Liberty Council
This site tells you everything you need to know about H.R. 3200, the universal health care bill, Obamacare whatever you want to call it. Liberty Council is gracious enough to break down the bill into language even your congressman can understand!
They have the title and the section listed so you can go and check that language against the bill and compare it to the legislative language. They have a link to the bill or you can google your favored version, but I have not found Liberty Council to be inaccurate on any point.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Our VP isn't in the same century as the rest of us.
I thought Sarah Palin was supposed to be the dumb one, isn't that what we've been told? She's never said anything as dumb as these.
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Original Post: dailymail
By: Jonathan Petre
By: Jonathan Petre
- Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
- There has been no global warming since 1995
- Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.
Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.
Seeing double with stimulus job numbers
Original Post: jsonline
By: Ben Poston
A new report touts more than 10,300 jobs created or saved in Wisconsin by federal stimulus money in the last three months of 2009.
But the jobs listed are based on new accounting rules that make it impossible to track the total number of jobs created or saved by the program. And the updated guidelines also make it impossible to avoid double counting from quarter to quarter.
Take the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
In the latest round of reporting, the state agency used the exact same job creation figure from an earlier report instead of generating an updated number. That's now an acceptable reporting method, according to Gov. Jim Doyle's office, which is overseeing stimulus spending.
Fourth-quarter data reported to the federal government shows that 3,932 education positions were funded by almost $481 million in stimulus money, which helped school districts around the state avoid laying off teachers and support staff. All the money was distributed to districts last summer.
That job number is the same one used in the previous reporting period because the jobs were reported on an annual, not quarterly, basis, state officials said. So the state education department will keep copying that figure through the end of this school year.
"It's not that (school districts) created another 3,900 jobs last quarter, it's that the job is still there because it was saved or created with that money in the first place," said Patrick Gasper, spokesman for the state education agency. "It's a very complicated process on top of all of the other federal programs that we have to pay attention to."
A Journal Sentinel review last fall found that the number of jobs reported in the state in the first round of stimulus reporting was overstated by hundreds of jobs. The newspaper found instances of human error, double counting and more than 100 cases where cost-of-living pay raises were counted as jobs saved.
Last week, the White House released stimulus jobs data that shows 10,316 jobs in Wisconsin were funded by stimulus money in the past quarter. Nationwide, 599,108 jobs were reported as funded by the stimulus during that period.
Under new rules issued in December by the Office of Management and Budget, the new tally is no longer based on jobs "created or saved," but instead any job funded by the recovery act. And the jobs number is now listed for each quarter, instead of on cumulative basis as before.
Finally, any job paid partially with stimulus money will be counted based on the proportion funded by recovery funds for a single quarter.
The change came about to avoid past errors and criticism with regards to the saved jobs category. The old rules on saved jobs were confusing as recipients had to make a subjective decision: Would this worker still be employed if not for the stimulus money?
State Rep. Rich Zipperer (R-Pewaukee), who has called for oversight hearings into past stimulus job irregularities, said since the method for counting jobs has changed, he's worried jobs will be counted repeatedly.
"It's going to allow them to double count and triple count those jobs," said Zipperer, who is on the Assembly Committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business. "Now that it's 'jobs funded,' if anyone gets touched by dollars, they will be counted multiple times."
The new rules were meant to streamline the job reporting process for recipients, said Ed Pound, spokesman for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the oversight panel for stimulus money.
"The underlying thing to remember here is if a job is funded by recovery act money, it's counted," Pound said.
The federal Office of the Inspector General will conduct an on-site audit at the state education department in Madison beginning Monday. The audit will focus on the procedures the department used to disburse recovery money. So far, the inspector general has audited the education departments in 12 other states.
County jobs numbers
Another example in which job accounting requires clarification comes from Gov. Jim Doyle's office.
County governments across the state collectively have received an increase of nearly $160 million, almost half of which came in the form of "shared revenue" payments that flow from the state. This pot of money helps retain jobs in schools and local government, many of them in public safety.
In the previous reporting period, which ended in September, the state reported 2,221 jobs as created or saved by about $77.5 million of this money that had been received and spent up to that point.
In the fourth quarter of last year, another $82 million of this pot was received and spent. But that was listed as funding the exact same number of jobs, at a cost of about $2,000 more per job.
Chris Patton, policy director for the governor's office, which oversees the state recovery office, said that job figure is based on an annualized number and won't change until later this year.
"We asked them to tell us how the money would be utilized on an annual basis, so the job creation numbers will remain consistent," Patton said. "Regardless of what formula you use to calculate the jobs, the snapshot accurately depicts the job creation that's occurring in Wisconsin."
All the detailed job accounting aside, Zipperer said the impact of the stimulus package on the private sector has been minimal, with about three-quarters of the jobs going to shore up the public sector. He believes this is unsustainable.
What's more, the job creation that was promised hasn't materialized as the national unemployment rate has risen to 10%, he said.
"Here's a program that's been in place and overall the nation's payroll has shrunk by millions of jobs," Zipperer said. "It hasn't provided the stimulus as it was sold to the public as having."
By: Ben Poston
A new report touts more than 10,300 jobs created or saved in Wisconsin by federal stimulus money in the last three months of 2009.
But the jobs listed are based on new accounting rules that make it impossible to track the total number of jobs created or saved by the program. And the updated guidelines also make it impossible to avoid double counting from quarter to quarter.
Take the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
In the latest round of reporting, the state agency used the exact same job creation figure from an earlier report instead of generating an updated number. That's now an acceptable reporting method, according to Gov. Jim Doyle's office, which is overseeing stimulus spending.
Fourth-quarter data reported to the federal government shows that 3,932 education positions were funded by almost $481 million in stimulus money, which helped school districts around the state avoid laying off teachers and support staff. All the money was distributed to districts last summer.
That job number is the same one used in the previous reporting period because the jobs were reported on an annual, not quarterly, basis, state officials said. So the state education department will keep copying that figure through the end of this school year.
"It's not that (school districts) created another 3,900 jobs last quarter, it's that the job is still there because it was saved or created with that money in the first place," said Patrick Gasper, spokesman for the state education agency. "It's a very complicated process on top of all of the other federal programs that we have to pay attention to."
A Journal Sentinel review last fall found that the number of jobs reported in the state in the first round of stimulus reporting was overstated by hundreds of jobs. The newspaper found instances of human error, double counting and more than 100 cases where cost-of-living pay raises were counted as jobs saved.
Last week, the White House released stimulus jobs data that shows 10,316 jobs in Wisconsin were funded by stimulus money in the past quarter. Nationwide, 599,108 jobs were reported as funded by the stimulus during that period.
Under new rules issued in December by the Office of Management and Budget, the new tally is no longer based on jobs "created or saved," but instead any job funded by the recovery act. And the jobs number is now listed for each quarter, instead of on cumulative basis as before.
Finally, any job paid partially with stimulus money will be counted based on the proportion funded by recovery funds for a single quarter.
The change came about to avoid past errors and criticism with regards to the saved jobs category. The old rules on saved jobs were confusing as recipients had to make a subjective decision: Would this worker still be employed if not for the stimulus money?
State Rep. Rich Zipperer (R-Pewaukee), who has called for oversight hearings into past stimulus job irregularities, said since the method for counting jobs has changed, he's worried jobs will be counted repeatedly.
"It's going to allow them to double count and triple count those jobs," said Zipperer, who is on the Assembly Committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business. "Now that it's 'jobs funded,' if anyone gets touched by dollars, they will be counted multiple times."
The new rules were meant to streamline the job reporting process for recipients, said Ed Pound, spokesman for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the oversight panel for stimulus money.
"The underlying thing to remember here is if a job is funded by recovery act money, it's counted," Pound said.
The federal Office of the Inspector General will conduct an on-site audit at the state education department in Madison beginning Monday. The audit will focus on the procedures the department used to disburse recovery money. So far, the inspector general has audited the education departments in 12 other states.
County jobs numbers
Another example in which job accounting requires clarification comes from Gov. Jim Doyle's office.
County governments across the state collectively have received an increase of nearly $160 million, almost half of which came in the form of "shared revenue" payments that flow from the state. This pot of money helps retain jobs in schools and local government, many of them in public safety.
In the previous reporting period, which ended in September, the state reported 2,221 jobs as created or saved by about $77.5 million of this money that had been received and spent up to that point.
In the fourth quarter of last year, another $82 million of this pot was received and spent. But that was listed as funding the exact same number of jobs, at a cost of about $2,000 more per job.
Chris Patton, policy director for the governor's office, which oversees the state recovery office, said that job figure is based on an annualized number and won't change until later this year.
"We asked them to tell us how the money would be utilized on an annual basis, so the job creation numbers will remain consistent," Patton said. "Regardless of what formula you use to calculate the jobs, the snapshot accurately depicts the job creation that's occurring in Wisconsin."
All the detailed job accounting aside, Zipperer said the impact of the stimulus package on the private sector has been minimal, with about three-quarters of the jobs going to shore up the public sector. He believes this is unsustainable.
What's more, the job creation that was promised hasn't materialized as the national unemployment rate has risen to 10%, he said.
"Here's a program that's been in place and overall the nation's payroll has shrunk by millions of jobs," Zipperer said. "It hasn't provided the stimulus as it was sold to the public as having."
Anita Dunn admits they control the media
So the medias' source is the White House, which is a clearly biased source when it comes to the White House. Anita is also proud of the way that they are allowed to craft the message.
This reminds me of a term. I can't recall what it is at the moment. When one party controls every aspect of the government as well as the media. If there was only a way of describing such a situation.
to·tal·i·tar·i·an
/toʊˌtælɪˈtɛəriən/ Show Spelled[toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uhn] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2.
exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
Source: dictionary.com
Anita Dunn looks to Mao for political inspiration
Wow another government adviser to the president that's looks to major communist dictators for inspiration on how to run the country I'm shocked, shocked. Does the president have any advisers that aren't communists or terrorists? Perhaps Hillary Clinton, too bad he neutered her position with the advent of the Czars.
More than 3 Million Registered Voters are Dead, 12 Million More Ineligible, Analysis Finds
Original Post: cns news
By: Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com) – Regardless of how lively an election season might be, a new study shows that more 3.3 million voters on current registration rolls across the country are dead.
Another 12.9 million remain on voter registration lists in an area where they no longer live.
The analysis was conducted by the Aristotle International Inc., a technology company
specializing in political campaigns, developing software and databases for politicians.
In total that means about 8.9 percent of all registered voters fall under the category of “deadwood” voters on the rolls, the term for voters who should no longer be eligible to vote in a precinct.
Not only does this raise concerns about potential voter fraud, but from the interest of campaign consultants, ineligible or expired voters could lead to a waste of resources, said John Aristotle Phillips, CEO of Aristotle.
“Some states have bigger problems than others,” Phillips said. “With deadwood exceeding one in seven votes in some counties, candidates might as well spend a day a week campaigning in the cemetery.”
Among the findings, the study showed that states with the most “deadwood” voters were Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Nationally, 1.87 percent of registered voters are dead, while 7.2 percent of voters do not live where they are registered.
“Deadwood on voters rolls complicates the electoral process and can cause problems like fraud and vote miscounts,” Phillips said. “It always creates a perception of low voter turnout. It gets down to this: by depressing turnout, dead voters make the rest of us look bad.”
By: Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com) – Regardless of how lively an election season might be, a new study shows that more 3.3 million voters on current registration rolls across the country are dead.
Another 12.9 million remain on voter registration lists in an area where they no longer live.
The analysis was conducted by the Aristotle International Inc., a technology company
specializing in political campaigns, developing software and databases for politicians.
In total that means about 8.9 percent of all registered voters fall under the category of “deadwood” voters on the rolls, the term for voters who should no longer be eligible to vote in a precinct.
Not only does this raise concerns about potential voter fraud, but from the interest of campaign consultants, ineligible or expired voters could lead to a waste of resources, said John Aristotle Phillips, CEO of Aristotle.
“Some states have bigger problems than others,” Phillips said. “With deadwood exceeding one in seven votes in some counties, candidates might as well spend a day a week campaigning in the cemetery.”
Among the findings, the study showed that states with the most “deadwood” voters were Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.
- In Massachusetts, 116,483 registered voters are dead, 3.38 percent of the state’s total of registered voters. Another 538,567, or 15.6 percent, had moved to an area outside of where they are registered to vote.
- In New Hampshire, there are 18,816 dead people on the voter registration rolls, or 2.5 percent of the total registered voters. There are 105,472 voters that have moved outside of the area where they are registered to vote.
- The analysis showed that Washington State had 27,267 dead voters who were still registered, just 0.7 percent of the total number of registered voters. Another 332,510 had moved out of the area they are registered to vote in, or 8.73 percent of the total registered voters.
- West Virginia had 72,717 dead voters on the registration rolls, or 6.74 percent of the total registered voters in the state. Another 141,352 voters had moved, or 13 percent.
- In Wyoming, 7,723 registered voters (3.68 percent) are dead, while 45,547 (21.69 percent) had moved.
- The state with the fewest problems percentage wise is North Carolina. There, 3.5 percent of registered voters are dead – 216,036. Meanwhile, 30,888 had moved out of the designated voting area, or about 0.5 percent.
Nationally, 1.87 percent of registered voters are dead, while 7.2 percent of voters do not live where they are registered.
“Deadwood on voters rolls complicates the electoral process and can cause problems like fraud and vote miscounts,” Phillips said. “It always creates a perception of low voter turnout. It gets down to this: by depressing turnout, dead voters make the rest of us look bad.”
At least eight student protestors shot after anti-Chavez march
Original Post: monstersandcritics
Caracas - At least eight people were shot when gunmen opened fire on students peacefully demonstrating against President Hugo Chavez's plan to amend the constitution, media reports said.
The identities of the gunmen who shot Wednesday night at the protestors at the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas were not known, but the opposition accused Chavez's government of being responsible for the attack.
Tens of thousands of students marched to the Supreme Court building Wednesday, calling for a delay of a December 2 referendum on the proposed constitutional changes. The gunfire came after the protest as the students returned to campus, the media reports said, citing emergency services.
The constitutional amendments sought by Chavez and passed by the legislature include abolishing presidential term limits and the autonomy of the central bank, reducing the power of state governments and declaring socialism as Venezuela's official ideology.
A strong police presence at the Supreme Court presented clashes between the students and Chavez supporters.
Interior Minister Pedro Carreno accused the students of violence and seeking 'the destabilization of democracy.'
Wednesday's protest followed a November 1 demonstration by thousands of students that was violently broken up by police. Ten people were injured.
Chavez said the constitutional amendments would anchor reforms through '21st-century socialism' in the constitution and improve the fight against corruption. The opposition accused Chavez of governing like a dictator.
Currently, Venezuela's president can be re-elected once, which would end Chavez's tenure in 2012.
Caracas - At least eight people were shot when gunmen opened fire on students peacefully demonstrating against President Hugo Chavez's plan to amend the constitution, media reports said.
The identities of the gunmen who shot Wednesday night at the protestors at the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas were not known, but the opposition accused Chavez's government of being responsible for the attack.
Tens of thousands of students marched to the Supreme Court building Wednesday, calling for a delay of a December 2 referendum on the proposed constitutional changes. The gunfire came after the protest as the students returned to campus, the media reports said, citing emergency services.
The constitutional amendments sought by Chavez and passed by the legislature include abolishing presidential term limits and the autonomy of the central bank, reducing the power of state governments and declaring socialism as Venezuela's official ideology.
A strong police presence at the Supreme Court presented clashes between the students and Chavez supporters.
Interior Minister Pedro Carreno accused the students of violence and seeking 'the destabilization of democracy.'
Wednesday's protest followed a November 1 demonstration by thousands of students that was violently broken up by police. Ten people were injured.
Chavez said the constitutional amendments would anchor reforms through '21st-century socialism' in the constitution and improve the fight against corruption. The opposition accused Chavez of governing like a dictator.
Currently, Venezuela's president can be re-elected once, which would end Chavez's tenure in 2012.
Ed Schultz: I'd cheat to keep Brown from winning
Original Post: washington times
By: Kerry Picket
By: Kerry Picket
Radio Equalizer's Brian Maloney captured MSNBC's Ed Schultz making a startling remark on his radio show yesterday about supporting voter fraud in Massachusetts, so Scott Brown would lose. The audio is below along with the transcript.
SCHULTZ (23:02): I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.
Maxine Waters threatens to nationalize U.S. oil industries
Why is it, that everyone says that Obama is a socialist and surrounds himself with socialists? Oh, yeah, because he does. The state controlling the means of production (sometimes directly in the case of GM and Chrysler) sometimes indirectly by controlling the banks and energy. Money and energy, that's pretty much the lifeblood of...everything. Obama wishes the state to control everything.
If only we could look to some other model and see if such a policy would work. If only this had been tried somewhere else so we could see if it will work. What amazing and innovative ideas our president brings to us.
Have we died of global cooling yet?
A lot of the same scientists involved in this scare are involved in the current global warming craze. I'm not sure why anyone thinks we can dramatically alter our environment by the absolutely minuscule effect we have on a negligible percentage of the gasses in our atmosphere. I suspect hubris though.
Friday, February 19, 2010
John McLaughlin: Freedom is 'Most Overrated' Political Concept
Original Post: newsbusters
By: Jeff Poor
By: Jeff Poor
How out-of-touch is the D.C. pundit class with the rest country? Look to John McLaughlin for the answer.
During part two of "The McLaughlin Group 2009 Year-End Awards," McLaughlin, who has hosted the program since 1982, declared the concept of freedom, at least from a political standpoint in the United States, is overrated.
"The most overrated is freedom," McLaughlin said. "When faced with economic uncertainty, people don't want freedom. When they can't see their economic future, they want the nanny state."
McLaughlin's troubling view doesn't necessarily square with polling data and other anecdotal indicators. Even back at the height of economic uncertainty, only 30 percent of Americans supported the TARP bailout to save the financial system, according to a September 2008 Associated Press poll.
And since then, the entire bailout culture introduced by former President George W. Bush and continued under the presidency of Barack Obama has faced the backlash of the tea party movement, inspired by CNBC's Rick Santelli voicing his opposition to a housing bailout.
Other members of "The McLaughlin Group" pointed to other "most overrated" factors that affect the economy. For MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan, it was global warming overrated. Newsweek's Eleanor Clift, providing the left-of-center voice on the panel, said Florida Gov. Charlie Crist was overrated. Conservative talker Monica Crowley called the so-called "boy genius" Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner the most overrated. But U.S. News & World Report editor-in-chief Mort Zuckerman took a shot at the leaders in the business community.
"The leaders of most of our major financial institutions in this country," Zuckerman said of the "Most Overrated."
Obama's Mao Christmas ornament.
No, Obama isn't a socialist. He only spews socialist rhetoric, puts into place socialist policies, and reveres communist dictators.
White House Christmas Decor Featuring Mao Zedong Comes Under Fire
Original Post: fox
By: Maxim Lott
Critics of President Obama are setting their sights on the official White House Christmas Tree, which features controversial ornaments including an orb depicting Mao Zedong and another showing drag queen Hedda Lettuce.
Mao Zedong is in the White House, hanging out with a drag queen. Not far away, Barack Obama is making a play to have his head etched in stone.
Critics of President Obama are setting their sights this week on the official White House Christmas tree, which features controversial ornaments including an orb depicting the late Chinese dictator, another that shows drag queen Hedda Lettuce, and yet another that shows a picture of Mount Rushmore -- with Obama's head pasted to the side of Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and Roosevelt's.
God rest ye, merry gentlemen.
Click here for photos of the White House Christmas Tree decorations.
Earlier this month, when the Christmas tree was unveiled, first lady Michelle Obama described how it was decorated in a video posted on the White House Web site:
"Our starting point was a very simple idea," she said. "That we include people in as many places, in as many ways as we can. We took about 800 ornaments left over from the previous administrations. We sent them to 60 local community groups throughout the country and asked them to decorate them, paying tribute to a favorite local landmark, and then send them back to us for display here at the White House.
"… in the new year, we all intend to renew this effort and continue this kind of outreach, so that everyone feels like they have a place here at the White House."
The 18-and-a-half-foot Douglas Fir tree was also heralded as environmentally friendly: In addition to using recycled ornaments, it uses energy-saving LED lights and an organic tree skirt.
It all sounded as cozy as chestnuts roasting on an open fire until some of the ornaments caught the eye of conservative bloggers.
Noting some of the tree's more provocative baubles, Mike Flynn, editor of BigGovernment.com, which first broke news of the controversial ornaments: "Can we have one aspect of this White House that isn't trying to make a political statement?"
Added Azaria Jagger, a blogger at the news and gossip site "Gawker":
"[D]oes it really make sense to put a tyrannical communist leader's visage on the American president's Christmas tree? On the other hand, an ornament that shellacks [Obama's] face onto Mount Rushmore is just tacky. It's in the guy's living room, for crying out loud."
But not everyone is flabbergasted. Watchdog group Media Matters went on the counterattack, calling the controversy "the right-wing's White House Christmas tree freak-out."
And drag queen Hedda Lettuce chimed in that she is proud to have her portrait hanging in the White House, even if it's just temporary:
"A month ago I was doing some volunteer work with SAGE, at the Gay Community Center in NYC," she posted on her blog. "SAGE is an organization that helps elder gay people by providing them social activities and a community space to hang out with their peers. It was a festive afternoon, for our task of the day was decorating Christmas ornaments for the Presidential tree in the White House. As it turns out, the White House sends ornaments to various organizations, the job is to make them dazzle in hopes that they will be proudly displayed at the big white mansion in our nations capital....
"I may never get equal rights, I may never be blond and pencil thin, I may never see Lady Gaga in concert this winter at Madison Square Garden (I could not get a ticket) but one of my balls is hanging in the White House with my name for all to see."
Designer Simon Doonan, who was in charge of organizing Christmas decorations at the White House, did not respond to calls for comment. Neither did the White House.
By: Maxim Lott
Critics of President Obama are setting their sights on the official White House Christmas Tree, which features controversial ornaments including an orb depicting Mao Zedong and another showing drag queen Hedda Lettuce.
Mao Zedong is in the White House, hanging out with a drag queen. Not far away, Barack Obama is making a play to have his head etched in stone.
Critics of President Obama are setting their sights this week on the official White House Christmas tree, which features controversial ornaments including an orb depicting the late Chinese dictator, another that shows drag queen Hedda Lettuce, and yet another that shows a picture of Mount Rushmore -- with Obama's head pasted to the side of Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and Roosevelt's.
God rest ye, merry gentlemen.
Click here for photos of the White House Christmas Tree decorations.
Earlier this month, when the Christmas tree was unveiled, first lady Michelle Obama described how it was decorated in a video posted on the White House Web site:
"Our starting point was a very simple idea," she said. "That we include people in as many places, in as many ways as we can. We took about 800 ornaments left over from the previous administrations. We sent them to 60 local community groups throughout the country and asked them to decorate them, paying tribute to a favorite local landmark, and then send them back to us for display here at the White House.
"… in the new year, we all intend to renew this effort and continue this kind of outreach, so that everyone feels like they have a place here at the White House."
The 18-and-a-half-foot Douglas Fir tree was also heralded as environmentally friendly: In addition to using recycled ornaments, it uses energy-saving LED lights and an organic tree skirt.
It all sounded as cozy as chestnuts roasting on an open fire until some of the ornaments caught the eye of conservative bloggers.
Noting some of the tree's more provocative baubles, Mike Flynn, editor of BigGovernment.com, which first broke news of the controversial ornaments: "Can we have one aspect of this White House that isn't trying to make a political statement?"
Added Azaria Jagger, a blogger at the news and gossip site "Gawker":
"[D]oes it really make sense to put a tyrannical communist leader's visage on the American president's Christmas tree? On the other hand, an ornament that shellacks [Obama's] face onto Mount Rushmore is just tacky. It's in the guy's living room, for crying out loud."
But not everyone is flabbergasted. Watchdog group Media Matters went on the counterattack, calling the controversy "the right-wing's White House Christmas tree freak-out."
And drag queen Hedda Lettuce chimed in that she is proud to have her portrait hanging in the White House, even if it's just temporary:
"A month ago I was doing some volunteer work with SAGE, at the Gay Community Center in NYC," she posted on her blog. "SAGE is an organization that helps elder gay people by providing them social activities and a community space to hang out with their peers. It was a festive afternoon, for our task of the day was decorating Christmas ornaments for the Presidential tree in the White House. As it turns out, the White House sends ornaments to various organizations, the job is to make them dazzle in hopes that they will be proudly displayed at the big white mansion in our nations capital....
"I may never get equal rights, I may never be blond and pencil thin, I may never see Lady Gaga in concert this winter at Madison Square Garden (I could not get a ticket) but one of my balls is hanging in the White House with my name for all to see."
Designer Simon Doonan, who was in charge of organizing Christmas decorations at the White House, did not respond to calls for comment. Neither did the White House.
Al Gore believes our planet is currently a moten ball of slag
Is anyone still paying attention to Al Gore? He apparently thinks we're a race of fire people living on a planet so hot it puts the Sun to shame.
Earth's Core Temperature
Sun's Temperature
Let's do some math. For several million we'll estimate he meant 6. And the Sun is roughly 10,000 degrees on it's surface. Dat dat dah, carry the one...Al Gore thinks the Earth is 600 times hotter than the surface of the Sun.
Now I'm not a biologist, but it's my understanding that human life has a maximum temperature in which it can survive. It's just a guess, but I'd suspect that human flesh would burst into flames a temperatures far less than 600 times that of the surface of the Sun. And since I live on Earth, am made of flesh and have not burst in flames, I can only conclude that Al Gore is full of crap.
‘Car Czar’ Could Dictate Models and Prices of U.S. Automakers
Original Post: cns news
By: Matt Cover
(CNSNews.com) - The House-passed $14-billion bailout bill for U.S. automakers would give a presidential "designee" the potential power to tell the automakers what cars they could make and the price at which they could sell them.
The bill--formally titled the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act--passed the House Wednesday, but appeared stalled in the Senate yesterday. The act would grant sweeping powers to a federal "Car Czar" -- an individual the bill merely refers to as "the President’s Designee."
The designee would be solely responsible for carrying out the provisions of the auto bailout, including overseeing the negotiations for and approving the restructuring plans the automakers must produce under the proposal by a March 31 deadline.
The bill directs the automakers to negotiate restructuring plans and submit them to the designee by that date. If the automakers successfully negotiate a restructuring plan, the designee will evaluate whether the plans meet each of six conditions required by Congress.
Meeting the ‘requirements.’
Section 6 of the bill--titled “Submission of Plans”--states:
“The president’s designee shall approve the restructuring plan if the president’s designee determines that the plan will result in,” meeting a set of requirements.
Among those requirements: a provision that automakers have “a product mix and cost structure that is competitive in the United States market.”
This requirement would mean that the federal Car Czar could determine which cars and trucks the automaker could produce, according to a Senate Banking Committee staffer, because the “designee” would determine what would and what would not be competitive.
If the designee deemed that the company’s proposed product line and pricing structure would not be competitive, the company would have to change its plan--or have its federal financial assistance revoked.
“If an evaluation by the president’s designee demonstrates that . . . the eligible automobile manufacturer . . . fails to submit an acceptable restructuring plan,” the bill says, “[t]he repayment of any loan may be accelerated . . . and any other financial assistance may be cancelled by the president’s designee.”
If the Car Czar believes that the automakers are not making sufficient progress toward negotiating restructuring plans to his liking, he is specifically called upon to ask Congress for additional powers to give him the authority to make them do so.
“At any such time as the president’s designee determines that action is necessary to avoid disruption to the economy or to achieve a negotiated plan,” the bill says, “the president’s designee shall submit to Congress a report outlining any additional powers and authorities necessary to facilitate the completion of a negotiated plan.”
There is no definition in the bill outlining what these powers might be, but the bill further authorizes the Car Czar to substitute his own plan for restructuring the auto industry if he believes the automakers have failed to come up with an adequate plan of their own.
Under the bill, the Car Czar's plan could take the form of extended negotiations between the automakers and other interested parties, forcing the automakers into Chapter 11, or presenting his own plan to Congress in the form of new legislation that would--by federal law--tell the car companies what models they could make and what they could charge for them.
“The president’s designee shall provide to Congress a plan that represents the judgment of the president’s designee as to the steps necessary to achieve long-term viability…including through a negotiated plan, a plan to be implemented by legislation, or a (bankruptcy) reorganization,” the bill says.
Another condition the restructuring plans must meet is a mandate to produce “advanced technology vehicles”--including hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles.
By: Matt Cover
(CNSNews.com) - The House-passed $14-billion bailout bill for U.S. automakers would give a presidential "designee" the potential power to tell the automakers what cars they could make and the price at which they could sell them.
The bill--formally titled the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act--passed the House Wednesday, but appeared stalled in the Senate yesterday. The act would grant sweeping powers to a federal "Car Czar" -- an individual the bill merely refers to as "the President’s Designee."
The designee would be solely responsible for carrying out the provisions of the auto bailout, including overseeing the negotiations for and approving the restructuring plans the automakers must produce under the proposal by a March 31 deadline.
The bill directs the automakers to negotiate restructuring plans and submit them to the designee by that date. If the automakers successfully negotiate a restructuring plan, the designee will evaluate whether the plans meet each of six conditions required by Congress.
Meeting the ‘requirements.’
Section 6 of the bill--titled “Submission of Plans”--states:
“The president’s designee shall approve the restructuring plan if the president’s designee determines that the plan will result in,” meeting a set of requirements.
Among those requirements: a provision that automakers have “a product mix and cost structure that is competitive in the United States market.”
This requirement would mean that the federal Car Czar could determine which cars and trucks the automaker could produce, according to a Senate Banking Committee staffer, because the “designee” would determine what would and what would not be competitive.
If the designee deemed that the company’s proposed product line and pricing structure would not be competitive, the company would have to change its plan--or have its federal financial assistance revoked.
“If an evaluation by the president’s designee demonstrates that . . . the eligible automobile manufacturer . . . fails to submit an acceptable restructuring plan,” the bill says, “[t]he repayment of any loan may be accelerated . . . and any other financial assistance may be cancelled by the president’s designee.”
If the Car Czar believes that the automakers are not making sufficient progress toward negotiating restructuring plans to his liking, he is specifically called upon to ask Congress for additional powers to give him the authority to make them do so.
“At any such time as the president’s designee determines that action is necessary to avoid disruption to the economy or to achieve a negotiated plan,” the bill says, “the president’s designee shall submit to Congress a report outlining any additional powers and authorities necessary to facilitate the completion of a negotiated plan.”
There is no definition in the bill outlining what these powers might be, but the bill further authorizes the Car Czar to substitute his own plan for restructuring the auto industry if he believes the automakers have failed to come up with an adequate plan of their own.
Under the bill, the Car Czar's plan could take the form of extended negotiations between the automakers and other interested parties, forcing the automakers into Chapter 11, or presenting his own plan to Congress in the form of new legislation that would--by federal law--tell the car companies what models they could make and what they could charge for them.
“The president’s designee shall provide to Congress a plan that represents the judgment of the president’s designee as to the steps necessary to achieve long-term viability…including through a negotiated plan, a plan to be implemented by legislation, or a (bankruptcy) reorganization,” the bill says.
Another condition the restructuring plans must meet is a mandate to produce “advanced technology vehicles”--including hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Funny Business in Minnesota
Original Post: wsj online
![[Review & Outlook]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vE5k4zrsMFrDJTbN7CqymaHM2F2hyK-yvfP66kuZEjEK1l-ANr8W-Y-de-bVGMy_TNBZwMXfquouZ9Yd0rU-CKRQWzROR9tWrzy98eiIJXEZ1ziruHwYmFs_6pyxCoemgL5OZJrgNWMCQdPqqOE04vlQ=s0-d)
AP
Strange things keep happening in Minnesota, where the disputed recount in the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken may be nearing a dubious outcome. Thanks to the machinations of Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and a meek state Canvassing Board, Mr. Franken may emerge as an illegitimate victor.
APMr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on "counting every vote" wants to shut the process down. He's getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.
Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.
This disenfranchises Minnesotans whose vote counted only once. And one Canvassing Board member, State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, has acknowledged that "very likely there was a double counting." Yet the board insists that it lacks the authority to question local officials and it is merely adding the inflated numbers to the totals.
In other cases, the board has been flagrantly inconsistent. Last month, Mr. Franken's campaign charged that one Hennepin County (Minneapolis) precinct had "lost" 133 votes, since the hand recount showed fewer ballots than machine votes recorded on Election Night. Though there is no proof to this missing vote charge -- officials may have accidentally run the ballots through the machine twice on Election Night -- the Canvassing Board chose to go with the Election Night total, rather than the actual number of ballots in the recount. That decision gave Mr. Franken a gain of 46 votes.
Meanwhile, a Ramsey County precinct ended up with 177 more ballots than there were recorded votes on Election Night. In that case, the board decided to go with the extra ballots, rather than the Election Night total, even though the county is now showing more ballots than voters in the precinct. This gave Mr. Franken a net gain of 37 votes, which means he's benefited both ways from the board's inconsistency.
And then there are the absentee ballots. The Franken campaign initially howled that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. Counties were supposed to review their absentees and create a list of those they believed were mistakenly rejected. Many Franken-leaning counties did so, submitting 1,350 ballots to include in the results. But many Coleman-leaning counties have yet to complete a re-examination. Despite this lack of uniformity, and though the state Supreme Court has yet to rule on a Coleman request to standardize this absentee review, Mr. Ritchie's office nonetheless plowed through the incomplete pile of 1,350 absentees this weekend, padding Mr. Franken's edge by a further 176 votes.
Both campaigns have also suggested that Mr. Ritchie's office made mistakes in tabulating votes that had been challenged by either of the campaigns. And the Canvassing Board appears to have applied inconsistent standards in how it decided some of these challenged votes -- in ways that, again on net, have favored Mr. Franken.
The question is how the board can certify a fair and accurate election result given these multiple recount problems. Yet that is precisely what the five members seem prepared to do when they meet today. Some members seem to have concluded that because one of the candidates will challenge the result in any event, why not get on with it and leave it to the courts? Mr. Coleman will certainly have grounds to contest the result in court, but he'll be at a disadvantage given that courts are understandably reluctant to overrule a certified outcome.
Meanwhile, Minnesota's other Senator, Amy Klobuchar, is already saying her fellow Democrats should seat Mr. Franken when the 111th Congress begins this week if the Canvassing Board certifies him as the winner. This contradicts Minnesota law, which says the state cannot award a certificate of election if one party contests the results. Ms. Klobuchar is trying to create the public perception of a fait accompli, all the better to make Mr. Coleman look like a sore loser and build pressure on him to drop his legal challenge despite the funny recount business.
Minnesotans like to think that their state isn't like New Jersey or Louisiana, and typically it isn't. But we can't recall a similar recount involving optical scanning machines that has changed so many votes, and in which nearly every crucial decision worked to the advantage of the same candidate. The Coleman campaign clearly misjudged the politics here, and the apparent willingness of a partisan like Mr. Ritchie to help his preferred candidate, Mr. Franken. If the Canvassing Board certifies Mr. Franken as the winner based on the current count, it will be anointing a tainted and undeserving Senator.
Cornyn asks Obama if healthcare spies should rat on his own "disinformation"
Original Post: jillstanek
Yesterday conservatives publicized that the White House was recruiting informants on its blog to turn in emails and web addresses of those spreading "disinformation" on Obamacare, i.e., anything in opposition.
Today Big Brother's request remains up.
Prompting Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) to write a great letter to the WH reminding Obama of the First Amendment, requesting him to remove the request, and asking exactly what Obama plans to do with names, email addresses, IP addresses, and web addresses of people countering his healthcare disinformation. Great last line:
Do your own past statements qualify as "disinformation"? For example, is it "disinformation" to note that in 2003 you said: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan"?
Yesterday conservatives publicized that the White House was recruiting informants on its blog to turn in emails and web addresses of those spreading "disinformation" on Obamacare, i.e., anything in opposition.
Today Big Brother's request remains up.
Prompting Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) to write a great letter to the WH reminding Obama of the First Amendment, requesting him to remove the request, and asking exactly what Obama plans to do with names, email addresses, IP addresses, and web addresses of people countering his healthcare disinformation. Great last line:
Do your own past statements qualify as "disinformation"? For example, is it "disinformation" to note that in 2003 you said: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan"?
UPDATED: 94,341 jobs 'not really created or saved' by the stimulus (and counting)
Original Post: washington examiner
By: David Freddoso and Mark Hemingway
12/22/09
With the revelation that CalTrans dramatically over-reported the number of jobs created or saved with stimulus money, we've added hundreds more to our job count.
12/15/09
We've added hundreds more jobs that weren't really created or saved from new media reports and further analysis of Recovery.gov data.
12/1/09 UPDATE:
Roughly 2,000 new imaginary stimulus jobs have been added to the map, including hundreds of reported Head Start jobs that were actually just pay raises.
11/26/09 UPDATE:
We've added more than 100 jobs that were "created or saved" with impossibly small amounts of money.
11/24/09 UPDATE:
California's stimulus audit has found a massive overcount of more than 13,000 corrections jobs supposedly "saved."
11/19 UPDATE:
We've added thousands more jobs in several dozen cities to our not really "created or saved" stimulus jobs map. The total number of jobs we have found to be "not really created or saved" now approaches 80,000. Several new states and the Territory of Guam have new entries. We will continue updating the map in the coming weeks.
Most of the new pins on our interactive map represent such un-started, un-funded contracts, according to data taken from Recovery.gov. Because the Obama administration has been using its inflated claim of 640,000 jobs "created or saved" to make projections for future stimulus job creation, these un-started, un-funded projects really should not be part of the total. Moreover, the administration itself has asked contractors not to make "projections" but to report jobs as they are "created or saved," according to news reports.
More than ten percent of the jobs the Obama administration has claimed were "created or saved" by the $787 billion stimulus package are doubtful or imaginary, according to reports compiled from eleven major newspapers and the Associated Press.
Based only on our analysis of stimulus media coverage in the last two weeks, The Examiner has created this interactive map to document exaggerated stimulus claims. The map, which will be updated as new revelations appear, currently reflects an exaggeration by the Obama administration of about 75,000 jobs, out of the 640,000 jobs supposedly "created or saved."
The map reflects reports from The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, the Sacramento Bee, The New York Times, USA Today, the Las Vegas Sun, the Detroit Free Press, the New York Post, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the Associated Press, the Chicago Tribune, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It remains a work in progress because relatively few newspapers have scrutinized stimulus spending so far.
The Obama administration has claimed that the $787 billion economic stimulus package "saved or created" some 650,000 jobs. But almost as soon as the White House trotted out this figure, news organizations found huge exaggerations in the reported data. Many of the jobs reportedly created do not exist or cannot be accounted for.
UPDATE: Today's report from ABC News tells us that prior to releasing its jobs report, the administration cut out 60,000 additional jobs from unreliable reports, none of which appear to overlap with the ones we've highlighted here. Had those jobs been included in the original count, the number of jobs "created or saved" by the stimulus would have exceeded 700,000, and the number of imaginary or doubtful jobs would have approached 20 percent.
By: David Freddoso and Mark Hemingway
12/22/09
With the revelation that CalTrans dramatically over-reported the number of jobs created or saved with stimulus money, we've added hundreds more to our job count.
12/15/09
We've added hundreds more jobs that weren't really created or saved from new media reports and further analysis of Recovery.gov data.
12/1/09 UPDATE:
Roughly 2,000 new imaginary stimulus jobs have been added to the map, including hundreds of reported Head Start jobs that were actually just pay raises.
11/26/09 UPDATE:
We've added more than 100 jobs that were "created or saved" with impossibly small amounts of money.
11/24/09 UPDATE:
California's stimulus audit has found a massive overcount of more than 13,000 corrections jobs supposedly "saved."
11/19 UPDATE:
We've added thousands more jobs in several dozen cities to our not really "created or saved" stimulus jobs map. The total number of jobs we have found to be "not really created or saved" now approaches 80,000. Several new states and the Territory of Guam have new entries. We will continue updating the map in the coming weeks.
Most of the new pins on our interactive map represent such un-started, un-funded contracts, according to data taken from Recovery.gov. Because the Obama administration has been using its inflated claim of 640,000 jobs "created or saved" to make projections for future stimulus job creation, these un-started, un-funded projects really should not be part of the total. Moreover, the administration itself has asked contractors not to make "projections" but to report jobs as they are "created or saved," according to news reports.
More than ten percent of the jobs the Obama administration has claimed were "created or saved" by the $787 billion stimulus package are doubtful or imaginary, according to reports compiled from eleven major newspapers and the Associated Press.
Based only on our analysis of stimulus media coverage in the last two weeks, The Examiner has created this interactive map to document exaggerated stimulus claims. The map, which will be updated as new revelations appear, currently reflects an exaggeration by the Obama administration of about 75,000 jobs, out of the 640,000 jobs supposedly "created or saved."
The map reflects reports from The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, the Sacramento Bee, The New York Times, USA Today, the Las Vegas Sun, the Detroit Free Press, the New York Post, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the Associated Press, the Chicago Tribune, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It remains a work in progress because relatively few newspapers have scrutinized stimulus spending so far.
The Obama administration has claimed that the $787 billion economic stimulus package "saved or created" some 650,000 jobs. But almost as soon as the White House trotted out this figure, news organizations found huge exaggerations in the reported data. Many of the jobs reportedly created do not exist or cannot be accounted for.
UPDATE: Today's report from ABC News tells us that prior to releasing its jobs report, the administration cut out 60,000 additional jobs from unreliable reports, none of which appear to overlap with the ones we've highlighted here. Had those jobs been included in the original count, the number of jobs "created or saved" by the stimulus would have exceeded 700,000, and the number of imaginary or doubtful jobs would have approached 20 percent.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Milwaukee-area school districts grapple with sex-ed policies
Original Post: jsonline
By: Erin Richards
By: Erin Richards
Carrie Timmermon and her husband were recently cleaning up the kitchen after dinner, talking about their daughter starting 4-year-old kindergarten this fall, when the conversation drifted to what information kids should learn at what ages.
"And we just kind of asked each other," Timmermon said, " 'When should we tell her about the differences between boys and girls?' "
For parents like the Timmermons in Milwaukee, who diligently pre-screen G-rated movies and forbid their daughter from playing with the made-up and mini-skirted Bratz dolls, when and how to start talking about the human body and sex can be a bit of a mystery.
Schools face a similar dilemma. Many districts teach what's broadly known as human growth and development, but the thoroughness of the information varies widely among districts, schools and classrooms, based on an informal survey of schools by the Journal Sentinel.
Over the summer, Milwaukee Public Schools is addressing the unevenness in its human growth and development curriculum by revamping the entire program from kindergarten through high school, and making a plan to train teachers on how to deliver the information.
The School Board has not yet reviewed the proposed changes.
"There are some schools that pride themselves on providing a thorough curriculum and others that don't do as much," said Raquel Filmanowicz, a spokeswoman for the city Health Department. "There's a clear disparity, and the kids are the ones who lose out."
Take fourth-grade MPS teacher Sally Krueger. When one of her children asks an explicit question about sex, she usually suggests the child ask his or her parent instead.
"Safety stuff, I'm A-OK with teaching," Krueger said. "But physical concepts and mechanics? I don't want to be the only adult in my room when that discussion is happening."
Brett Fuller, the MPS curriculum specialist for health, physical education and drug-free schools, said that the plan is to first train all fourth-grade teachers on how to teach the new curriculum, and then eventually train teachers in other grades. The United Way of Greater Milwaukee has been eager to target fourth-graders in its plan to lower the city's teen birth rate by almost half in 2015, when those children will be at a reproductive age.
Milwaukee Health Commissioner Bevan Baker said the revisions to the MPS curriculum - which dismiss rote lecture in favor of skills-based learning and role-playing - mark the first time he's seen the district commit to making sure comprehensive information reaches all the students.
"This is a communitywide effort about science and anatomy, but also a cultural shift in the societal norm," Baker said. "The expectation of many is that it's OK by 15, 16 or 17 (years old) to have sexual relations with a 24-year-old. We need to go upstream and teach a better societal norm."
Districts shy away
Outside of Milwaukee, introducing sexual topics at younger grade levels has been a tough sell. Brookfield's Elmbrook School Board members are at a stalemate with an advisory committee, which recommended that the definition of oral sex should be introduced in eighth grade instead of 10th, said Melanie Stewart, the district's director of assessment and student learning.
The debate started in 2007, when sixth- and seventh-graders were to receive a new fact sheet defining oral sex and sexual intercourse. Critics said sixth and seventh grade was too soon for such information because few suburban youth were engaging in high-risk sexual behavior.
The Kenosha Unified School District has similarly shied away from some of the more controversial topics in its health classes. Even in high school, said Scott Lindgren, the district's coordinator of athletics, activities, health, physical education and recreation, nobody talks about oral sex or contracting infections from that behavior.
Lindgren said the lessons became based more on abstinence after a contentious revision of the coursework in 2004-'05, and that health education has been watered down at the middle-school level because of budget cuts.
"We may see repercussions from that in a few years," Lindgren said.
Jeff Weiss, the director of curriculum and instruction at Racine Unified Schools, said his district of 22,000 kids faces similar constraints.
"Not to say that this isn't important, but with No Child Left Behind, what gets measured is what we have to work on," Weiss said.
What's a parent's role?
Parents aren't always sure where to intervene. Tracy Snead, an alderman in Muskego with two sons in high school and college, still remembers when her youngest was in fourth grade. A letter came home from school asking her if she wanted to opt him out of the human growth and development lessons.
The content was "pretty heavy," Snead said, but she didn't want to opt out her son for fear he'd be singled out.
"I wanted to bring it up with him first, but I wasn't really ready," Snead said. "I remember talking about it with my husband and being like, 'You're the guy. You talk to him about it.' "
As sexual health issues have become more complex, it's unclear whether schools can or should distribute information parents may not be sharing.
Judy Gerrity, the project coordinator for wellness and prevention of teen pregnancy in MPS, said she doesn't know how far schools should take their roles.
"The focus for us is on reducing live births to teens," Gerrity said, which invariably leaves less time for discussing other information, such as the rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea that are on the rise among young people in Milwaukee.
"We worked on this for four days and that was enough," she said. "But this is why (the revisions) need a lot more input from a lot more people."
Bizzaro World: Russian PM Vladimir Putin Warns Obama About Raising Taxes....
Original Post: weasel zippers
It has come to this.....
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Monday criticized U.S. President Barack Obama's plan to raise taxes on U.S. companies' foreign operations, saying it would amount to double taxation that will hurt the global economy.
"This is a serious decision for the world economy," Putin said at a meeting of the Presidium, the government said on its web site. "If taxes are imposed on all companies working abroad, then it will mean the total destruction of the system for avoiding double taxation."
Putin instructed Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin to hold discussions on the plan with Obama's administration.
Obama has proposed canceling a provision of the tax code that allows foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations to defer tax payments on money that is reinvested in local operations.
Chavez Jokes He Is More Right-Wing Than 'Comrade' Obama
Original Post: foxnews
AP
May 28: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gestures during his radio and television show 'Hello President' in Maracaibo, Venezuela.
May 28: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gestures during his radio and television show 'Hello President' in Maracaibo, Venezuela.
President Hugo Chavez claimed this week that he and his Cuban ally Fidel Castro are more conservative than left-wing U.S. President Barack Obama, referring to the American government bailout and takeover of General Motors, Reuters reported.
The Venezuelan leader was giving a speech on the "curse" of capitalism on Tuesday as GM was filing for bankruptcy and preparing for Washington to take control of 60 percent of the 100-year-old symbol of American capitalism.
"Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right," Reuters quotes Chavez joking on a national TV broadcast.
Socialist Chavez has nationalized most of Venezuela's economic sectors, including many oil projects that include joint ventures with private companies that give his government a 60 percent stake.
Obama says he will quickly sell off GM, but for now the government controls the automaker and has injected $30 billion of taxpayer money into the company.
Chavez also on Tuesday accused the CIA of plotting to kill him.
Chavez has previously accused the U.S. of plotting to overthrow him or invade Venezuela, but Tuesday was the first time he has made such accusations since warmly greeting President Barack Obama at an April summit in Trinidad and Tobago.
Obama Under Fire For Incident With Pesky Bug
Original Post: CBS
PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.
The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants the flyswatter in chief to try taking a more humane attitude the next time he's bedeviled by a fly in the White House.
"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."
During an interview for CNBC at the White House on Tuesday, a fly intruded on Obama's conversation with correspondent John Harwood.
"Get out of here," the president told the pesky insect. When it didn't, he waited for the fly to settle, put his hand up and then smacked it dead.
"Now, where were we?" Obama asked Harwood. Then he added: "That was pretty impressive, wasn't it? I got the sucker."
Friedrich said that PETA was pleased with Obama's voting record in the Senate on behalf of animal rights and noted that he has been outspoken against animal abuses.
Still, "swatting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect," Friedrich said, "and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't."
Deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said the White House has no comment on the matter.
PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.
The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants the flyswatter in chief to try taking a more humane attitude the next time he's bedeviled by a fly in the White House.
"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."
During an interview for CNBC at the White House on Tuesday, a fly intruded on Obama's conversation with correspondent John Harwood.
"Get out of here," the president told the pesky insect. When it didn't, he waited for the fly to settle, put his hand up and then smacked it dead.
"Now, where were we?" Obama asked Harwood. Then he added: "That was pretty impressive, wasn't it? I got the sucker."
Friedrich said that PETA was pleased with Obama's voting record in the Senate on behalf of animal rights and noted that he has been outspoken against animal abuses.
Still, "swatting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect," Friedrich said, "and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't."
Deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said the White House has no comment on the matter.
Miranda Rights for Terrorists
My friends and I joked about this years ago. Apparently the Dems. heard us and thought it was a good idea.
Original Post: weeklystandard
By: Stephen F. Hayes
When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. "I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer," he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.
Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. "I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal - read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up," Tenet wrote in his memoirs.
If Tenet is right, it's a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here's the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today - foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they're reading them their rights - Mirandizing these foreign fighters," says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.
Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. "I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn't been briefed on it, I didn't know about it. We're still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative."
That effort, which elevates the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and diminishes the role of intelligence and military officials, was described in a May 28 Los Angeles Times article.
The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.
Under the "global justice" initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.
Thanks in part to the popularity of law and order television shows and movies, many Americans are familiar with the Miranda warning - so named because of the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona that required police officers and other law enforcement officials to advise suspected criminals of their rights.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
A lawyer who has worked on detainee issues for the U.S. government offers this rationale for the Obama administration's approach. "If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they're likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspect and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspect can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future."
But Republicans on Capitol Hill are not happy. "When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the 'right to remain silent,'" says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up."
According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. "The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people - Take the option. You want a lawyer.'"
Original Post: weeklystandard
By: Stephen F. Hayes
When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. "I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer," he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.
Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. "I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal - read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up," Tenet wrote in his memoirs.
If Tenet is right, it's a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here's the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today - foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they're reading them their rights - Mirandizing these foreign fighters," says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.
Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. "I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn't been briefed on it, I didn't know about it. We're still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative."
That effort, which elevates the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and diminishes the role of intelligence and military officials, was described in a May 28 Los Angeles Times article.
The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.
Under the "global justice" initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.
Thanks in part to the popularity of law and order television shows and movies, many Americans are familiar with the Miranda warning - so named because of the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona that required police officers and other law enforcement officials to advise suspected criminals of their rights.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
A lawyer who has worked on detainee issues for the U.S. government offers this rationale for the Obama administration's approach. "If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they're likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspect and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspect can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future."
But Republicans on Capitol Hill are not happy. "When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the 'right to remain silent,'" says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up."
According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. "The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people - Take the option. You want a lawyer.'"
Rogers adds: "The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he's building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer - you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone."
One thing is clear, though. A detainee who is not talking cannot provide information about future attacks. Had Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had a lawyer, Tenet wrote, "I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats against the American people."
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
Original Post: newsbusters
By: Kyle Drennen
Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Thomas, appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews, was reacting to a preceding monologue in which Matthews praised Obama’s speech: "I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful...But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility...The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world."
Matthews discussed Obama’s upcoming speech marking the 65th anniversary of D-Day and compared it to that of Ronald Reagan. He then turned to Thomas and asked: "Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?" Thomas replied: "Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial."
Thomas elaborated on Obama as God, patronizingly explaining: "He's going to bring all different sides together...Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together...He's the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he can do that." In response, Matthews wondered: "If there's a world election between him and Osama Bin Laden, he's running a good campaign." Thomas agreed: "Yes, he is."
Here is a transcript of the relevant portion of the exchange:
5:15PM SEGMENT:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Tomorrow on the 65th anniversary of D-day, President Obama has a tough pair of acts to follow. His own speech yesterday and one given a quarter century ago. I remember getting up that morning in 1984 to catch President Reagan at Normandy. It was a real ‘Morning in America’ speech. I believe that Reagan’s ability to connect to World War II was a reason for his enormous popularity in this country. Here he was on the bluffs of France saying something very good about America, how we liberated Europe. That's the heart of it, really. The reason Reagan was popular, Roosevelt was popular, Jack Kennedy was popular, and Barack Obama is popular. Don't tear us down. Don't make us feel like victims or the angry guys or the worried guys. Make us feel American. I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful. It said to the world, if you're a good guy, you've got nothing to fear from us. If you’ve got national aspirations, if you want to be respected as a people, if you want to be treated as an equal people in the world, we're on your side. If you're an aggressor, if you want to hold down other people, if you're driven by a predatory ideology, if you're out to hurt this country, look out. We Americans are that rattlesnake on that first flag, ‘Don't tread on me.’ But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility. What he did was rob from the enemy, those who want to destroy us, their main case, the belief that only by extremism can the East reach equality of dignity with the West. The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world. If he can, he'll be honoring what happened on D-day 65 years ago tomorrow. He will be delivering the world once again from evil. Evan Thomas is editor at large for Newsweek magazine. Evan, you remember '84. It wasn't 100 years ago. Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?
EVAN THOMAS: Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God. He’s-
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
THOMAS: He's going to bring all different sides together. It's a very different-
MATTHEWS: Can he – well, here’s Ronald Reagan. Let's take a look, a little Friday night nostalgia. Here he is speaking about peace and reconciliation at Normandy back 25 years ago. Let's listen.
RONALD REAGAN: But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and, yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation. In truth, there is no reconciliation we would welcome more than a reconciliation with the Soviet Union so together we can lessen the risks of war now and forever.
MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the difference. He was talking about the evil empire, trying to reconcile with the people of Russia and the Soviet Union, but not the country. Barack Obama the other day was saying, yesterday, that we don't have an enemy out there per se. We have people who choose extremism, but Islam’s not our enemy. That's not the evil empire.
THOMAS: But Reagan did it with a very – for the first term it was a clenched fist. I mean, we ramped up the cold war before we ramped it down. We built up our military. We – all of this D-day stuff was about war. That was about fighting.
MATTHEWS: Right.
THOMAS: Reconciliation only after the fighting. That's not – Obama’s not doing that. Obama – we've had our fighting. Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together. I think he has a much tougher job, frankly, because-
MATTHEWS: What's his shtick? Reagan had the United States arms race, winning the arms race. And we had the threat of high frontier, we were going to beat the Soviets at technology.
THOMAS: I don't think he has – his shtick is he's the teacher. He's the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he can do that-
MATTHEWS: If there's a world election between him and Osama Bin Laden, he's running a good campaign.
THOMAS: Yes, he is.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
By: Kyle Drennen
Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Thomas, appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews, was reacting to a preceding monologue in which Matthews praised Obama’s speech: "I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful...But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility...The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world."
Matthews discussed Obama’s upcoming speech marking the 65th anniversary of D-Day and compared it to that of Ronald Reagan. He then turned to Thomas and asked: "Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?" Thomas replied: "Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial."
Thomas elaborated on Obama as God, patronizingly explaining: "He's going to bring all different sides together...Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together...He's the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he can do that." In response, Matthews wondered: "If there's a world election between him and Osama Bin Laden, he's running a good campaign." Thomas agreed: "Yes, he is."
Here is a transcript of the relevant portion of the exchange:
5:15PM SEGMENT:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Tomorrow on the 65th anniversary of D-day, President Obama has a tough pair of acts to follow. His own speech yesterday and one given a quarter century ago. I remember getting up that morning in 1984 to catch President Reagan at Normandy. It was a real ‘Morning in America’ speech. I believe that Reagan’s ability to connect to World War II was a reason for his enormous popularity in this country. Here he was on the bluffs of France saying something very good about America, how we liberated Europe. That's the heart of it, really. The reason Reagan was popular, Roosevelt was popular, Jack Kennedy was popular, and Barack Obama is popular. Don't tear us down. Don't make us feel like victims or the angry guys or the worried guys. Make us feel American. I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful. It said to the world, if you're a good guy, you've got nothing to fear from us. If you’ve got national aspirations, if you want to be respected as a people, if you want to be treated as an equal people in the world, we're on your side. If you're an aggressor, if you want to hold down other people, if you're driven by a predatory ideology, if you're out to hurt this country, look out. We Americans are that rattlesnake on that first flag, ‘Don't tread on me.’ But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility. What he did was rob from the enemy, those who want to destroy us, their main case, the belief that only by extremism can the East reach equality of dignity with the West. The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world. If he can, he'll be honoring what happened on D-day 65 years ago tomorrow. He will be delivering the world once again from evil. Evan Thomas is editor at large for Newsweek magazine. Evan, you remember '84. It wasn't 100 years ago. Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?
EVAN THOMAS: Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God. He’s-
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
THOMAS: He's going to bring all different sides together. It's a very different-
MATTHEWS: Can he – well, here’s Ronald Reagan. Let's take a look, a little Friday night nostalgia. Here he is speaking about peace and reconciliation at Normandy back 25 years ago. Let's listen.
RONALD REAGAN: But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and, yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation. In truth, there is no reconciliation we would welcome more than a reconciliation with the Soviet Union so together we can lessen the risks of war now and forever.
MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the difference. He was talking about the evil empire, trying to reconcile with the people of Russia and the Soviet Union, but not the country. Barack Obama the other day was saying, yesterday, that we don't have an enemy out there per se. We have people who choose extremism, but Islam’s not our enemy. That's not the evil empire.
THOMAS: But Reagan did it with a very – for the first term it was a clenched fist. I mean, we ramped up the cold war before we ramped it down. We built up our military. We – all of this D-day stuff was about war. That was about fighting.
MATTHEWS: Right.
THOMAS: Reconciliation only after the fighting. That's not – Obama’s not doing that. Obama – we've had our fighting. Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together. I think he has a much tougher job, frankly, because-
MATTHEWS: What's his shtick? Reagan had the United States arms race, winning the arms race. And we had the threat of high frontier, we were going to beat the Soviets at technology.
THOMAS: I don't think he has – his shtick is he's the teacher. He's the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he can do that-
MATTHEWS: If there's a world election between him and Osama Bin Laden, he's running a good campaign.
THOMAS: Yes, he is.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Argentine glacier advances despite global warming
Original Post: physorg
By: JEANNETTE NEUMANN
(AP) -- Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier is one of only a few ice fields worldwide that have withstood rising global temperatures.
Nourished by Andean snowmelt, the glacier constantly grows even as it spawns icebergs the size of apartment buildings into a frigid lake, maintaining a nearly perfect equilibrium since measurements began more than a century ago.
"We're not sure why this happens," said Andres Rivera, a glacialist with the Center for Scientific Studies in Valdivia, Chile. "But not all glaciers respond equally to climate change."
Viewed at a safe distance on cruise boats or the wooden observation deck just beyond the glacier's leading edge, Perito Moreno's jagged surface radiates a brilliant white in the strong Patagonian sun. Submerged sections glow deep blue.
And when the wind blows in a cloud cover, the 3-mile-wide (5 kilometer) glacier seems to glow from within as the surrounding mountains and water turn a meditative gray.
Every few years, Perito Moreno expands enough to touch a point of land across Lake Argentina, cutting the nation's largest freshwater lake in half and forming an ice dam as it presses against the shore.
The water on one side of the dam surges against the glacier, up to 200 feet (60 meters) above lake level, until it breaks the ice wall with a thunderous crash, drowning the applause of hundreds of tourists.
"It's like a massive building falling all of the sudden," said park ranger Javier D'Angelo, who experienced the rupture in 2008 and 1998.
The rupture is a reminder that while Perito Moreno appears to be a vast, 19-mile-long (30 kilometer) frozen river, it's a dynamic icescape that moves and cracks unexpectedly.
"The glacier has a lot of life," said Luli Gavina, who leads mini-treks across the glacier's snow fields.
By: JEANNETTE NEUMANN
(AP) -- Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier is one of only a few ice fields worldwide that have withstood rising global temperatures.
Nourished by Andean snowmelt, the glacier constantly grows even as it spawns icebergs the size of apartment buildings into a frigid lake, maintaining a nearly perfect equilibrium since measurements began more than a century ago.
"We're not sure why this happens," said Andres Rivera, a glacialist with the Center for Scientific Studies in Valdivia, Chile. "But not all glaciers respond equally to climate change."
Viewed at a safe distance on cruise boats or the wooden observation deck just beyond the glacier's leading edge, Perito Moreno's jagged surface radiates a brilliant white in the strong Patagonian sun. Submerged sections glow deep blue.
And when the wind blows in a cloud cover, the 3-mile-wide (5 kilometer) glacier seems to glow from within as the surrounding mountains and water turn a meditative gray.
Every few years, Perito Moreno expands enough to touch a point of land across Lake Argentina, cutting the nation's largest freshwater lake in half and forming an ice dam as it presses against the shore.
The water on one side of the dam surges against the glacier, up to 200 feet (60 meters) above lake level, until it breaks the ice wall with a thunderous crash, drowning the applause of hundreds of tourists.
"It's like a massive building falling all of the sudden," said park ranger Javier D'Angelo, who experienced the rupture in 2008 and 1998.
The rupture is a reminder that while Perito Moreno appears to be a vast, 19-mile-long (30 kilometer) frozen river, it's a dynamic icescape that moves and cracks unexpectedly.
"The glacier has a lot of life," said Luli Gavina, who leads mini-treks across the glacier's snow fields.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Genius voters
I think this is very telling, I'm not going to entirely lay the blame on the voters interviewed (although I will lay a lot on them) but most on the media. If you'll notice they all knew who's party had spent a lot of money on clothing and had a teenage daughter, but none of then attributed the Democrat flaws to their respective Democrats. In fact, they assume the foolish things said were said by Palin or McCain respectively.
Critics Still Haven't Read the 'Torture' Memos
Original Post: Wall Street Journal
By: VICTORIA TOENSING
Sen. Patrick Leahy wants an independent commission to investigate them. Rep. John Conyers wants the Obama Justice Department to prosecute them. Liberal lawyers want to disbar them, and the media maligns them.
What did the Justice Department attorneys at George W. Bush's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) -- John Yoo and Jay Bybee -- do to garner such scorn? They analyzed a 1994 criminal statute prohibiting torture when the CIA asked for legal guidance on interrogation techniques for a high-level al Qaeda detainee (Abu Zubaydah).
In the mid-1980s, when I supervised the legality of apprehending terrorists to stand trial, I relied on a decades-old Supreme Court standard: Our capture and treatment could not "shock the conscience" of the court. The OLC lawyers, however, were not asked what treatment was legal to preserve a prosecution. They were asked what treatment was legal for a detainee who they were told had knowledge of future attacks on Americans.
The 1994 law was passed pursuant to an international treaty, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. The law's definition of torture is circular. Torture under that law means "severe physical or mental pain or suffering," which in turn means "prolonged mental harm," which must be caused by one of four prohibited acts. The only relevant one to the CIA inquiry was threatening or inflicting "severe physical pain or suffering." What is "prolonged mental suffering"? The term appears nowhere else in the U.S. Code.
Congress required, in order for there to be a violation of the law, that an interrogator specifically intend that the detainee suffer prolonged physical or mental suffering as a result of the prohibited conduct. Just knowing a person could be injured from the interrogation method is not a violation under Supreme Court rulings interpreting "specific intent" in other criminal statutes.
In the summer of 2002, the CIA outlined 10 interrogation methods that would be used only on Abu Zubaydah, who it told the lawyers was "one of the highest ranking members of" al Qaeda, serving as "Usama Bin Laden's senior lieutenant." According to the CIA, Zubaydah had "been involved in every major" al Qaeda terrorist operation including 9/11, and was "planning future terrorist attacks" against U.S. interests.
Most importantly, the lawyers were told that Zubaydah -- who was well-versed in American interrogation techniques, having written al Qaeda's manual on the subject -- "displays no signs of willingness" to provide information and "has come to expect that no physical harm will be done to him." When the usual interrogation methods were used, he had maintained his "unabated desire to kill Americans and Jews."
The CIA and Department of Justice lawyers had two options: continue questioning Zubaydah by a process that had not worked or escalate the interrogation techniques in compliance with U.S. law. They chose the latter.
The Justice Department lawyers wrote two opinions totaling 54 pages. One went to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, the other to the CIA general counsel.
Both memos noted that the legislative history of the 1994 torture statute was "scant." Neither house of Congress had hearings, debates or amendments, or provided clarification about terms such as "severe" or "prolonged mental harm." There is no record of Rep. Jerrold Nadler -- who now calls for impeachment and a criminal investigation of the lawyers -- trying to make any act (e.g., waterboarding) illegal, or attempting to lessen the specific intent standard.
The Gonzales memo analyzed "torture" under American and international law. It noted that our courts, under a civil statute, have interpreted "severe" physical or mental pain or suffering to require extreme acts: The person had to be shot, beaten or raped, threatened with death or removal of extremities, or denied medical care. One federal court distinguished between torture and acts that were "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment." So have international courts. The European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978) specifically found that wall standing (to produce muscle fatigue), hooding, and sleep and food deprivation were not torture.
The U.N. treaty defined torture as "severe pain and suffering." The Justice Department witness for the Senate treaty hearings testified that "[t]orture is understood to be barbaric cruelty . . . the mere mention of which sends chills down one's spine." He gave examples of "the needle under the fingernail, the application of electrical shock to the genital area, the piercing of eyeballs. . . ." Mental torture was an act "designed to damage and destroy the human personality."
The treaty had a specific provision stating that nothing, not even war, justifies torture. Congress removed that provision when drafting the 1994 law against torture, thereby permitting someone accused of violating the statute to invoke the long-established defense of necessity.
The memo to the CIA discussed 10 requested interrogation techniques and how each should be limited so as not to violate the statute. The lawyers warned that no procedure could be used that "interferes with the proper healing of Zubaydah's wound," which he incurred during capture. They observed that all the techniques, including waterboarding, were used on our military trainees, and that the CIA had conducted an "extensive inquiry" with experts and psychologists.
But now, safe in ivory towers eight years removed from 9/11, critics demand criminalization of the techniques and the prosecution or disbarment of the lawyers who advised the CIA. Contrary to columnist Frank Rich's uninformed accusation in the New York Times that the lawyers "proposed using" the techniques, they did no such thing. They were asked to provide legal guidance on whether the CIA's proposed methods violated the law.
Then there is Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who declared that "waterboarding will almost certainly be deemed illegal if put under judicial scrutiny," depending on which "of several possibly applicable legal standards" apply. Does he know the Senate rejected a bill in 2006 to make waterboarding illegal? That fact alone negates criminalization of the act. So quick to condemn, Mr. Robinson later replied to a TV interview question that he did not know how long sleep deprivation could go before it was "immoral." It is "a nuance," he said.
Yet the CIA asked those OLC lawyers to figure out exactly where that nuance stopped in the context of preventing another attack. There should be a rule that all persons proposing investigation, prosecution or disbarment must read the two memos and all underlying documents and then draft a dissenting analysis.
Ms. Toensing was chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration.
By: VICTORIA TOENSING
Sen. Patrick Leahy wants an independent commission to investigate them. Rep. John Conyers wants the Obama Justice Department to prosecute them. Liberal lawyers want to disbar them, and the media maligns them.
What did the Justice Department attorneys at George W. Bush's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) -- John Yoo and Jay Bybee -- do to garner such scorn? They analyzed a 1994 criminal statute prohibiting torture when the CIA asked for legal guidance on interrogation techniques for a high-level al Qaeda detainee (Abu Zubaydah).
In the mid-1980s, when I supervised the legality of apprehending terrorists to stand trial, I relied on a decades-old Supreme Court standard: Our capture and treatment could not "shock the conscience" of the court. The OLC lawyers, however, were not asked what treatment was legal to preserve a prosecution. They were asked what treatment was legal for a detainee who they were told had knowledge of future attacks on Americans.
The 1994 law was passed pursuant to an international treaty, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. The law's definition of torture is circular. Torture under that law means "severe physical or mental pain or suffering," which in turn means "prolonged mental harm," which must be caused by one of four prohibited acts. The only relevant one to the CIA inquiry was threatening or inflicting "severe physical pain or suffering." What is "prolonged mental suffering"? The term appears nowhere else in the U.S. Code.
Congress required, in order for there to be a violation of the law, that an interrogator specifically intend that the detainee suffer prolonged physical or mental suffering as a result of the prohibited conduct. Just knowing a person could be injured from the interrogation method is not a violation under Supreme Court rulings interpreting "specific intent" in other criminal statutes.
In the summer of 2002, the CIA outlined 10 interrogation methods that would be used only on Abu Zubaydah, who it told the lawyers was "one of the highest ranking members of" al Qaeda, serving as "Usama Bin Laden's senior lieutenant." According to the CIA, Zubaydah had "been involved in every major" al Qaeda terrorist operation including 9/11, and was "planning future terrorist attacks" against U.S. interests.
Most importantly, the lawyers were told that Zubaydah -- who was well-versed in American interrogation techniques, having written al Qaeda's manual on the subject -- "displays no signs of willingness" to provide information and "has come to expect that no physical harm will be done to him." When the usual interrogation methods were used, he had maintained his "unabated desire to kill Americans and Jews."
The CIA and Department of Justice lawyers had two options: continue questioning Zubaydah by a process that had not worked or escalate the interrogation techniques in compliance with U.S. law. They chose the latter.
The Justice Department lawyers wrote two opinions totaling 54 pages. One went to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, the other to the CIA general counsel.
Both memos noted that the legislative history of the 1994 torture statute was "scant." Neither house of Congress had hearings, debates or amendments, or provided clarification about terms such as "severe" or "prolonged mental harm." There is no record of Rep. Jerrold Nadler -- who now calls for impeachment and a criminal investigation of the lawyers -- trying to make any act (e.g., waterboarding) illegal, or attempting to lessen the specific intent standard.
The Gonzales memo analyzed "torture" under American and international law. It noted that our courts, under a civil statute, have interpreted "severe" physical or mental pain or suffering to require extreme acts: The person had to be shot, beaten or raped, threatened with death or removal of extremities, or denied medical care. One federal court distinguished between torture and acts that were "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment." So have international courts. The European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978) specifically found that wall standing (to produce muscle fatigue), hooding, and sleep and food deprivation were not torture.
The U.N. treaty defined torture as "severe pain and suffering." The Justice Department witness for the Senate treaty hearings testified that "[t]orture is understood to be barbaric cruelty . . . the mere mention of which sends chills down one's spine." He gave examples of "the needle under the fingernail, the application of electrical shock to the genital area, the piercing of eyeballs. . . ." Mental torture was an act "designed to damage and destroy the human personality."
The treaty had a specific provision stating that nothing, not even war, justifies torture. Congress removed that provision when drafting the 1994 law against torture, thereby permitting someone accused of violating the statute to invoke the long-established defense of necessity.
The memo to the CIA discussed 10 requested interrogation techniques and how each should be limited so as not to violate the statute. The lawyers warned that no procedure could be used that "interferes with the proper healing of Zubaydah's wound," which he incurred during capture. They observed that all the techniques, including waterboarding, were used on our military trainees, and that the CIA had conducted an "extensive inquiry" with experts and psychologists.
But now, safe in ivory towers eight years removed from 9/11, critics demand criminalization of the techniques and the prosecution or disbarment of the lawyers who advised the CIA. Contrary to columnist Frank Rich's uninformed accusation in the New York Times that the lawyers "proposed using" the techniques, they did no such thing. They were asked to provide legal guidance on whether the CIA's proposed methods violated the law.
Then there is Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who declared that "waterboarding will almost certainly be deemed illegal if put under judicial scrutiny," depending on which "of several possibly applicable legal standards" apply. Does he know the Senate rejected a bill in 2006 to make waterboarding illegal? That fact alone negates criminalization of the act. So quick to condemn, Mr. Robinson later replied to a TV interview question that he did not know how long sleep deprivation could go before it was "immoral." It is "a nuance," he said.
Yet the CIA asked those OLC lawyers to figure out exactly where that nuance stopped in the context of preventing another attack. There should be a rule that all persons proposing investigation, prosecution or disbarment must read the two memos and all underlying documents and then draft a dissenting analysis.
Ms. Toensing was chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration.
Liberal Student Infiltrates Liberty University to Write Exposé and Discovers Intolerance...From the Left
Original Post: newsbusters
By: P.J. Gladnick
This is just too funny! A liberal Ivy League student decides to enroll at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Virgina and write a book exposé (The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University) supposedly showing the intolerance that must be there, or so he thought. The liberal student, however, was surprised to find little of the expected intolerance but is now finding plenty of it from the left because his book was not an outright condemnation of Liberty University nor of Jerry Falwell whom he met during his semester there. An AP story by Eric Tucker sets the scene:
By: P.J. Gladnick
This is just too funny! A liberal Ivy League student decides to enroll at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Virgina and write a book exposé (The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University) supposedly showing the intolerance that must be there, or so he thought. The liberal student, however, was surprised to find little of the expected intolerance but is now finding plenty of it from the left because his book was not an outright condemnation of Liberty University nor of Jerry Falwell whom he met during his semester there. An AP story by Eric Tucker sets the scene:
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Kevin Roose managed to blend in during his single semester at Liberty University, attending lectures on the myth of evolution and the sin of homosexuality, and joining fellow students on a mission trip to evangelize partyers on spring break.
Roose had transferred to the Virginia campus from Brown University in Providence, a famously liberal member of the Ivy League. His Liberty classmates knew about the switch, but he kept something more important hidden: He planned to write a book about his experience at the school founded by fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell.
Roose explains the reason for his infiltration:
"As a responsible American citizen, I couldn't just ignore the fact that there are a lot of Christian college students out there," said Roose, 21, now a Brown senior. "If I wanted my education to be well-rounded, I had to branch out and include these people that I just really had no exposure to."
We have to give Roose credit here. Unlike most liberals, he actually opened himself up to contrary ideas. Something his parents found hard to understand:
Roose's parents, liberal Quakers who once worked for Ralph Nader, were nervous about their son being exposed to Falwell's views. Still, Roose transferred to Liberty for the spring 2007 semester.
He was determined to not mock the school, thinking it would be too easy _ and unfair. He aimed to immerse himself in the culture, examine what conservative Christians believe and see if he could find some common ground. He had less weighty questions too: How did they spend Friday nights? Did they use Facebook? Did they go on dates? Did they watch "Gossip Girl?"
Did they Twitter? Did they use electricity? Did they eat with utensils?
He lined up a publisher _ Grand Central Publishing _ and arrived at the Lynchburg campus prepared for "hostile ideologues who spent all their time plotting abortion clinic protests and sewing Hillary Clinton voodoo dolls."
Instead, he found that "not only are they not that, but they're rigorously normal."
GASP! But how can that be? Haven't all good liberals been taught that Liberty University students are a bunch of ignorant hateful yahoos foaming at the mouth? Kevin Roose appeared to have strayed dangerously from the Party Line.
He met students who use Bible class to score dates, apply to top law schools and fret about their futures, and who enjoy gossip, hip-hop and R-rated movies _ albeit in a locked dorm room.
Stop! You're making the LU students sound too normal!
A roommate he depicts as aggressively anti-gay _ all names are changed in the book _ is an outcast on the hall, not a role model.
But...but where's all the hate?
Roose researched the school by joining as many activites as possible. He accompanied classmates on a spring break missionary trip to Daytona Beach. He visited a campus support group for chronic masturbators, where students were taught to curb impure thoughts. And he joined the choir at Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church.
Roose scored an interview with the preacher for the school newspaper, right before Falwell died in May of that year. Roose decided against confronting him over his views on liberals, gays and other hot-button topics, and instead learned about the man himself, discovering among other things that the pastor loved diet peach Snapple and the TV show "24."
You mean Falwell wasn't consumed with hate 24/7 as all good liberals "know" as absolute fact?
And now something that will really disturb the "tolerant" liberals:
Once ambivalent about faith, Roose now prays to God regularly _ for his own well-being and on behalf of others. He said he owns several translations of the Bible and has recently been rereading meditations from the letters of John on using love and compassion to solve cultural conflicts.
He's even considering joining a church.
This latter must be very upsetting to liberals including his own parents. Sonny Boy! Where did we go wrong? To see just how upset the liberals are over this book, just read a few examples of intolerace in the Huffington Post comments section:
Wow, that must be a pretty good brainwashing program they've got there. That or this guy is weak sauce. You wouldn't catch me praying to some magic sky daddy if I spent a THOUSAND years at Liberty "University."
He should have gone to a deprogrammer to complete the experience.
I wish he'd done an MRI before and after. It appears he's been brainwashed. Long periods of time with cults will do that.
I hope he's been debriefed and re-socialized into the real world. Never visit the darkside.
So it turns out that Kevin Roose did discover intolerance due to spending a semester at Liberty University and, as we can see from these comments, it is now coming from the left.
Welcome to the Brave New World of ironic reality, Kevin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I'm a little worried about Kevin's soul now that he's been programmed. He seems strong and intelligent though, so there's still hope for him. I'll be praying for his salvation from the radical right.