Page 144 of 200
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 4:06 pm
by OscarGuy
I hope there's strong backlash on this one. Just b/c Steele's black does not give him the right to say what he has said. And who said what it takes to vet a candidate? Obviously the voters of Illnois vetted him and liked him well enough to elect him. And obviously American saw enough in him to elect him president even with a minimal bit of experience in D.C. And what of all the community outreach work Obama did before becoming a politician? Must not be considered part of the vetting process...but to turn the question around, was Steele really vetted by the NRC or was he selected because he was black? I wonder what the answer to that is...
(CNN) — Days after announcing an "aggressive new approach" in confronting President Obama, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said Friday that the president hadn't been properly vetted because he is black.
"The problem that we have with this president is we don't know him. He was not vetted, folks. He came out of nowhere," Steele told listeners to Bill Bennett's radio show Friday morning. "….We don't know his political background, we don't know his political philosophy, the ideology that shapes his thinking on policy.
Steele: Obama wasn't vetted because he's black
Posted: 02:16 PM ET
From CNN Political Producer Rebecca Sinderbrand
"He was not vetted, because the press fell in love with the black man running for the office. 'Oh gee, wouldn't it be neat to do that? Gee, wouldn't it make all of our liberal guilt just go away? We could continue to ride around in our limousines and feel so lucky be alive and in an America with a black president,'" said Steele. "Okay, that's wonderful — great scenario, nice backdrop. But what does he stand for? What does he believe?
Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 11:55 am
by OscarGuy
This is rather amusing:
Dems hire speed reader for climate change bill
Posted: 09:19 PM ET
From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart
WASHINGTON (CNN) – As Congress prepares for a weeklong recess next week, Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have armed themselves with a special weapon to deal with a possible Republican effort to delay getting a major piece of legislation out of committee by Memorial Day.
Democrats on the committee have hired a speed reader to read the more than 900-page climate change bill if necessary.
A request to have the entire bill read aloud is a prerogative Republicans have a right to invoke which could be used to frustrate Committee Chairman Henry Waxman's deadline of Memorial Day to get the committee's work on the bill done.
Even with the use of the speed reader, reading the entire bill could take the equivalent of more than a full work day of time.
–CNN Congressional Producer Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 3:47 pm
by OscarGuy
Can any of us really claim to be shocked?
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 3:15 pm
by Sonic Youth
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 9:23 pm
by Mister Tee
A year or two back, those of us on the liberal side were asked if there were Republicans we genuinely liked even if we disagreed with their politics. I don't remember if Jack Kemp was on my list, but if he wasn't, he should have been.
Kemp is widely hailed as a Republican truly committed to civil rights -- the famous saying about the old quarterback was, "Kemp has showered with more black people than most Republicans have ever met". He also seemed to be without any serious mean streak toward anyone. I profoundly disagreed with his political and especially economic philosophy, but I have no doubt he sincerely thought that wacky supply-side theory was a way to make a better, more fair society. It wasn't dsiguised greed for him.
Even better, he was willing to argue for it without resorting to name-calling -- a trait many in his party could stand to emulate. When he was Dole's running mate in '96, and the Limbaugh right was screaming for Bob to go all Paula Jones all the time against Clinton, Kemp said it would be beneath Dole to run such a campaign. I can't imagine he'd have been very enamored of the Palin rallies last Fall. He believed in straight-up political debate, best ideas winning. And he was gracious enough he wrote a very admiring piece on Obama's election, saying while he disagreed profoundly with his proposed policies, he could appreciate what an extraordinary moment it was for the country to elect a black man president.
So, a heartfelt rest in peace to Jack Kemp -- the kind of guy either party could use more of.
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 4:09 pm
by OscarGuy
It was clearly not the brightest move and I can only imagine how people felt in NYC after having had to go through all that turmoil 8 years ago.
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 3:17 pm
by Mister Tee
Since it happened during the Board's downtime, the Airplane Panic Over Lower Manhattan went uncommented on here, so let me just throw in a quick take from one who sort-of experienced it:
I got off the PATH at Jersey City just after 10, apparently moments after the plane had flown off. It was clear something was amiss, as all kinds of people were milling around, looking at the sky. The woman I asked to fill me in said the plane was "so close I could read the number on it...and I'm half-blind". (When I heard later reports it was Air Force One, I thought she must have been lying on this, but I guess there are several potential AF1's, with standard airplane numbers on them, and the only thing that makes them the genuine Air Foce One is the president being on-board)
Anyway, people were streaming out of buildings. I caught up with someone from my office, who said there was some murmur it was safe to stay in the building, but the (rightful) response from everyone was, That's what they told people in the Twin Towers. It was about 11 before everyone really became convinced it was no big deal; even then, some decided the day had bad karma on it and the best move was to go home.
I just can't believe anyone would have failed to realize that 1) two fighter jets escorting a large plane would look like two fighter jets PURSUING a large plane and 2) this would unquestionably touch off the primal fear of anyone who was in Manhattan that fateful day.
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:02 pm
by OscarGuy
From CNN:
Transgender murder trial: Hate crime charge may be a first
Posted: 09:14 AM ET
GREELEY, Colorado–The murder trial of Allen Andrade, underway in Greeley, Colorado, is being watched closely across the country. Andrade is accused of bludgeoning to death Angie Zapata, a transgender female, last July.
Justin “Angie” Zapata was killed by a man she met over the Internet during the summer of 2008.
Since the defense concedes Andrade is the killer, the question at trial is what level of homicide it is: first-degree murder or some lesser degree. The defense says Andrade killed Zapata in rage after learning that the woman he was with was biologically male. The prosecution says Andrade knew for at least 36 hours before the murder that Zapata was born a male, which supports their theory of a premeditated murder—not an uncontrollable rage.
Andrade is charged not only with murder, but with a bias-motivated crime. Though bias-motivated crime is a lower felony than murder, the charge is significant for this is believed to be one of the first cases to charge a hate crime where the victim is a transgender person.
Angie Zapata, born Justin, started living as a female about three years before she died. She and Andrade met on a social networking website and, after some days of online communications, they decided to meet in person. On July 14, 2008, Zapata drove more than 50 miles to pick up Andrade and bring him to her Greeley, CO apartment. They spent the next few days together.
In opening statements Thursday, the jury of 10 men and four women learned from prosecutor Brandi Nieto that Andrade accompanied Zapata to Greeley municipal court on July 15 to answer a traffic ticket. The ticket was issued in the name of Justin Zapata. That, according to the State, is when Andrade knew, if he didn’t know it earlier, that Zapata was biologically a male. Although the jury has yet to hear the coroner’s estimate of time of death, it appears that Zapata was killed in the early hours of July 17—long after the court appearance.
In his opening statements, defense attorney Bradley Martin emphasized that this is not a case about lifestyle and right or wrong; that it’s a case about Zapata’s deceit. The hate crimes statute protects transgender people. Yet, it appears the defense wants to use that protected class status to justify a conviction of something less than first-degree murder.
Nine witnesses have testified so far, including the first officers and paramedic on the scene, neighbors who saw Zapata the night before her murder, and the officers who arrested Andrade two weeks later. The trial is expected to last through next week.
Stay tuned to In Session as I bring you all the latest details from inside the courtroom.
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:46 am
by OscarGuy
This was in our local paper's opinions section...some people are just stupid...
If the members of Congress think that it will be easy street for them with this type of government that is being pursued, they have only to look at history of nations that have given up their democracy.
Advertisement
In the last election we voted for change, but not a demolition of our republic and for what it stands. So let's get back to the Constitution as a guideline, and stop rewarding people who seem to not realize they owe taxes just like other citizens. If paying personal income tax is too painful there is the "Fair Tax" which would make everyone equal - if they buy, they pay tax. No chance to forget to pay.
The TV has been alive with the speeches our president has been making while over seas in the G20 meeting. It is beyond the ability of my brain to have a president of ours to lie about our country, and to apologize for things we were supposed to have done, like being their enemy in the past, when in fact we have given millions of dollars to help free the starving populations, when in fact the rulers of these starving people were in fact intercepting the food and selling it to the few who could afford the price.
It would be nice to see our elected officials in Washington to be "Americans" instead of Democrats and Republicans. It is time for the people elected to Washington to respond to the wishes of the people back home. There is a scary movement being formed now being called, "The Tea Party." T his seems to have a widespread following throughout the entire country.
We do need to get the message to our president that all these lies he is telling about the USA have got to stop.
There will be another election in 2010 and if things don't straighten up it seems very likely that a lot of new faces will be in D.C.
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:53 pm
by OscarGuy
Here's an interesting article discussing the Columbine shooting and the misconceptions and myths surrounding it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news....oorefer
The one thing I'm beginning to think, at least from this article is that Klebold may have gone along with Harris' plan because he was infatuated with him emotionally. Purely conjecture on my part, though.
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:21 pm
by Greg
Here's an hysterical clip from Rachel Maddow about the newest big thing for conservative Republicans, teabagging:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mSKdvE0o5Q
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:16 pm
by OscarGuy
As a bit of an aside, in addition to my other duties at my place of employment, they started me working on doing mail in the afternoons. Not that I really want to do it, but there you go.
So, today was the first day I had to process something I was morally opposed to. Included were four "empty" envelopes to President Obama. They were sent to represent the lives of the thousands of aborted fetuses that are aborted every however many months/weeks/days/whatever. It took all in me not to toss them all in the trash. But, I decided it wasn't any of my business despite being an entirely inappropriate thing to be sent out from a professional business even if sent by an individual and not a company. I hope I did the right thing. I'm sure the administration will probably toss them all anyway, but damned if I'm not very angry about having to contribute even if I didn't actually put the envelopes together, stamp them or do anything more than put them in the bucket to go out...
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:06 pm
by Greg
An amusing song about the current financial implosion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOYAuk809fY
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:54 pm
by Sonic Youth
Memo to AIG employees: For your safety, do not wear any AIG apparel.
Remember the term we used to describe what got us in this trouble in the first place? It was called Irrational Exuberance.
It looks like we've swung headlong into the other end of the spectrum.
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:20 pm
by OscarGuy
He finally does something for gay rights...
Sources: US to sign UN gay rights declaration
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 43 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.
U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.
The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.
"The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," said one official.
"As such, we join with the other supporters of this statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora," the official said.
The official added that the United States was concerned about "violence and human rights abuses against gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual individuals" and was also "troubled by the criminalization of sexual orientation in many countries."
"In the words of the United States Supreme Court, the right to be free from criminalization on the basis of sexual orientation 'has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom'," the official said.
Gay rights and other groups had criticized the Bush administration when it refused to sign the declaration when it was presented at the United Nations on Dec. 19. U.S. officials said then that the U.S. opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.
According to negotiators, the Bush team had concerns that those parts could commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In some states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.
It was not immediately clear on Tuesday how the Obama administration had come to a different conclusion.
When it was voted on in December, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with anti-gay discrimination.
But 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality — and in several, homosexual acts can be punished by execution. More than 50 nations, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, opposed the declaration.
Some Islamic countries said at the time that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration was also opposed by the Vatican.