provided to people buying ARMs, they are bait and switch preying on the people most vulnerable.
Then, maybe all those pesky deceptive spam emails will stop as well. Let’s start with seeing if we can figure out why it died in Bob Ney’s subcommittee for starters. This is no time for pandering.
A couple of weeks ago I did a post on the perceived Republican war on science. Today I see two articles directly related to that same logic ( one even citing the book I ridiculed ).
First, I read Bad Astronomy Blog’s article where he steps outside what he does best and offers political comment. What floored me most was he cited Daily Kos as a “source”. Now, this is the guy that openly declares all Republicans suck. So, to say the least, it kind of bothered me that someone who lives by the scientific code would rely on a purely partisan source for their input. He also touts Chris Mooney‘s book, which as I pointed out, interspersed the religious right and Republicans with reckless abandon. I am Republican, I am not a member of the Religious Right. I totally support science in every way. I don’t appreciate people like Chris Mooney lumping me in with people who don’t support science. Additionally, Phil lumps a legal debate into the stuff Kos and Mooney cite as evidence that it is ONLY Republicans who don’t support science. You want suppression? Try this exchange:
World-renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that the late Pope John Paul II once told scientists they should not study the beginning of the universe because it was the work of God.
Best I can recall, Pope John Paul II was not a Republican. As Hawking notes, there has been a constant struggle between religion and science since at LEAST Galileo’s day. Trying to spin that as a purely partisan issue is disingenuous at best.
Secondly, Phil ignores what has been accomplished since 2001.
Thirdly, the evidence Phil cites is a legal debate that has been debated in other arenas outside of science. Most notably, it was debated within the federal government itself in which a SUPREME COURT RULING set the standards on whistleblowers, not Republicans. This legislation that Phil cites would have run flat in the face of the recent Supreme Court ruling. In other words, the first legal challenge it faced if it had been passed would have seen it struck down.
Fourthly, Phil ignores the fact that cost cuts are across the board, affecting every budget as much or more so than scientific research.
Fifthly, stem cell research was something Bush morally opposed. He was, however, the first President to ever fund it in ANY way. So, the evidence is clear that it is possible to be morally opposed to something and still see the value it presents to society.
And lastly, being Republican means, in the truest sense, you believe in smaller government. That means less intrusive laws as well as putting the tools into the private sector to allow them the ability to develop products and new industry. How many spaceports were there before 2001? So, although funding was limited to certain strains of already existing DNA in regards to stem cell research, it DID NOT BAN private research in the other areas. Research the Howard Hughes Foundation for more on that.
So, once again, I completely dismiss the “Republican War on Science” as purely political rhetoric that panders to people like Phil.
14
Jun
Now, this one is so profound I had to think about it a few days.
First, Nancy Pelosi does something I agree with:
And then, to compound the situation to utter befuddlement on my part, I agree with Kos:
I still don’t get why the Congressional Black Caucus insists on standing firmly behind Jefferson.
Now, hell hasn’t really frozen over. What this should tell the CBC is that if conservatives and radical liberals agree 100% on something, THAT IS A CLUE. Just because Jefferson’s black doesn’t mean he’s above the law. The race card was trumped by the cash in his freezer and his video performance. Nancy’s not saying Jefferson should resign from Congress, she’s just saying his ethics violations are made more serious by the fact he’s on the Ways and Means Committee, which investigates, get this CBC, ethics violations.
Of course, the CBC was the only organization I am aware of to fully back Cynthia McKinney attacking a police officer.
Now, this disappoints me because of the big picture. Rather than taking their members into a closed door meeting and explaining to them that they are the examples to the black youth of the US and therefore are expected to set a higher moral standard than anyone else in the entire country, they are condoning breaking the law and justifying it based solely on race. The message that sends to kids accross the country is IF you get musted for doing something bad, it’s OK, you’re black. That message, CBC, isn’t even subtle. You’re screaming it all over the media. Cynthia McKinney assaulting an officer wasn’t that big a deal to you guys. Jefferson stealing and evading taxes wasn’t so bad that he should suffer any consequences according to you guys. That’s just wrong. The average black does what William or Cynthia does and they go to prison. Not because they’re black, but because they broke a law just like their peers did.
If anything, the CBC needs smack both of them with a PR hammer that will scare the crap out of the rest of the members of the CBC. Then, maybe, they’ll send the RIGHT message to the kids.
I mean, think about it CBC. Things have gotten so ludicrous that when Patrick Kennedy got busted, even HE tried to play the race card. Why didn’t you guys defend him?
7
Jun
In 1987, Jerry Buck Inman was convicted convicted in Florida for sexual battery with a weapon, kidnapping, aggravated assault, armed robbery, armed burglary and grand theft auto. In 1987, Jerry Buck Inman was seventeen years old. He was listed as a sexual predator before he could vote. In 1988, during a jailbreak, he again sexually attacked someone. Still not quite old enough to vote, he was listed as a sexual predator in TWO states. He spent the next seventeen years in prison, and the general public was safe. He was paroled in September 2005. At this time, he had spent more than half his life in prison. And, what little time he was out of prison, he harmed people. What the parole board was thinking in September is beyond me. On May 26th, 2006, Tiffany Souers was found strangled in her apartment. Within days, Jerry Buck Ingram was identified positively through DNA matching and arrested. Look at those charges again. Look at them now. This guy just needs killin’ in the worst possible way. For that matter, he needed it in 1987. He assured it in 1988. His mom is saying he has bi-polar disorder. That don’t cut it. Bi-polar in no way compels someone to do what Jerry Buck keeps doing every single time he’s been free. He’s just FUBAR from the get-go. Society has a right to protect itself from threats without and within. If our government is willing to send armies to war, why must our society be allowed to be attacked from within? Jerry Buck proved he had no value for other people’s lives in 1987, 1988, and 2006. The only way society can be adequately assured it will never be harmed by Jerry Buck again is to end his life. As assuredly as Al Qaeda is trying to do us harm, so are people like Jerry Buck. The only way his death will send a message to anyone is to end his life quickly. Have the trial, and if he’s as guilty as it looks, fry him quickly. From my experiences here primarily with Scott Peterson, there is a certain fascination and glorification of criminals. Killing them quickly instead of a lifetime of appeals eliminates that glamor aspect of the death penalty real quick.
OK, here’s the latest shocking headline:
Over a 5½-year period ending in 2005, members of Congress and their aides took at least 23,000 trips valued at almost $50 million financed by private sponsors, many of them corporations, trade associations and nonprofit groups with business on Capitol Hill.
While some of these trips might qualify as legitimate fact-finding missions, the purpose of others is less clear.
There’s nothing "less clear" IMO to most of the trips. Now, what you have to ignore is that any association has any business with DC or is affected by the laws they pass. That’s all you have to do to then perceive this as a 100% bad thing. Businesses and associations have every right under the Constitution to state their case of how funding and legislation is important to them. There is no law that says they have to state their case in Washington DC. It is also the expectation and right of the legislators to make sure what they are spending taxpayer’s money on is being spent the way it was supposed to be. And, in order to make this appear as bad as you possibly can, you have to assume that any one group gets to do this and none of the others do. And, it is the obligation of legislators to show off their communities for potential economic development.
Now, I’m not naive enough to think all trips are legitimate, but this article targets some specific industries and individuals and totally dismisses the fact that these are important industries to the US. The article goes into great detail about what constitutes unethical trips, but doesn’t single out the individuals that took these trips, and then summarily names a few names without distinguishing the legitimacy of their trips. In other words, smear by insinuation. Just because a person travels a lot doesn’t mean they are obviously the most guilty. Richard Luger may have cost a lot, but he’s very important and can get legislation passed. Someone else may have cost a lot less, but their abuse more egregious. I’m totally opposed to the concept of banning all private travel. People have the right of access to their legislators. It’s purely up to the legislator to keep their ethics in check. If the individual legislator can’t keep their ethics in check, banning travel won’t affect a thing. They’ll jsut walk in and hand them the money.
