.............................
A sample of the right-wing messages that make the e-mail rounds:
.............................
I have a job. I work, they pay me.
I pay my taxes, and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to get that paycheck, in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem).
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check since I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.
I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their butt doing drugs while I work.
Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!
Something has to change in this country - AND SOON!
P.S. Just a thought-- all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!
.............................
Friday, August 12, 2011
NOW will you believe us??
.....................................
The right-wingers' precious book has changed over the centuries and has lots of inaccuracies! In fact the scholars have found that some of the changes and additions were deliberately made.
.....................................
In Jerusalem, scholars trace Bible's evolution
By Matti Friedman, AP
A dull-looking chart projected on the wall of a university office in Jerusalem displayed a revelation that would startle many readers of the Old Testament: the sacred text that people revered in the past was not the same one we study today.
Scholars in this out-of-the-way corner of the Hebrew University campus have been quietly at work for 53 years on one of the most ambitious projects attempted in biblical studies — publishing the authoritative edition of the Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew Bible, and tracking every single evolution of the text over centuries and millennia.
And it has evolved, despite deeply held beliefs to the contrary.
For many Jews and Christians, religion dictates that the words of the Bible in the original Hebrew are divine, unaltered and unalterable. [snipped]
But the ongoing work of the academic detectives of the Bible Project, as their undertaking is known, shows that this text at the root of Judaism, Christianity and Islam was somewhat fluid for long periods of its history, and that its transmission through the ages was messier and more human than most of us imagine.
[snipped]
The scholars note where the text we have now differs from older versions — differences that are evidence of the inevitable textual hiccups, scribal errors and other human fingerprints that became part of the Bible as it was passed on, orally and in writing.
A Microsoft Excel chart projected on one wall on a recent Sunday showed variations in a single phrase from the Book of Malachi, a prophet.
The verse in question, from the text we know today, makes reference to "those who swear falsely." The scholars have found that in quotes from rabbinic writings around the 5th century A.D., the phrase was longer: "those who swear falsely in my name."
In another example, this one from the Book of Deuteronomy, a passage referring to commandments given by God "to you" once read "to us," a significant change in meaning.
Other differences are more striking.
The Book of Jeremiah is now one-seventh longer than the one that appears in some of the 2,000-year-old manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some verses, including ones containing a prophecy about the seizure and return of Temple implements by Babylonian soldiers, appear to have been added after the events happened.
[snipped]
.....................................
The right-wingers' precious book has changed over the centuries and has lots of inaccuracies! In fact the scholars have found that some of the changes and additions were deliberately made.
.....................................
In Jerusalem, scholars trace Bible's evolution
By Matti Friedman, AP
A dull-looking chart projected on the wall of a university office in Jerusalem displayed a revelation that would startle many readers of the Old Testament: the sacred text that people revered in the past was not the same one we study today.
Scholars in this out-of-the-way corner of the Hebrew University campus have been quietly at work for 53 years on one of the most ambitious projects attempted in biblical studies — publishing the authoritative edition of the Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew Bible, and tracking every single evolution of the text over centuries and millennia.
And it has evolved, despite deeply held beliefs to the contrary.
For many Jews and Christians, religion dictates that the words of the Bible in the original Hebrew are divine, unaltered and unalterable. [snipped]
But the ongoing work of the academic detectives of the Bible Project, as their undertaking is known, shows that this text at the root of Judaism, Christianity and Islam was somewhat fluid for long periods of its history, and that its transmission through the ages was messier and more human than most of us imagine.
[snipped]
The scholars note where the text we have now differs from older versions — differences that are evidence of the inevitable textual hiccups, scribal errors and other human fingerprints that became part of the Bible as it was passed on, orally and in writing.
A Microsoft Excel chart projected on one wall on a recent Sunday showed variations in a single phrase from the Book of Malachi, a prophet.
The verse in question, from the text we know today, makes reference to "those who swear falsely." The scholars have found that in quotes from rabbinic writings around the 5th century A.D., the phrase was longer: "those who swear falsely in my name."
In another example, this one from the Book of Deuteronomy, a passage referring to commandments given by God "to you" once read "to us," a significant change in meaning.
Other differences are more striking.
The Book of Jeremiah is now one-seventh longer than the one that appears in some of the 2,000-year-old manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some verses, including ones containing a prophecy about the seizure and return of Temple implements by Babylonian soldiers, appear to have been added after the events happened.
[snipped]
.....................................
It's not really about the debt....
The Nation -- “Who wouldn’t take that deal, 10 dollars in spending cuts for every one in tax increases?” Asked Fox News moderator Bret Baier, at the Republican presidential primary debate Thursday night in Ames, Iowa. Every single one of the candidates raised their hands, to loud applause.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Lost? Conservatives better work on their math skills
Remember Dale Schultz? He was the one Republican senator in Wisconsin to vote against Gov. Scott Walker's anti-worker Budget Repair Bill.
Well, with his Republican Party now clinging to a 17-16 majority in the state Senate, Schultz is now going to be the most popular man in Madison, and de facto majority leader of the Wisconsin Senate, simply by virtue of not being a Scott Walker Republican.
Consider this: If Walker tried to pass something like his last budget again, Democrats would have enough votes in the state Senate to kill the bill outright.
Well, with his Republican Party now clinging to a 17-16 majority in the state Senate, Schultz is now going to be the most popular man in Madison, and de facto majority leader of the Wisconsin Senate, simply by virtue of not being a Scott Walker Republican.
Consider this: If Walker tried to pass something like his last budget again, Democrats would have enough votes in the state Senate to kill the bill outright.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Festival for non-believers at Fort Bragg not equally supported as last year's religious festival!
......................................
Army Will Host Festival for Atheists at Fort Bragg
By Amelia T. August 9, 2011
After some wrangling, a group of military atheists gained permission to host a “Rock Beyond Belief” concert at North Carolina’s Fort Bragg. Sgt. Justin Griffith, the event’s organizer, tried to arrange for the festival to be held earlier this year, but canceled it because he said that the army was not treating the event like last September’s “Rock the Fort” concert, sponsored by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.
“This just might be the turning point in the foxhole atheist community’s struggle for acceptance, tolerance and respect,” said Griffith, who is currently deployed in Kuwait. “It’s an amazing time to be a nonbeliever in the U.S. military on the cusp of a major breakthrough.”
The concert will be held on March 31, 2012, and will feature famous non-believers like Richard Dawkins as well as musical groups. It will be open to the public. The fort has agreed to provide electricity, water and security for the event, but no direct financial assistance. Last fall’s Billy Graham concert received over $50,000 in financial support from the base, in addition to the centrally located parade ground space.
Ultimately, Griffith’s goal is for atheists to become more accepted in the Christian-dominated world of the U.S. military. And you do have to wonder how it feels to all non-Christians, not just non-believers, that Fort Bragg was willing to contribute such a significant sum of money to an evangelical Christian event, but not to an alternative concert.
This isn’t a complete victory for Griffith and other atheists in the military, since the fort isn’t assisting financially, but at least they are being given some kind of support. Perhaps a more important step would be getting more atheist and secular humanist chaplains into the armed forces.
......................................
Army Will Host Festival for Atheists at Fort Bragg
By Amelia T. August 9, 2011
After some wrangling, a group of military atheists gained permission to host a “Rock Beyond Belief” concert at North Carolina’s Fort Bragg. Sgt. Justin Griffith, the event’s organizer, tried to arrange for the festival to be held earlier this year, but canceled it because he said that the army was not treating the event like last September’s “Rock the Fort” concert, sponsored by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.
“This just might be the turning point in the foxhole atheist community’s struggle for acceptance, tolerance and respect,” said Griffith, who is currently deployed in Kuwait. “It’s an amazing time to be a nonbeliever in the U.S. military on the cusp of a major breakthrough.”
The concert will be held on March 31, 2012, and will feature famous non-believers like Richard Dawkins as well as musical groups. It will be open to the public. The fort has agreed to provide electricity, water and security for the event, but no direct financial assistance. Last fall’s Billy Graham concert received over $50,000 in financial support from the base, in addition to the centrally located parade ground space.
Ultimately, Griffith’s goal is for atheists to become more accepted in the Christian-dominated world of the U.S. military. And you do have to wonder how it feels to all non-Christians, not just non-believers, that Fort Bragg was willing to contribute such a significant sum of money to an evangelical Christian event, but not to an alternative concert.
This isn’t a complete victory for Griffith and other atheists in the military, since the fort isn’t assisting financially, but at least they are being given some kind of support. Perhaps a more important step would be getting more atheist and secular humanist chaplains into the armed forces.
......................................
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
In a post related to what Anon just published...
http://news.yahoo.com/6-republican-senators-face-recall-wisconsin-192400681.html
Most Americans don't believe their own member of Congress deserves re-election
..............................
CNN Poll: Time to clean house in Congress?
Need more evidence that Americans are extremely angry at Congress?
Well, here you go: According to a new national survey, for the first time ever most Americans don't believe their own member of Congress deserves re-election.
Read full results CNN/ORC poll.
And the CNN/ORC International Poll released Tuesday also indicates that while Republicans may have had the upper hand in the recent battle over raising the debt ceiling, they appear to have lost a lot of ground with the public and the party's unfavorable rating is now at an all time high.
Only 41 percent of people questioned say the lawmaker in their district in the U.S. House of Representatives deserves to be re-elected - the first time ever in CNN polling that that figure has dropped below 50 percent. Forty-nine percent say their representative doesn't deserve to be re-elected in 2012. And with ten percent unsure, it's the first time that a majority has indicated that they would boot their representative out of office if they had the chance today.
"That 41 percent, in the polling world, is an amazing figure. Throughout the past two decades, in good times and bad, Americans have always liked their own member of Congress despite abysmal ratings for Congress in general," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Now anti-incumbent sentiment is so strong that most Americans are no longer willing to give their own representative the benefit of the doubt. If that holds up, it could be an early warning of an electorate that is angrier than any time in living memory."
As for all members of Congress, the poll indicates only a quarter of the public says most members of Congress deserve to be re-elected.
A lot of that anger seems directed toward the GOP. According to the survey, favorable views of the Republican party dropped eight points over the past month, to 33 percent. Fifty-nine percent say they have an unfavorable view of the Republican party, an all-time high dating back to 1992 when the question was first asked.
The poll indicates that views of the Democratic party, by contrast, have remained fairly steady, with 47 percent saying they have a favorable view of the Democrats and an equal amount saying they hold an unfavorable view.
"The Democratic party, which had a favorable rating just a couple of points higher than the GOP in July, now has a 14-point advantage over the Republican party," adds Holland.
The same pattern holds for the parties' leaders in Congress. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the chamber, have never had great numbers, but the public's view of them have remained essentially unchanged in the wake of the debt ceiling debate. But House Speaker John Boehner's favorable rating has dropped 10 points, and his unfavorable rating is up to 40 percent, a new high for him. On the Senate side, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell isn't faring much better - his unfavorable rating is 39 percent, a seven-point increase since July.
The poll indicates that Americans' views of the tea party movement have also turned more negative, with 51 percent saying they have a negative view of the two-year-old limited government and anti-tax grassroots movement, with favorable ratings dropping from 37 percent down to 31 percent. Freshman House Republicans elected with major support from tea party activists were instrumental in keeping any tax increases out of the agreement to raise the nation's debt ceiling.
The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International on August 5-7, with 1,008 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey was conducted both before and after Friday night's downgrading of the country's credit rating by Standard and Poor's. The poll's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.
..............................
CNN Poll: Time to clean house in Congress?
Need more evidence that Americans are extremely angry at Congress?
Well, here you go: According to a new national survey, for the first time ever most Americans don't believe their own member of Congress deserves re-election.
Read full results CNN/ORC poll.
And the CNN/ORC International Poll released Tuesday also indicates that while Republicans may have had the upper hand in the recent battle over raising the debt ceiling, they appear to have lost a lot of ground with the public and the party's unfavorable rating is now at an all time high.
Only 41 percent of people questioned say the lawmaker in their district in the U.S. House of Representatives deserves to be re-elected - the first time ever in CNN polling that that figure has dropped below 50 percent. Forty-nine percent say their representative doesn't deserve to be re-elected in 2012. And with ten percent unsure, it's the first time that a majority has indicated that they would boot their representative out of office if they had the chance today.
"That 41 percent, in the polling world, is an amazing figure. Throughout the past two decades, in good times and bad, Americans have always liked their own member of Congress despite abysmal ratings for Congress in general," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Now anti-incumbent sentiment is so strong that most Americans are no longer willing to give their own representative the benefit of the doubt. If that holds up, it could be an early warning of an electorate that is angrier than any time in living memory."
As for all members of Congress, the poll indicates only a quarter of the public says most members of Congress deserve to be re-elected.
A lot of that anger seems directed toward the GOP. According to the survey, favorable views of the Republican party dropped eight points over the past month, to 33 percent. Fifty-nine percent say they have an unfavorable view of the Republican party, an all-time high dating back to 1992 when the question was first asked.
The poll indicates that views of the Democratic party, by contrast, have remained fairly steady, with 47 percent saying they have a favorable view of the Democrats and an equal amount saying they hold an unfavorable view.
"The Democratic party, which had a favorable rating just a couple of points higher than the GOP in July, now has a 14-point advantage over the Republican party," adds Holland.
The same pattern holds for the parties' leaders in Congress. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the chamber, have never had great numbers, but the public's view of them have remained essentially unchanged in the wake of the debt ceiling debate. But House Speaker John Boehner's favorable rating has dropped 10 points, and his unfavorable rating is up to 40 percent, a new high for him. On the Senate side, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell isn't faring much better - his unfavorable rating is 39 percent, a seven-point increase since July.
The poll indicates that Americans' views of the tea party movement have also turned more negative, with 51 percent saying they have a negative view of the two-year-old limited government and anti-tax grassroots movement, with favorable ratings dropping from 37 percent down to 31 percent. Freshman House Republicans elected with major support from tea party activists were instrumental in keeping any tax increases out of the agreement to raise the nation's debt ceiling.
The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International on August 5-7, with 1,008 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey was conducted both before and after Friday night's downgrading of the country's credit rating by Standard and Poor's. The poll's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.
..............................
Thought for the Day
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.
Adlai Stevenson
Adlai Stevenson
Monday, August 8, 2011
Crazy.........
Yeah, expect riots and cities burning...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 9:06pm.
...if Barry is defeated in the next prez election.
Not sure who is crazier.....the Cover Girl the Newsbusters readers are protecting....
or the readers themselves
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Stupidity is Power
From the BlogThatICanOnlyLookAtOnceInABlueMoon.....
"I have to think this was inside information getting out via a “trusted” insider. Who knew the people, the route, etc.? Knowing this administration, moving un-trustworthy people like Panetta from CIA to DOD, I wonder if it was a local treachery or if it was treason."
(A comment about the Chinook shot down in Afghanistan)
You have to be an absolute fucking paranoid asshole to come up with this shit.
The Blogstress agreed with the comment
"I have to think this was inside information getting out via a “trusted” insider. Who knew the people, the route, etc.? Knowing this administration, moving un-trustworthy people like Panetta from CIA to DOD, I wonder if it was a local treachery or if it was treason."
(A comment about the Chinook shot down in Afghanistan)
You have to be an absolute fucking paranoid asshole to come up with this shit.
The Blogstress agreed with the comment
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Political $$ -- how to donate big $$ without running afoul of laws!
....................................
Mysterious donor to pro-Romney PAC identified
By JACK GILLUM - Associated Press |
WASHINGTON (AP) — A once-mysterious donor who gave $1 million to a pro-Mitt Romney political action committee in April contributed the maximum amount to Romney's presidential campaign three weeks later, an Associated Press review found.
Edward Conard came forward this weekend as the man behind the donation from New York firm W Spann LLC, founded shortly before giving the $1 million check to Romney-leaning Restore Our Future PAC. W Spann dissolved three months later, business records show, prompting outrage from campaign-finance watchdogs who said the secret contribution violated the law.
Conard is a former executive at Boston-based Bain Capital, which was co-founded by Romney in 1984. Conard could not be immediately reached for comment Saturday.
Federal Election Commission records show that in May, Conard and his wife, Jill, gave $2,500 each to Romney's presidential committee — the maximum allowed under federal regulations by individuals to presidential candidates. Edward Conard also gave $2,300 toward Romney's 2008 White House run, records show.
The new developments surrounding Restore Our Future's contributions show how political donors — bound by dollar limits during each election cycle — can now give much more cash to outside groups that favor certain candidates.
Created by former aides to Romney, Restore Our Future raised $12.2 million during the first six months of 2011. The outside group is not officially connected to Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and can receive endless funds from individuals and corporations, thanks in part to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling known as "Citizens United."
"They're raising unlimited money from donors who can only give limited contributions to the candidate himself, and then are spending money directly to support the candidate," said Fred Wertheimer, president of watchdog Democracy 21, which called on the Justice Department and FEC this week to investigate the contribution.
"The whole operation is a sham," he said, "and the sooner we figure out how to do something about this, the better."
In a prepared statement, Restore Our Future spokeswoman Brittany Gross said: "We're glad Mr. Conard has chosen to come forward, putting an end to this supposed controversy. Restore Our Future will amend our report per Mr. Conard's request to reflect him as the donor."
....................................
Mysterious donor to pro-Romney PAC identified
By JACK GILLUM - Associated Press |
WASHINGTON (AP) — A once-mysterious donor who gave $1 million to a pro-Mitt Romney political action committee in April contributed the maximum amount to Romney's presidential campaign three weeks later, an Associated Press review found.
Edward Conard came forward this weekend as the man behind the donation from New York firm W Spann LLC, founded shortly before giving the $1 million check to Romney-leaning Restore Our Future PAC. W Spann dissolved three months later, business records show, prompting outrage from campaign-finance watchdogs who said the secret contribution violated the law.
Conard is a former executive at Boston-based Bain Capital, which was co-founded by Romney in 1984. Conard could not be immediately reached for comment Saturday.
Federal Election Commission records show that in May, Conard and his wife, Jill, gave $2,500 each to Romney's presidential committee — the maximum allowed under federal regulations by individuals to presidential candidates. Edward Conard also gave $2,300 toward Romney's 2008 White House run, records show.
The new developments surrounding Restore Our Future's contributions show how political donors — bound by dollar limits during each election cycle — can now give much more cash to outside groups that favor certain candidates.
Created by former aides to Romney, Restore Our Future raised $12.2 million during the first six months of 2011. The outside group is not officially connected to Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and can receive endless funds from individuals and corporations, thanks in part to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling known as "Citizens United."
"They're raising unlimited money from donors who can only give limited contributions to the candidate himself, and then are spending money directly to support the candidate," said Fred Wertheimer, president of watchdog Democracy 21, which called on the Justice Department and FEC this week to investigate the contribution.
"The whole operation is a sham," he said, "and the sooner we figure out how to do something about this, the better."
In a prepared statement, Restore Our Future spokeswoman Brittany Gross said: "We're glad Mr. Conard has chosen to come forward, putting an end to this supposed controversy. Restore Our Future will amend our report per Mr. Conard's request to reflect him as the donor."
....................................
Friday, August 5, 2011
Christie -- voice of reason?
............................
Chris Christie slams fearmongering over Sharia law
By Chris Moody | The Ticket – Thu, Aug 4, 2011
New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie defended his decision to nominate a Muslim judge to the state Superior Court against conservative critics who warned that the new judge will implement Sharia law. The notoriously blunt-spoken Christie calling their fears "crap" and "crazy."
The appointee, Sohail Mohammed, is an American attorney who offered legal aid to New Jersey residents who were suspected after the 9/11 terrorist attacks but were later found innocent of any crimes.
Opponents of Mohammed's nomination have issued warnings, with no evidence, that Christie's nominee, if approved, would base his rulings on Islamic law. Christie was having none of it.
"Sharia law has nothing to do with this at all. It's crazy. It's crazy," Christie said at a press conference Wednesday. "The guy's an American citizen who has been an admitted lawyer to practice in the state of New Jersey, swearing an oath to uphold the laws of New Jersey, the constitution of the state of New Jersey, and the Constitution of the United States of America . . . .This Sharia law business is crap. It's just crazy. And I'm tired of dealing with the crazies."
You can watch the exchange after the jump:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y83z552NJaw
Several Republican presidential candidates have warned of a Muslim plot to force American courts to rule by the religious code. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum recently called it "an existential threat" to the United States; former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty shut down a program in his state that would allow practicing Muslims to pay for mortgages without violating their religious teachings against borrowing with interest; businessman Herman Cain said he would require Muslims to take an extra loyalty oath to serve in his administration; and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called for a federal law to ban Sharia from U.S. courts.
............................
Some of the comments posted to this:
* It's gotten pretty bad when Chris Christie has become the voice of reason.
* Santorum, Pawlenty, Cain, Gingrich, etc. should be embarresed.... to quote Edith Sitwell: " I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it."
* America is a constitutional republic, not a theocracy, so when people worry about instituting sharia law, it shows an appalling level of ignorance and stupidity. Don't they still teach civics in our public schools?
* Oh, for the love of Pete. The level of ignorance and racism in this country right now has nearly reached critical mass. People are actually stupid enough to think we'll have Sharia Law in the United States of America because we have one judge who's Muslim? Listen, folks, it ain't the Muslims I'm afraid of. It's you hate-mongers and this climate of fear you're creating that's going to doom us all.
..............................
Chris Christie slams fearmongering over Sharia law
By Chris Moody | The Ticket – Thu, Aug 4, 2011
New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie defended his decision to nominate a Muslim judge to the state Superior Court against conservative critics who warned that the new judge will implement Sharia law. The notoriously blunt-spoken Christie calling their fears "crap" and "crazy."
The appointee, Sohail Mohammed, is an American attorney who offered legal aid to New Jersey residents who were suspected after the 9/11 terrorist attacks but were later found innocent of any crimes.
Opponents of Mohammed's nomination have issued warnings, with no evidence, that Christie's nominee, if approved, would base his rulings on Islamic law. Christie was having none of it.
"Sharia law has nothing to do with this at all. It's crazy. It's crazy," Christie said at a press conference Wednesday. "The guy's an American citizen who has been an admitted lawyer to practice in the state of New Jersey, swearing an oath to uphold the laws of New Jersey, the constitution of the state of New Jersey, and the Constitution of the United States of America . . . .This Sharia law business is crap. It's just crazy. And I'm tired of dealing with the crazies."
You can watch the exchange after the jump:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y83z552NJaw
Several Republican presidential candidates have warned of a Muslim plot to force American courts to rule by the religious code. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum recently called it "an existential threat" to the United States; former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty shut down a program in his state that would allow practicing Muslims to pay for mortgages without violating their religious teachings against borrowing with interest; businessman Herman Cain said he would require Muslims to take an extra loyalty oath to serve in his administration; and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called for a federal law to ban Sharia from U.S. courts.
............................
Some of the comments posted to this:
* It's gotten pretty bad when Chris Christie has become the voice of reason.
* Santorum, Pawlenty, Cain, Gingrich, etc. should be embarresed.... to quote Edith Sitwell: " I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it."
* America is a constitutional republic, not a theocracy, so when people worry about instituting sharia law, it shows an appalling level of ignorance and stupidity. Don't they still teach civics in our public schools?
* Oh, for the love of Pete. The level of ignorance and racism in this country right now has nearly reached critical mass. People are actually stupid enough to think we'll have Sharia Law in the United States of America because we have one judge who's Muslim? Listen, folks, it ain't the Muslims I'm afraid of. It's you hate-mongers and this climate of fear you're creating that's going to doom us all.
..............................
I hope the !@#$%^&*()! Repugs are happy!!!
.................................
S&P downgrades U.S. debt
August 5, 2011 8:37 PM
(CBS/AP)
Ratings agencies Moody's and Fitch both maintained the U.S.'s AAA credit rating following the debt deal.
ADDITIONAL:
The U.S. is downgraded. Now what?
By Dyan Matthews
Math Error Fuels Fight Over Rating
AUGUST 5, 2011, 8:50 P.M. ET
...................................
S&P downgrades U.S. debt
August 5, 2011 8:37 PM
(CBS/AP)
WASHINGTON - Credit rating agency S&P downgrades US debt from AAA, making it the first debt downgrade in U.S. history.
Ratings agencies Moody's and Fitch both maintained the U.S.'s AAA credit rating following the debt deal.
CNN and ABC News reported Friday evening that S&P alerted the White House to a possible downgrade. CNNreported that its source said S&P was reconsidering its downgrade position after the administration challenged S&P's analysis of the government's finances, citing mathematical errors found by the Treasury Department.
Moody's, Fitch and S&P are the three main ratings agencies that rate debt that is issued by governments and corporations. The triple-A rating is the highest available and signifies an extremely low likelihood of default. All three agencies had issued warnings in recent weeks that the U.S. credit rating was in danger of a downgrade.
Critics say the agencies have an outsized impact on U.S. economic policy and point to the firms' failure to correctly assess risk before and during the 2008 financial crisis.
.................................ADDITIONAL:
The U.S. is downgraded. Now what?
By Dyan Matthews
Math Error Fuels Fight Over Rating
AUGUST 5, 2011, 8:50 P.M. ET
...................................
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Another thin-skinned police dept.
...............................
Cartoonist Targeted With Criminal Probe For Mocking Police
Posted: 4:46 pm PDT August 3, 2011
Updated: 1:08 pm PDT August 4, 2011
The Renton City Prosecutor wants to send a cartoonist to jail for mocking the police department in a series of animated Internet videos.
The "South-Park"-style animations parody everything from officers having sex on duty to certain personnel getting promoted without necessary qualifications. While the city wants to criminalize the cartoons, First Amendment rights advocates say the move is an "extreme abuse of power."
[snipped]
We asked attorney Venkat Balasubramani to review several parody videos and the court documents. He's an expert in cyber-law and constitutional issues.
“The cyberstalking angle doesn't pass the laugh test," Balasubramani told KIRO-TV. "It's a serious stretch and I'd be surprised if somebody looked at it and realistically thought these acts actually fit the statute and we could make somebody criminally liable."
When we asked about the more likely scenario, Balasubramani said, "I think they were trying to get at the speaker and they looked around for a statute that shoehorned their conduct into and sent that to Google and said ‘turn over the information.”
[snipped]
...............................
Renton Police Respond To Parody Videos Investigation
Posted: 5:22 pm PDT August 4, 2011
Updated: 5:31 pm PDT August 4, 2011
RENTON, Washington -- On Wednesday, KIRO 7 Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne broke the story of a cartoonist who is apparently being targeted by the Renton City Prosecutor for producing a series of videos mocking the Renton Police Department.
The city is attempting to jail the cartoonist on charges of cyberstalking. First Amendment advocates have called the move an "extreme abuse of power."
The mystery cartoonist hasn't been revealed yet, but the Renton police and the local prosecutor got a judge to approve a request sent to Google -- the videos were posted to YouTube, which is owned by Google -- to discover the cartoonist's identity.
Renton police responded to the fallout from KIRO 7's investigation Thursday by holding a news conference and issuing a statement [snipped]
...............................
FOLLOW-UPS:
Renton, Washington: Where Cartoons Are a Bigger Offense Than Gross Abuses of Police Power
Jacob Sullum | August 5, 2011
[snipped]
The police did not claim that the first set of cartoons constituted a crime. But in their July 28 application for a search warrant demanding information about Mr. Fuddlesticks from Google, they say a second set, uploaded in April, amounts to "cyberstalking" because the cartoons include "embarrassing and emotionally tormenting comments about past sexual relationships or dating relationships" involving three city employees. That definition of cyberstalking is broad enough to encompass, say, criticism of Deputy Chief Troxel for using official police resources to spy on his girlfriend (who was also a city employee).
Washington state's definition of the crime is indeed broad, so broad that it is hard to reconcile with the First Amendment. The part on which the Renton investigation hinges makes it a gross misdemeanor to transmit "an electronic communication" with "intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person" when the communication includes "any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act." KIRO has added to its collection of Mr. Fuddlesticks cartoons since yesterday, so you can judge for yourself whether any of the six available here qualify as a crime under this definition. If they do, it's the law that needs to go, not the cartoons.
The cartoons do repeatedly refer to sexual relationships, but their main target is waste, incompetence, misconduct, and a culture that tolerates them. [snipped]
..............................
Is It a Crime to Publish Parody Videos That Use “Lewd ... Language” Meant to “Embarrass and Emotionally Torment” Police Officers?
• August 4, 2011 5:55 pm
..............................
Cartoonist Targeted With Criminal Probe For Mocking Police
Posted: 4:46 pm PDT August 3, 2011
Updated: 1:08 pm PDT August 4, 2011
The Renton City Prosecutor wants to send a cartoonist to jail for mocking the police department in a series of animated Internet videos.
The "South-Park"-style animations parody everything from officers having sex on duty to certain personnel getting promoted without necessary qualifications. While the city wants to criminalize the cartoons, First Amendment rights advocates say the move is an "extreme abuse of power."
[snipped]
We asked attorney Venkat Balasubramani to review several parody videos and the court documents. He's an expert in cyber-law and constitutional issues.
“The cyberstalking angle doesn't pass the laugh test," Balasubramani told KIRO-TV. "It's a serious stretch and I'd be surprised if somebody looked at it and realistically thought these acts actually fit the statute and we could make somebody criminally liable."
When we asked about the more likely scenario, Balasubramani said, "I think they were trying to get at the speaker and they looked around for a statute that shoehorned their conduct into and sent that to Google and said ‘turn over the information.”
[snipped]
...............................
Renton Police Respond To Parody Videos Investigation
Posted: 5:22 pm PDT August 4, 2011
Updated: 5:31 pm PDT August 4, 2011
RENTON, Washington -- On Wednesday, KIRO 7 Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne broke the story of a cartoonist who is apparently being targeted by the Renton City Prosecutor for producing a series of videos mocking the Renton Police Department.
The city is attempting to jail the cartoonist on charges of cyberstalking. First Amendment advocates have called the move an "extreme abuse of power."
The mystery cartoonist hasn't been revealed yet, but the Renton police and the local prosecutor got a judge to approve a request sent to Google -- the videos were posted to YouTube, which is owned by Google -- to discover the cartoonist's identity.
Renton police responded to the fallout from KIRO 7's investigation Thursday by holding a news conference and issuing a statement [snipped]
...............................
FOLLOW-UPS:
Renton, Washington: Where Cartoons Are a Bigger Offense Than Gross Abuses of Police Power
Jacob Sullum | August 5, 2011
[snipped]
The police did not claim that the first set of cartoons constituted a crime. But in their July 28 application for a search warrant demanding information about Mr. Fuddlesticks from Google, they say a second set, uploaded in April, amounts to "cyberstalking" because the cartoons include "embarrassing and emotionally tormenting comments about past sexual relationships or dating relationships" involving three city employees. That definition of cyberstalking is broad enough to encompass, say, criticism of Deputy Chief Troxel for using official police resources to spy on his girlfriend (who was also a city employee).
Washington state's definition of the crime is indeed broad, so broad that it is hard to reconcile with the First Amendment. The part on which the Renton investigation hinges makes it a gross misdemeanor to transmit "an electronic communication" with "intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person" when the communication includes "any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act." KIRO has added to its collection of Mr. Fuddlesticks cartoons since yesterday, so you can judge for yourself whether any of the six available here qualify as a crime under this definition. If they do, it's the law that needs to go, not the cartoons.
The cartoons do repeatedly refer to sexual relationships, but their main target is waste, incompetence, misconduct, and a culture that tolerates them. [snipped]
..............................
Is It a Crime to Publish Parody Videos That Use “Lewd ... Language” Meant to “Embarrass and Emotionally Torment” Police Officers?
• August 4, 2011 5:55 pm
Yes, the Renton (Wash.) city prosecutor’s office concludes, applying the Washington “cyberstalking” statute — an excellent example of the dangers of the broad “cyberbullying” and “harassment” statutes that I have often condemned. KIRO-TV reports:
The Renton City Prosecutor wants to send a cartoonist to jail for mocking the police department in a series of animated Internet videos.
The “South-Park”-style animations parody everything from officers having sex on duty to certain personnel getting promoted without necessary qualifications.... [Last week, the prosecutor filed] a search warrant accusing an anonymous cartoon creator, going by the name of Mr. Fiddlesticks, of cyberstalking (RCW 9.61.260). The Renton Police Department and the local prosecutor got a judge to sign off as a way to uncover the name of whoever is behind the parodies....The series of web-based short cartoons feature a mustachioed street cop and a short-haired female bureaucrat. The dry, at times, witty banter between the two touches on some embarrassing insider secrets, some of which seem to match up with internal affairs investigations on file within Renton PD.Cartoon Character of Officer: “Is there any reason why an anonymous video, with no identifying information that ties it to the department or city is being taken more seriously than officers having sex on duty, arguing with outside agencies while in a drunken stupor off duty, sleeping while on duty, throwing someone off a bridge, and having inappropriate relationships with coworkers and committing adultery?”Cartoon Character of Bureaucrat: “The reason is that internal dirt is internal. The department will crucify certain people and take care of others.”A criminal court document, uncovered by Team 7 Investigators, not only shows how badly the city of Renton wants to “out” the cartoonist (who goes by the name MrFiddlesticks), but states some of the fake character’s lines discuss real life incidents....
Here’s the potentially relevant text from Rev. Code Wash. 9.61.260:
A person is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, and under circumstances not constituting telephone harassment, makes an electronic communication [defined as transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other similar means ... includ[ing] ... internet-based communications] to such other person or a third party: (a) Using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act ....
Under the prosecutor’s view, any statement — including on a blog, in a YouTube video, in a newspaper article, on television, or whatever else — is a crime if it is made “with intent to harass, ... torment, or embarrass” the subject of the person “[u]sing any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language.” A comedian’s joke that “lewd[ly]” or “lascivious[ly]” described President Clinton’s behavior with Monica Lewinsky, or for that matter Congressman Weiner’s behavior, would be a crime if it was made “with intent to ... embarrass” the President or the Congressman. The Hustler parody attacking Jerry Falwell, which the Supreme Court held to be protected against civil liability under the “intentional infliction of emotional distress tort,” would be a crime. Indeed, in this very case, the theory is that the videos are criminal because they described alleged police sexual misconduct using “lewd” or “indecent” words with the intent to torment or embarrass particular officers. (The theory expressed in the document — a search warrant application — is that the videos sufficiently identify the particular police officers who were involved in the incidents to which the video alludes.)
If the prosecutor is right that the statute should be interpreted this broadly, then it’s clearly unconstitutionally overbroad. Speech to the public doesn’t lose its constitutional protection because it’s intended to torment or embarrass. (It may lose such protection when it’s intended to be perceived as a true threat of criminal attack, but that’s not the issue here.) Nor does lose its constitutional protection because it uses “lewd” or “indecent” terms. And while one-to-one speech said to an unwilling listener may in some circumstances be restricted — which is the reason traditional telephone harassment laws, if properly crafted, may be constitutional — this rationale can’t be used to suppress speech said to the public, even if the people discussed in the speech are tormented or embarrassed by it.
Moreover, the statute would be clearly unconstitutional as applied to this video, and the prosecutor and the judge ought to know this. (The prosecutor is Renton Chief Prosecutor Shawn Arthur; the judge is James Cayce.) A search warrant can only be issued if there is probable cause to believe that it will uncover evidence of a crime; since the material described in the affidavit can’t be made criminal under the cited statute, given the First Amendment, the warrant ought not have been issued. The government is not permitted to use its coercive power to identify the author of this constitutionally protected video.
Thanks to Cory Andrews for the pointer. UPDATE: I originally said I didn’t know which judge signed this warrant, but that was a mistake on my part — Judge Cayce’s signature is right there on the last page.
..............................
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Censorship by The Olympian?
............................
T1958
So, Dear Moderator. Is it the policy of this newspaper to delete comments simply because of who makes the comment? Clearly, the answer is yes as you are now deleting comments by some writers while leaving virtually identical comments by others on the page.
Is it against the policy of this newspaper to accept criticism by bloggers? Only certain bloggers? LOL! It would be fun to see this paper apply the same "principles" it expects from government to itself.... The paper would be getting an F at this point... No communication of reasons for its actions.... Arbitrary and capricious decision-making.... No transparency.... Discrimination.... Monopolistic control over information with the best Orwellian spin you can come with.... Kind of reminds me of the parent who says do what I say, not what I do....
Jon_YAYA
You are somehow under the impression that you have a right to be here and be heard. You don't. We are ALL guests here and our posts get posted at the discression of the management. My posts get pulled sometimes too. Big deal. Get over your entitlement issues.
in reply to T1958
Chris98501
It's not unreasonable to expect fairness, or at least some kind of consistent rationale for pulling posts. What's the policy? And is it consistently enforced? Those are questions that people who use this website have the right to ask.
T1958
LOL! Of course not... but the "freedom" of press people exercising censorship and controlling the "message" is pretty sad/funny/pathetic all at the same time.... Where you get the "entitlement" thing is pretty funny though... interesting interpretation.
Cronus , liberal redneck in Olympia since 1980.
My posts get pulled sometimes as well, don’t take it personally. Some go to the moderator and appear later, some never appear. Obviously, it isn’t a perfect system (I mean, they even mess with the great Cronus! Lol). Apparently the Olympian and Disqus each have their own separate protocol on banned words, for example. I found the best way to communicate an issue is not to post a comment and go off (which I’ve done before too), but to call Tammy McGee at the Olympian’s newsroom 360-754-5420 during business hours. Hope that helps ya, brother.
in reply to T1958
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/08/03/1747841/letter-of-the-month-universal.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1U27DWdBe
............................
T1958
So, Dear Moderator. Is it the policy of this newspaper to delete comments simply because of who makes the comment? Clearly, the answer is yes as you are now deleting comments by some writers while leaving virtually identical comments by others on the page.
Is it against the policy of this newspaper to accept criticism by bloggers? Only certain bloggers? LOL! It would be fun to see this paper apply the same "principles" it expects from government to itself.... The paper would be getting an F at this point... No communication of reasons for its actions.... Arbitrary and capricious decision-making.... No transparency.... Discrimination.... Monopolistic control over information with the best Orwellian spin you can come with.... Kind of reminds me of the parent who says do what I say, not what I do....
Jon_YAYA
You are somehow under the impression that you have a right to be here and be heard. You don't. We are ALL guests here and our posts get posted at the discression of the management. My posts get pulled sometimes too. Big deal. Get over your entitlement issues.
in reply to T1958
Chris98501
It's not unreasonable to expect fairness, or at least some kind of consistent rationale for pulling posts. What's the policy? And is it consistently enforced? Those are questions that people who use this website have the right to ask.
T1958
LOL! Of course not... but the "freedom" of press people exercising censorship and controlling the "message" is pretty sad/funny/pathetic all at the same time.... Where you get the "entitlement" thing is pretty funny though... interesting interpretation.
Cronus , liberal redneck in Olympia since 1980.
My posts get pulled sometimes as well, don’t take it personally. Some go to the moderator and appear later, some never appear. Obviously, it isn’t a perfect system (I mean, they even mess with the great Cronus! Lol). Apparently the Olympian and Disqus each have their own separate protocol on banned words, for example. I found the best way to communicate an issue is not to post a comment and go off (which I’ve done before too), but to call Tammy McGee at the Olympian’s newsroom 360-754-5420 during business hours. Hope that helps ya, brother.
in reply to T1958
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/08/03/1747841/letter-of-the-month-universal.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1U27DWdBe
............................
Politics overtaken by morality
................................
America the stony-hearted
This was hardly the first time politics was overtaken by morality. One has only to think of abolition and Prohibition. The difference this time was that as politics were being moralized and polarized, our morals were also being politicized and polarized. The two moral systems that had so long coexisted suddenly became mutually exclusive, oppositional and finally inseparable from the two regnant political ideologies.
One can see this division in something as simple as the denigration of the term "liberal," the "L" word, with its attendant idea that to be compassionate, caring and tolerant — virtues that had been celebrated, if only via lip service, by most Americans — is really to be mush-minded, weak and, more concretely, willing to give taxpayer largesse to the undeserving and lazy. (This was essentially the argument that some Republicans, such as former Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), used when they sought to deny an extension of unemployment benefits.
It is easy to miss how significant a change this is. It transforms compassion, a bulwark in practically any moral system, into a negative force that undermines the good of individual initiative. Indeed, conservative ideologue Marvin Olasky wrote a book to this effect, pungently titled "The Tragedy of American Compassion," in which he called for the privatization of all charitable efforts. It rapidly became a conservative touchstone.
By the same token, liberals have come to see the emphasis on the individual and self-reliance as a form of civic irresponsibility and selfishness — a way to justify rogue economic behavior and enrichment at the expense of the community. It was, incidentally, a charge adherents of the novelist Ayn Rand gladly invited because they believe selfishness is a tough, exalted form of morality. Thus were the moral sides drawn: soft-headed versus tough-minded, big-hearted versus stony-hearted.
So far, tough-mindedness, and its patron conservatism — which drew these battle lines — are easily winning the day.
................................
America the stony-hearted
It's a moral revolution. Conservatives are pushing aside compassion and transforming the nation's values, ideals and aspirations.
[snipped]
This was hardly the first time politics was overtaken by morality. One has only to think of abolition and Prohibition. The difference this time was that as politics were being moralized and polarized, our morals were also being politicized and polarized. The two moral systems that had so long coexisted suddenly became mutually exclusive, oppositional and finally inseparable from the two regnant political ideologies.
One can see this division in something as simple as the denigration of the term "liberal," the "L" word, with its attendant idea that to be compassionate, caring and tolerant — virtues that had been celebrated, if only via lip service, by most Americans — is really to be mush-minded, weak and, more concretely, willing to give taxpayer largesse to the undeserving and lazy. (This was essentially the argument that some Republicans, such as former Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), used when they sought to deny an extension of unemployment benefits.
It is easy to miss how significant a change this is. It transforms compassion, a bulwark in practically any moral system, into a negative force that undermines the good of individual initiative. Indeed, conservative ideologue Marvin Olasky wrote a book to this effect, pungently titled "The Tragedy of American Compassion," in which he called for the privatization of all charitable efforts. It rapidly became a conservative touchstone.
By the same token, liberals have come to see the emphasis on the individual and self-reliance as a form of civic irresponsibility and selfishness — a way to justify rogue economic behavior and enrichment at the expense of the community. It was, incidentally, a charge adherents of the novelist Ayn Rand gladly invited because they believe selfishness is a tough, exalted form of morality. Thus were the moral sides drawn: soft-headed versus tough-minded, big-hearted versus stony-hearted.
So far, tough-mindedness, and its patron conservatism — which drew these battle lines — are easily winning the day.
................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)