Wait until all the facts are in before judging

No, I'm not talking about the Rod Blagoyovich scandal, although that's an example of what I'm talking about. Blagoyovich tried to sell Barack Obama's senate seat, and there was a firestorm of controversy about it. (Too bad Fitzgerald didn'twait until he'd actually *sold* the seat before taking action, so both Blagoyovich and the man who bought it could be put in jail.)

But, the thing is, as the firestorm has waned, the truth has come out - which is that Rod Blagoyovich, dishonest as he is, did nothing that every other politician doesn't do - "horse trading" - exchanging positions for favors. Blagoyovich should go to jail, sure, but so should every other politician - they're all crooks, and shame on us for putting up with it.

But, what I'm talking about is a case in Phoenix Arizona. A cat was stuck in a tree in a police officer's yard for 8 days. The cop wouldn't let people onto his property to get the cat. I just saw a video about this, which presents everything from the side of the cat's owner, etc and makes the cop look like a jerk.

Then I checked a news article, which points out the cat is now rescued and is fine, but people are so incensed by the story that they're sending death threats to the cop and, very bravely, scrawling threatening messages on his sidewalk.

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/story/Man-claims-Phoenix-officer-wouldnt-let-him-rescue/uSDXo0vALEiuKVsvSvFUfA.cspx

is the link.

And if you look at it from the cop's point of view, he does have a point. If people come in to his yard trying to get that cat, and fall off their ladders and get hurt - they will sue him for everything he has.

Even if they sign waivers promising they won't, the courts will still allow them to do so - this has been documented in several cases.

How many innocent people have lost their life savings because some teenagers disregarded "NO trespassing" signs, walked onto private property, and stepped on a power line or something and got killed, and were still awarded millions of dollars because of the "negligence" of the homeowner.

There was the case of a train yard, a couple of years ago. Two teenagers broke in, past lots of signs saying No Trespassing and Danger, and touched some electrical wires, burning them so badly that I think they actually lost some limbs. And of course it was all the train yard's fault for being negligent, and they had to pay a ton of money to these people.

Pretty soon private pilots are going to be taxed and insured out of business. If a pilot crashes his plane in a populated area, and kills someone, the survivors of that person will be able to sue not only the pilot's estate but also the makers of the plane as well, in order to get their money! Crap!

We're on the slipperly slope to total destruction, I'm afraid...

Rush Limbaugh - the early years

Pretty interesting 10 minute video - he looks a heckuva lot better now that he's dropped about a hundred pounds.

Discusses his history in talk radio.

Paul Shanklin

I've been getting a LOT of hits about Paul Shanklin in the last few days, ever since a couple of Republicans expressed their distaste for his parody song, Barack the Magic Negro.

Well, keep on coming! And if the wealth hasn't been spread your way, pick up what you need on Ebay - using my links on this blog. ; )

The problem with Barack Obama is that he's a socialist, and he intends to turn the US into more of a welfare state than the Democrats have already turned it into. This is bad.

On the other hand, if it can get various minorities out of their ghettos, and in to learning proper English so they can get good jobs and move into the middle class and truly become integrated into American society instead of being separatist (as the Rev Wright seemed to preach), that can only be a good thing.

New Weight Loss Blog

If you're in despair over your weight gain this holiday season, don't be.

I've started a blog that will help you lose weight - and keep it off.

Check out:

http://minisculeweightlossguide.blogspot.com/

Don't start nothing, there won't be nothing

For weeks, Hamas has been sending rockets into Israel. Killing innocent people. (I don't remember any news articles about this, by the way, no sob stories of Israeli dads cradling dead children and vowing revenge on Hamas).

Last night, Isreal, after warning Gaza repeatedly, retaliated.

So the news today is all about how civilians were killed as well as Hamas people, and how fathers are cradling their dead sons and vowing death to Israel.

And I'm like, do you think the fact that your country has been sending rockets into Israel for the last few weeks might have a little something to do with what just happened?

Or, since these people are probably illiterate, do their immans just tell them that Gaza has been sitting their peacefully for several weeks and Israel made an unprovoked attack on them?

Let's face it - there will never be any peace in the Middle East. Just as with any other ethnic strife...people's hatred is just too virulent, and the joy of killing just too great, and the fact that both sides of these ethnicities apparently believe in God...a god who would allow this butchery for 4,000 years... just goes to show that religion is the great divider.

Obama apologizes to Nancy Reagan for seance remark

It will be interesting to see if Hannity and Limbaugh, not to mention Boortz, make hay with this on Monday. It's so trivial that i doubt that they will, but we'll see.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_el_pr/obama_seances

Obama's POTENTIAL Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel

[This post has been edited to add links to two books about Rahm Emanuel from Amazon.com. If you want to know what to expect from this guy (and the article below isn't information enough for ya), check out these books.]




This is what Rush Limbaugh had to say about Rahm Emanuel (and can someone riddle me this. If this guy had done the steak knife thing, and had been anything other than a politician, would he or would he have not gone to jail or at the very least had a psych evaluation?)

Also, this notion of governing from the center? His first appointment, his chief of staff is Rahm Emanuel. Do we know if Emanuel has accepted? Rahm Emanuel wants to be Speaker of the House. Let me tell you a little bit about Rahm Emanuel. Hillary Clinton hates him. In the White House, Rahm Emanuel pushed NAFTA and made that go first instead of her health care baby, and her health care baby suffered. There's no love lost between Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton, and he is good a old-fashioned Chicago thug just like Obama is a good old-fashioned Chicago thug. On the night of the Clinton election, Rahm Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign; Rahm Emanuel grabbed a steak knife and he began rattling off a list of betrayers.

As he listed their names, he shouted, "Dead! Dead! Dead!" and he plunged the steak knife into the table after every name.

And from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06emanuel.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

After President-elect Barack Obama ran a nearly flawless 21-month campaign, Democrats are second-guessing one of his first and most important postelection decisions: Why is he asking Representative Rahm Emanuel — "Rahmbo," one of the capital’s most in-your-face partisan actors — to be his chief of staff?

A second question has the political networks abuzz: Why would Mr. Emanuel, now on a ladder potentially to be speaker of the House someday, take the job?

For both men, who are close friends from Chicago, the answers capture their separate calculations as to how best to seize the historic moment. In the decisive election of the nation’s first African-American president, they see a mandate to push through actual change — as opposed to campaign slogans — in the nation’s domestic and foreign policies.

Interestingly, Emanuel is an investment banker who made millions of dollars, and is one of those who helped "negotiate" the mortgage lender bailout of a few weeks ago. (You know, the one the Democrats caused by refusing to add oversight to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and then managed to successfully blame the Bush administration for?)

Mr. Emanuel, who turns 49 this month, knows the White House, having been a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton. In a brief career as an investment banker after that, he made millions and became familiar with Wall Street; in the House, he helped negotiate the government bailout of the financial system that the next president inherits.

How could he have made millions of dollars in a "brief career" as an investment banker, unless he was getting some help from some influential people, eh?

and

But there's the matter of his temperament — or, as Mr. Emanuel says, "I swear a lot." He also yells a lot, and in his sentences his favorite expletive can serve as subject, verb or adjective when he is facing down either recalcitrant Democrats or Republican opponents. As the House Democrats' campaign chairman for 2006, he swore at Hispanic and African-American House members, nearly all of whom had safe seats, to contribute more of their personal campaign finances to the party effort. Speaker Nancy Pelosi intervened to smooth things over.

To many Democrats, including some who are close to both men, Mr. Obama's choice of Mr. Emanuel to run the White House seems at odds with the atmosphere Mr. Obama enforced at his Chicago campaign headquarters. The motto there was "No drama with Obama," in contrast with the backbiting and shakeups in rivals' campaigns.

and

House Republicans are said to hate Mr. Emanuel for his partisanship, and on Wednesday, the former Florida congressman Joe Scarborough said on his cable television show that Mr. Obama’s enlistment of Mr. Emanuel amounted to "politics as usual" when the president-elect had promised conciliation.

Tom Brokaw Believes He Doesn't Deserve His Success

Rush Limbaugh aired some audio today in which Tom Brokaw points out that white folks - in particular him - don't deserve the breaks they get.

BROKAW: Well, it's very emotional for me in a lot of ways because, uh, race has been a big part of my journalistic careers; and I grew up in South Dakota in working class communities, a, uh, uh, white kid who had all kinds of breaks along the way -- even when they didn't deserve them, by the way --

MITCHELL: I don't believe that.

BROKAW: Noooo, even when I stumbled, you know, as I did in college, people were willing to give me a second shot. And I often said, "If my skin had been one pigment darker, none of that would have happened for me," and that has always made me very conscious of where race fits in in America. So this is a very big deal.

Now I'm wondering, how many black athletes in college have been given three or four changes to make good, just because they were excellent athletes? And each time they'd screw up - assaulting girl friends, doing drugs, driving drunk - and each time they'd get a second chance and do it again. [Yes, there are white athletes who have screwed up as well, and also gotten second chances. It's not a black-white thing, it's an athlete thing.]

But as Limbaugh pointed out... where would Ed Bradley be if he wasn't black? (Not to mention the black news reporters on practically every TV news crew, on the sports channels, etc. etc. Sure, this stuff didnt' start until the 70s, but for 30 years the US - whites and blacks - have been working toward this goal, and the fact that Obama was even elected proves that the "country as a whole" isn't racist.

Here's another excerpt.

BROKAW: The interesting part of it is, he didn't run as somebody who said, "I deserve to be elected because I'm a black man. He didn't lead with his race." He was chosen in the final analysis because he seemed to be the best answer for solving these problems that are before us of the choices that we had. So I think it's a real statement about a maturing America when it comes to race.

RUSH: His campaign was all about race. This is the dirty little secret: His campaign was all about race. That speech last night was all about race. I wasn't going to say that. I wasn't going to say that today, but now I have an entree, and I could go through that speech for you and I could show you. "Fundamental change," all of these things were oriented toward righting wrongs for a specific group of people of which he was a member. It was all about race. When I made that observation last night, everybody in my house agreed with me -- and not because they have to in order to stay. They agreed with me because they agreed with me. (sigh) "Chosen in the final analysis 'cause he seemed to be the best answer for solving these problem." Cookie,you gotta get me the Charlie Rose bite, you gotta -- after the break. We're going to play these two back-to-back. Lonnie, thanks for the heads up on this; 'cause, frankly, we aren't watching TV here today.

I wish this clip was on YouTube, but it isn't, nevertheless I gotta tell you... Tom Brokaw is an idiot.

Blacks defeat gay marriage

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today, who read out the results of the states - California and Florida, where bans on gay marriage were being voted on.

Interestingly, whites voted to NOT ban gay marriage, but the measures in both states passed because black voters voted to ban them.

FOr myself, I don't see why gays shouldn't be able to get married.

I also don't see why Limbaugh was all upset because the assisted-suicide measure - allowing suicide passed - why should someone have the right to tell someone else how much pain or agony they should have to endure, without being allowed to end their suffering. What kind of "God" do these people worship, that would rather see these people suffer then allow them to end their suffering - just because he inflicted it upon them as one of his tests to see if they would still believe in him? What a psycho God is...

Obamas First Four Years

I've started a web chronicle which will cover each day of the Obama presidency.

And it starts with the 75 days leading up to his inaugeration on January 20, 2009.

For the website in general:
http://ObamasFirstFourYears.com

For November 5, 2008:
http://volcanoseven.com/ObamasFirstFourYears/2008/index.html

Happy days in North Carolina

Bev Perdue has become the first female governor of North Carolina.

I'd like to be happy that a woman has broken the glass ceiling, but she's a Democrat and two of her fundraisers had to resign over ethics violations.

So how on earth did she get elected?

>>Perdue ran on a platform of offering free community college tuition to all students and providing health insurance to an estimated 300,000 uninsured children, largely through government-subsidized premiums.

(And of course, "government-subsidized" means tax-payer subsidized, which means "more taxes for the middle class."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbAfUg4AyNhM_qSxEIDsu41T8BzwD948IEEG0

Thank you, media

Well, Obama won in a landslide.

According to the media, it was thanks to young people, who were disenchanted with Republicans.

I'd say it was thanks to the media, that served softballs to Obama for two years, hiding every flaw, that got him this presidency.

And it shows the limitations of "alternative" media. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have for two years been exposing Obama for what he is... and it did not matter.

There are tons of videos on YouTube showing exactly what Obama is, and it did not matter.

We've got a socialist president in the White House, we've Democrats who are nothing more than socialists in charge of the House and the Senate... and so within four years we're going to have a socialist USA.

Sad days indeed.

Obama flips off Hilary, and now McCain

Here's the video of Obama "flipping off" Hilary, after losing to her in PA a few months ago.



He did it again today (November 3, 2008), when talking about McCain.



It is curious, though. Thought he was supposed to be a classy individual?

Can he be doing this accidently because he's not aware of what that middle finger signifies?

You think media people would know better

There's been several times over the years when people have thought the microphone was dead, and said what they really thought, only to find out later that the mike (or mic as the cognoscenti like to call it) was still on.

Such it is with this radio talk show host in San Francisco. KGO. The Karel show. Listen at the 1.07 mark.



"F**ck Joe the Plumber. I want Joe the Plumber dead."

Now, that's not Obama saying that. And McCain has some wacked out supporters of his own - i.e. that woman who faked an attack on her face and said an Obama supporter had done it.

Nonetheless, why hate the guy if he hadn't exposed the truth about Obama and his socialist desires?

two satires on Barack and BIden

A citizen's response to the Obama infomercial:



and The Biden Chronicles

Obama wants a "Civilian Defense Force" and more

Civilian Defense Force - just 16 seconds. Who knows what he's really talking about?


Well...this is apparently 8 minutes into his talk. What he's talking about is an Alphabet Soup, similar to Roosevelt's WPA in the Depression years. And more to the point, why wasn't this reported on by mainstream media when Obama made this speech - 3 MONTHS AGO?

Read about it here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html

White folks - again, just excerpts from his book... who knows the context..? Is he just quoting what a friend told him, and we're not shown where he tells his friend he's got the wrong attitude?

Obama declares he will bankrupt coal industry

Here's the Youtube video of Obama declaring that he'll bankrupt the coal industry (he's part of the "greening" of America).



I'm all for going green... but how much arable land is destroyed when you put windmills all over it? How much do corn prices skyrocket because people are using them for fuel instead of for feed?

Iraqi Veteran salutes McCain

This has gotten a gazillion hits at YouTube.

Thought I'd share it here.



Regardless of who wins the election on Tuesday, let us hope that sanity will begin to seep into the world and all our soldiers (and everyone else's soldiers) can come home safely and resume their lives.

And here's his plan for the defense of America:

Obama Ad "demeaning to women"?

Women are outraged and saying so here:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_mccain_obama/2008/10/31/146399.html

The problem with this ad is of course that Palin has more experience with just about everythign than Obama does.

But there are women who are going to vote for Obama, apparently - Erica Jong and Jane Fonda among them.

Erica Jong is the woman who told an Italian paper that if Obama doesn't win, a second Civil War will break out and American streets will run with blood.

And it's certainly true that many neighborhoods will be bracing for riots...whether or not Obama wins or loses. Whether it'll be racially motivated is another question... any city that wins a sports championship usually gets its share of riots as people like to indulge in their love of destruction....

But one does wonder.... A lot of black political supporters of Hilary jumped ship for Obama. Did they do it because they thought he was the better choice... or because they received phone calls informing them if they didn't support the brother their homes would be burnt down?

If Obama gets elected...we're headed for socialism and "spreading the wealth." (Except, remember that wealth won't come out of Obama's pocket. No money for his half brother in Kenya who lives on a dollar a month, no money for his aunt in Boston who lives in a slum.... but he is "his brother's and sister's keeper."

I don't need anyone to "keep" me, thank you very much. I can stand on my own two feet.

John McCain Sings Saracuda

Rush Limbaugh had a Paul Shanklin parody song on his show today, "John McCain Sings Saracuda."

Polls Are Simultaneously Crap...and Dangerous

A new article has been published today, based on poll data.

Here's the headline of the article that appears on the Time website:

Poll: Obama Hits a New High, Making Big Gains Among Women
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081001/us_time/pollobamahitsanewhighmakingbiggainsamongwomen

And here are some of the sweeping statements made in that article:

----McCain is losing female voters faster than Sarah Palin attracted them after the Republican National Convention. Obama leads McCain by 17 points with women, 55%-38%. Before the conventions, women preferred Obama by a margin of 10 points, 49%-39%. After McCain picked Palin as his running mate, the gap narrowed to a virtual tie, with Obama holding a 1-point margin, 48%-47%

----white women now favor Obama by three points, 48%-45%; in 2004, George W. Bush won the same demographic by 11 points against John Kerry. Where Bush carried married women by 15 points in that election, 57%-42%, Obama now leads by 6 points, 50%-44%, a 21-point shift.

----Non-college-educated white women split virtually evenly, 46%-45% for McCain. By contrast, Obama remains weak among white men. That group supports McCain 57%-36% overall, and non-college-educated white men back the Republican ticket by an even greater margin, 63%-27%.

Ohay, now if you read those above paragraphs, which compare for example Bush's numbers (DURING THE ELECTION - a sample size of several million people, obviously) with the numbers for McCain now (based on a slightly smaller sample size, as you will see ina minute), you might think that McCain is in a heckuva lot of trouble.

But read down to the verry last paragraph of this article, and what do you see?

The poll, which surveyed 1,133 likely voters nationwide between Sept. 26-29, has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

This poll is comparing apples and oranges when it comes to Bush's numbers with women during his election, and McCain's numbers with women before the election.

And can anyone answer this question, based on the paragraph above? The only bit of info we're given.

1) Of the 1,133 people surveyed nationwide, how many were men? How many were women? (Because the numbers given in the article conclude things about both male and female voters - so they must have talked to both men and women, right?)

Logic would dictate that about 550 were men and 550 were women, right, but how do we know? Maybe it was 800 women and 300 men.

But let's say it was 550 men and 550 women. There are 50 states in the Union. (Not 57, as a certain presidential candidate seems to think.) That means that this poll talked to 10 people in each state. Mebbe. Considering the cost of phone calls, perhaps they didn't even bother wiht Alaska and Hawaii.

So, based on what 10 people in each state say, the author of this article has the audacity to say that McCAin is "behind in the polls." He may well be, but big whoop.

And what's that "likely voters" phrase mean? Where did they find the people who responded to this poll? Is anyone registered to vote a "likely" voter?

Did the pollsters only talk to Democrats? Did they talk to Republicans? What percentage of that "1,133 people surveyed nationwide" were Democrats, how many Republicans, how many Independents?

It is very easy to skew statistical data to get exactly the result you want.

Isaac Asimov once wrote an essay - albeit on radioactive half-life of various atoms, in which he stated: Once you have a large group, you can use statistics to predict the future. The larger the group, the more accurate (percentage wise) the predictions. The smaller the sample size, the more useless are the statistics.

So, in my view, any poll, regarding politics, that does not have a sample size of at least 10,000 people, is useless - and even 10,000 people is pretty low.

Why are Polls dangerous, then?

Because the media reporting on the poll skews the data to come to the conclusions that they want.

1) The statements made in the body of the article are not clarified...they make it seem as if a majority of the population feels the way that the members of the poll do... and when the members of the poll are merely 1,000 people, that's crap.

But, it is my belief that most people don't read to the end of these articles to see what ridiculous sample sizes are used. 90% of them see the headlines - and believe it. 80% of the rest read the first two or three paragraphs - and believe what they read. And 10% of people check the bottom paragraph first, see that the sample size is ridiiculously small, and dismiss the poll as ridiculous.

The statements, therefore, should be along the lines of, "80% of the people who participated in this poll believe that" such and such is true.

2) The sample size for each and every poll should be put in the first paragraph, as well as information on whom that sample size consists of.

So that's my contention. Any poll on political matters - considering that we're talking about 700 million people in the US - that does not have at least 10,000 respondents, is a worthless poll and doesn't even deserve to be mentioned.

Obama doesn't remember name of soldier on his wrist

After McCain talked about the bracelet from the mother of a slain soldier, Obama mentioned that he had one, too.

Obama: Jim, let me just make a point. I've got a bracelet, too.

(Looks up, adjusts wrist, looks down at wrist)

Obama: From sergeant... uh.. (adjusts wrist) uh, from the mother of sergeant Ryan David Jopek (phonetic). Given to me in Green Bay. And she asked me, can you please make sure another mother isn't going through what I'm going through?



Gaffe, or not? Comparable to him not bothering to visit the wounded soldiers in Germany?

Who is Running Alaska While Sarah Palin Is Campaigning?

That's one of the headlines at YahooNews today. I'm not even gonna bother to read the article, but the intent to smear is obvious.

I'm thinking someone called the Lieutenant Governor might possibly be doing it... and perhaps getting phone calls from Palin from time to time, or even participating in that technological marvel called a conference call...

*I'm* wondering...who runs the states when the various Senators go off on *their* campaigning. In particular ones like Obama and Clinton who have been in their seats for one term, or less than one term, and yet have no compunction but to go gallivanting off to try for the Presidency.

Another interesting news article yesterday based on polling information.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080924/pl_rasmussen/homeowners20080924
Most Americans Still Say Home-Buying Is Best Investment

and note the categorical statements about all Americans in the article.

1) Two-thirds of Americans (66%) think buying a home is the best investment most families can make, despite the recent meltdown of the U.S. housing market. Just 19% disagree.

2) Forty-four percent (44%) also say it's a good idea for most Americans to invest in stocks, bonds and mutual funds, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Thirty-one percent (31%) don't think it's a good idea, and 24% are undecided (see crosstabs).

3) Just 18% expect the stock market to go up between now and Election Day in early November. Thirty-four percent (34%) think it will go down, and a similar number (32%) expect it to remain about the same


The entire article eis like this. 44% of Americans, 34% of Americans, etc.

And then, at the very bottom of the page, it tells you exactly home many of the 300 MILLION inhabitants of the US took part in this survey. 1,000 people.

1,000 peope, that's it. And from 1,000 people they can extrapolate that 2/3rds of Americans think that buying a home is still a good idea?

This was a phone survey. And as I have stated time and time again when I rant about polls, who answers phone these days? Not a very high percentage of people...not a representative percentage of people.

And I don't care how representative they are, you can not gauge what 300 MILLION people will do in answer to a complex question, based on what 1,000 people will do.

Did they talk to blacks? Latinos? Hispanics? Illegal immigrants (who are allowed to vote in various Democratic states, coff, coff).

For the last week or so the news, based on a poll, that Obama is going to have a hard time winning because of the racism of white Democrats, has been making the rounds. And I have yet to see any of the people who comment sorrowfully on this shameful state of affairs, point out that it's based on poll data of just 2,227 people!

"God has a plan for our lives."

In an article about the devastation in Galveston, there's a paragraph about people there whose belief in God is unshaken, and they're together in prayer.

Texans look to the heavens as they rebuild, heal from Ike

"I know it's hard. Looking around, it's tough," the Rev. Eddie Shauberger told the congregants. "But there is a God, and he has a plan for our lives."

What's easier to believe, I wonder. That there is no god and nature is a bitch...or a bastard, whatever... or that there is a God, and he just loves sending this kind of devastation, taking away everything people have ever worked for, ya da ya, to "test them", to see if they'll stay strong in their faith despite tremendous temptation to say, Gee, God. If this is the kind of stuff you pull on people who love you, I guess I can't love you any more, because you're obviously a bit psychotic."

No one asked me...

Yahoo news reported today:
Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

Mark the sentence, please. One-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks.

Well...that's a lie.

One third of 2,227 adults --- 2,227 adults who participated in poll, --- harbored negative views towards blacks.

Now - who were these adults? How were they selected?

Here's a bit of the article: The AP-Yahoo News poll used the unique methodology of Knowledge Networks, a Menlo Park, Calif., firm that interviews people online after randomly selecting and screening them over telephone.

Okay - there ya go. Who these days answers their telephone? I don't. I've got call screening, and if its someone I don't know, I don't answer the phone.

Were these 2,227 people scattered all over the country? Or were they in one state? Etc. etc.

We don't know how the pollsters were chosen, we know nothing about their background. All we know is that based on the example of 2,227 adults (did that include 18 year olds, 80 year olds?) this Yahoo article states categorically that an entire percentage of people think this or believe that.

So if black folks (and whites) read that they'll say, Gee, we are a racist country. (Will I be generalizing too much if I say that 75% of people who read that article won't bother to go down to the very bottom sentence to see exactly how many people took part in the poll?)

Obama's Inflame-the-Latinos Ad About Rush

Obama put out a Spanish language ad in four states, in which, according to Limbaugh, he's inflaming Latinos and Hispanics by calling Rush racist, etc., and lying about things he's said.



Limbaugh is against illegal immigration...and being against illegal immigration does not make someone racist. But, of course, illegal immigration will win out, because as soon as someone says they are against illegal immigration, they are accused of being racist, and that's it, end of discussion.

Limbaugh getting desperate...

I'm no fan of Barack Obama, but I am a fan of the truth and of non-distortion, and Limbaugh today on his radio show was all gleeful about an Obama gaffe that wasn't really a gaffe. And the fact that he is trying to portray it as one is rather pathetic...

We've got another Obama gaffe, and this was a great one if ABC has left it up on their website. It was on Good Morning America today, an exclusive interview with Good Morning America, and the subject of this particular interview was campaign low blows versus standard attack ads. And Mark Mooney, ABC reports, quotes Obama as having said on Good Morning America today, "If we're going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily."

Obviously, obviously, what he means is that he wins the contest as the victim of those attacks, not as the promulgator of them.

It is interesting to listen to Limbaugh talk. He's been commenting regularly that the Democrats are going to try to destroy Sarah Palin as a person, just as they tried to destroy Clarence Thomas, ya da ya da... "That's what Democrats do."

But at the same time is he and Hannity not doing the same thing to Obama by dragging up all his dirty laundry? I'm sure the Republicans would do it too, if only Obama weren't black... but like illegal aliens, it's impossible to criticize Obama without being hit with the cry of "racism." But when you consider that 99% of the blacks in the US are going to vote for Obama... simply because he's black, is that not racist?

It's just so hypocrticical that they criticize the Democrats for the same things that they themselves do. That's the problems with politicians, frankly. They can't criticize each other because they'd all turn out to be hypocrites if they did.

As an aside...obviously the time for a black President is very close at hand. Hopefully it won't be Obama...but who should it be? Colin Powell? I'd vote for him...

And now it's Texas...

I've been reading some of the stories talking about Hurricane Ike and what it did to Tezas. All the stories mention that despite a mandatory evacuation order, over 140,000 people remained in the region...and now of course they all have to be rescued from their flooded houses.

Each person they've interviewed so far (that's only a handful though), has said essentially the same thing. "I didn't think it would be this bad."

Well, the people who remained are stupid, for the most part, and they should just be left where they are. After all, that's where they wanted to be.

Okay, that sounds a little unsympathetic, and in one way that's not fair because I'm sure one reason quite a few people stayed in their homes was because of the fear that the instant they left, looters would descend in droves and make off with their stuff. And ya know, I'm sure that happened in places. Humans don't pass up a chance to get free stuff.

And since it's Sunday, I'm sure every church across the country has got priests saying, "Let's pray for the victims of Hurricane Ike." And the stupidity of that just boggles the mind. I bet Texas is a home of fundamentalists...weren't they praying and praying that the hurricane wouldn't hurt them.... (and, if you incline that way, I suppose you can be thanking your god right now that the hurricane actually wasn't as bad as forecasters had feared... 11 foot high water instead of 25 foot high water... quite kind of God to not send the full whack, wasn't it? Those prayers must have gotten through!)

Sharon Stone famously said a few months ago that the earthquake that happened in China was "karma"... I wonder what she thinks of the hurricane that hit Texas...what had Texas done to deserve it, but to open their arms to Katrina victims a few years ago?

One hopes that the cleanup and reconstruction of Houston and Galveston will go faster and more efficiently than that of New Orleans, and one also hopes that the thousands of non-Houston residents who are pouring there now in hopes of scamming off some free welfare will be deported out to the middle of the ocean or something...

But since people and governments never, ever learn from their mistakes, I think we're going to see the same incompetence and idiocies as before.

But, a shout out to the rescue services who are putting their lives on the line every minute of the day to rescue victims of Hurricane Ike. May they all return home safe...and may the idiots who stayed behind, also be safe.

God helps those that help themselves

I'm not a religous person... and I don't understand how anybody can be.... but if you are a religious person... that still doesn't explain why you wouldn't evacuate your Galveston or Houston home in the face of Hurricane Ike.

Some bright guy, 75 years old,explained why he was staying in his home. "God will look after me."

Well, gee. Where's God each time some innocent soul is killed in a drive-by shooting? Or in a crane collapse. Where was God when all those people died during the New Orleans disaster? Where was God when that commuter and passenger train collided in California and over 10 people died?

I think God's a little too busy watching people starve to death in the Sudan or Somalia or wherever the heck it is.... or to busy watching the genocide in the Sudan...to pay attention to one little old man who decides to remain in his house despite the fact that a hurricane is heading straight for him.

The Politics of Pregnancy

Barack Obama is under fire today by the media pundits Limbaugh and Hannity (well..at least Hannity) because he is in favor of age-appropriate sex education in schools, starting in kindergarten.

Well...I don't know if "sex education" is necessary in schools, but "gender education" is definitely needed. Something to teach girls that they are important people just as people, and not only if they're existence is validated by having a boyfriend or worse, a baby, which is what most teenagers seem to think. (And that's the all-pervasive sex media at work).

Illegitimate pregnancy is dragging the US down. It's a real problem in the African-American community, where 2/3rd of all children are born out of wedlock. Forget about the fact that there's no father influence for all these kids, and just think of the fact that these are girls who probably can't read or write, will never be able to get jobs, and will thus be on welfare for the rest of their lives, as will their children. (And since they have nothing better to do with their lives, and no reason not to, they'll just keep popping out those kids...)

It's not just a black problem, of course, Chicanas and Latinas and whites have the same problem. Will sex education in schools stop it? Who knows? But perhaps if Sarah Palin's 17-year old daughter had known about condoms, she wouldn't now be pregnant and unmarried. And yeah, apparently there is going to be a wedding...so at least she knows who the father is...

(Although the thing is, as I referenced earlier, I think girls do know about condoms. But they want to get pregnant, because they see having a little baby as proof to all their friends that a boy finds them attractive enough to have sex with! Not attractive enough to get married, of course, but attractive enough to have a one-night stand with... Or they want the welfare payments, or they want the unconditional love a baby is supposed to give and don't think about all the hard work its gonna take to raise the little nipper.)

Sarah Palin's speech

I didn't watch it myself...if she imploded I didn't want to see it...supposedly she did well...

for myself...I'm not too happy with her stance on abortion rights or creationism.. fundamentalists of any stripe are bad news...

But here she is at Youtube:




Speech pt 1


Speech pt 2


Speech pt 3


Oh...and here's a video of the gaffe where Noonan and Murphy think they're talking off-mike about Palin...and criticize the choice big time.

Well...criminitleys...

Yesterday I shared some video on Sarah Palin, the new vice presidential nominee for the Republicans...

I didn't do any research on her meself...except the cursory look to find that she'd given birth to a baby with Down's Syndrome, and was anti-abortion...

Today, horror of horrors...I found out that she is *for* teaching creationism in schools.

As for the Down's Syndrome thing...she knew the baby would have that before she gave birth, and gave birth to it anyway...

I'm not prepared to say whether she should have had an abortion or not - Down's Syndrome kids can function alright in society, although it's a cruel society ...

And at least it wasn't an autistic kid that sits in his feces all day, hitting himself with his hands and generally acting like a vegetable...

For myself, I'm for abortion. If a woman doesn't want to carry a baby full term, she shouldn't have to. The thing to do of course is to teach young girls that having a baby is not a cachet, and teaching them how to use condoms, which of course the fundamentalists don't like and which just doesn't make any sense to me.

Want to get rid of poverty in the world? Allow people to stop having babies they can't afford to have and can't take care of...whether it be via abortion or by the more common sense solution of using a condom or some other form of birth control!

Anyway...all of a sudden I'm much less happy about the choice of Sarah Palin than I was. Back when I knew only the surface details - she was an outdoorswoman, she was a hunter, she'd put a stop to Ted Stephens' ridiculous Bridge to Nowhere, I was all for her... but as soon as you learn a little bit more... it all goes pear-shaped, as the Brits say.

Well, we're hosed regardless of who gets into power now.

Sarah Palin - Republican VP Nominee

Here's some YouTube clips of Sarah Palin.

Why do people like crooked politicians?

Ted Stephens, a total jerk who at age 84 is *still* senator from Alaska, won his primary in a landslide, despite the fact that he's under indictment for criminal acts.

Even though he's facing federal charges, Ted Stevens remains feisty as ever. The 84-year-old Republican handily won his primary race for Senate and immediately proclaimed the November election a "piece of cake."

I know he's a total jerk because my dad, who used to fly him around, said so, and so did the pilots and stewardesses that my dad worked with.

And let us not forget that Stevens is responsible for the Bridge to Nowhere - a bridge that helps only his family!

And yet the people of Alaska continue to vote for this man!!!

I assume it's because of all the "pork" he brings to the state - if he wants to skim off several layers of that pork for himself, I guess Alaskans don't mind.

But there's also crooked politicians in every state. (Well, in my own view all politicians, whether Democrat or Republican, are crooked, who devote most of their time once they get into power, of keeping that power, rather than looking out for their constituents.)

But here's one thing. If the 84 year old Ted Stephens is still in the Senate, no reason why the 71-year old McCain can't be. (Of course whether he'll be a good president is a whole nother thing... I think he's too close to a Democrat to be good... but he's better than Obama....)

The US no longer has a culture of excellence... if it ever did. That's what we need to get back. Instead, we get inundated by commercials for kids going back to school - and they're buying clothes. And the commercials have nothing to say about getting a good education and making somethign of yourself. It's all about "don't look like a dork in school." "Look good so you can ask that girl out for a date," ya da ya da ya da ad nauseum.

And the kind of clothes being sold? I walked through a display of teen-guy T-shirts at my local Walmart a couple of days ago... 90% of them had skull motifs. Not the skull motif of pirates, but the skull motif of death and destruction. And the ones that didn't have skulls had really funny says such as this one: Stick figure with its lower limbs spread wide and a green cloud emanating from its bottom. At the top the text, "Got gas?"

Yeah, that's nice stuff for a kid to wear on his t-shirt when he goes to school...or at any time, frankly. But hey, guys find that stuff funny. And far be it for anyone to try to civilize 'em...

Rush Limbaugh Morning Update, 8/22/08

Last week, Obama used the phrase, "the best and brightest".

Here's Limbaugh's reaction to it, on Friday August 22.



"They turned Iran from a friend to an enemy that still troubles us today." How'd they do that.

And I'm so sick of the term "Renaldus Magnus" -Limbaugh is always dissing the Europeans and yet he and Hannity keep calling Reagan this... it sounds so stupid and pretentious.

The Choice of Running Mate

On Friday, both Rush Limbaugh and Tom Hannity were letting Obama have it pretty good, because he was delaying announcing his choice of running mate. They were mocking him, because he was making it "such a big production" and thinking everyone would be waiting with bated breath to hear who it was.

Well, weren't they?

And I didn't hear them rippng McCain on the subject. Yet McCain has been the Republican nominee for a lot longer than Obama has been the Democrat nominee, so why hasn't he already made his decision? Yet we're supposed to wait until his birthday (August 29), then he'll tell us who it will be.

On the other hand, I really think McCain's campaign is doomed, because the media simply doesn't want him to be president, and they're not covering him at all. 80% of the news coverage on network TV and in the print papers is on Obama, with McCain relegated to the back page.

I don't listen to Michael Savage as a rule, but I did tune in to him one night several months ago, back when Hilary and Obama were still competing, and he pointed out that all that debacle was actually helping Obama, by keeping his name in the papers, so much so that everybody already thought he was President. McCain was simply overshadowed.

And there's a lot of truth to that.

Frankly, the entire political election system of the US is messed up, and has been for a long time. (Yes, it's still better than anyone else's, doesn't change the fact that it's messed up because it's supposed to be so much more.)

Obama thinks China is a great country

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today. It's an interesting thing about Limbaugh. He's always dissing Europe, other countries...saying they'd be nothing without the US (always referring to WWII and us saving the world's bacon.) When he talks about the US, he's always praising it to the skies. America is the land of opportunity, we're the best country in the world, ya da ya da.

That's the kind of stuff you'd expect to hear from a Presidential candidate, wouldn't you?

Then we get Obama.

I don't know where he was when he made this speech, and it won't show up on YouTube because although apparently his speech was being recorded, it wasn't being filmed.

Here's what he said:

"Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now in the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are all vastly superior to us now, which means if you're a corporation deciding where to do business, you're starting to think Beijing looks like a pretty good option."

In the first place, it's interesting to listen to Obama's tone of voice. (I've never listened to him, or McCain for that matter, give a complete speech, but I hear all the soundbytes that Limbaugh and Hannity play on their shows.) And whenever he's in these soundbytes, he always sounds so sarcastic, so contemptuous of his country, or of whatever topic he's criticizing.

Okay, now let's talk about China.

Yes, we buy our clothes from China, our tools from China...practically any material goods we buy come from China...and similarly a lot of factories and such in the US that used to produce those things have gone out of business, because US employees expect to earn a little thing called a minimum wage, while Third World countries can pay their employees a dollar a day for doing the same work.

Anyone hear that the Government of China ordered that no cars should be driven in Beijing for a month (or was it two?) to try to get rid of some of the pollutin in the city? Did Obama not read that one news bit about American athletes who showed up at the airport wearing face masks because they were afraid of the pollution?

What countries - other than communist or socialist ones - can order its people to not drive their cars in a huge city for an entire month?

But if the Democrats have their way in the US.... that's probably ecxactly what's going to happen. If they don't just take the easy way out and ensure that the cost of gas continues to go through the roof....

What else did Obama say in this little quote...

"Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are all vastly superior to us now"

Could this be because we have to pay welfare payments to people who refuse to work? Or give welfare payments to illegal aliens who haven't contributed anythign to our country but still for some reason deserve benefits that citizens get? Because we give humanitarian aid to any and every country that has an earthquake or needs peace keeping -- something China doesn't do... they're busy squeezing the life out of ...what's it called...oh, yeah.... Tibet!!!

Yeah...the war in Iraq is costing us money and its about damn time that the Iraqi's paid us for helping them out... but there are a helluva lot of other factors contributing to the reason why China is outspending us and getting their ports and their infrastructure...

It's called not giving a damn about the environment. It's called not having to deal with protesters who won't let them drill for oil....not having to deal with protesters who want to save a fish or a town and so won't let a hydroelectric damn or a nuclear plant be built....

Now...it's not just Obama who thinks that China is a great country. China has "most favored nation" status with us and has had it for a while.... after Tienemen Square I don't think there was even a hope in hell that they'd lose that status...I'm thinking we didn't even speak harshly to them... we can't afford to upset the Chinese because they have the whole world for whom they can sell their goods, and if they decide to cut us off...there ain't a damn thing we can do about it.

So I guess Obama was just doing what any presidential candidate these days would do... suck up to a country that has power over us.

Since when are bears blue?

I thought I'd do a little bit of research into the report from a few weeks ago of a 14-year old boy who shot and killed a woman because he thought she was a bear.

Turns out the woman was wearing a blue poncho, and she was shot in a wide-open area - no trees to obscure vision.

Seems to me like this 14 year old wanted to scare some woman hiker and just missed his shot. Hope he goes to jail for a few years.

http://www.ktvb.com/news/regional/stories/ktvbn-aug0408-hunting_fatal_accident.13e8ad3a.html

The Hypocrisy of the West

Reports are flooding out of China today that the cute little 5 year old girl who sang the Chinese anthem during the Opening Ceremonies was only lip-synching. The actual singer was a 7 year old girl, but because she had chubby cheeks and uneven teeth, she was not considered pretty enough to be on TV.

And the West is just outraged by this. Outraged!

And I'm like... you hypocritial pieces of sh*t!

Try to become a cheerleader in any school in the USA, from Podunk High to the swankiest of the swank. If you're not beautiful, thin and sleek, you'd be laughed off the tryout stage. And if someone did give you a chance to become a cheerleader, you'd be laughed off the field by the beer-soaked audience that only want to see pretty girls jumping around.

Anyone watch the women's beach volleyball at these Olympics. Tall, beautiful women (plain women learn very early not to push themselves forward, no one wants to see them), wearing the skimpiest of bikini bottoms to make sure the guys in the audience and TV can get a good look. If there was any competitive advantage to wearing such skimpy outfits, you know the guy's be wearing the same stuff, but do they? Of course not. Long shorts and t-shirts. But at least they are "muscle" shirts so the women in the audience can get a look at their arms...

What kind of reality shows do we get here in the USA? Women subjecting themselves to plastic surgery in order to look beautiful, over and over again because all it needs is for one guy to say they don't look perfect and back under the knife they go..."How TO Look GOod Naked" in which lots of overweight women are given validation for their lives and appearances by a gay guy, well, at least that's better than having to get validation for your existence from a straight guy...

This little Chinese incident has only brought home what should be clear to everyone in the world - women are under fire. THey are viewed everywhere as little more than sex objects. Oh, they have more freedom in the West, but that's just a bandaid over the constant brainwashing they get to be everything a man wants them to be...

And I would really, really, really like to know what is being done to find Afghan athlete Mehbooba Andyar. Afghanistan's only female athlete who was to have gone to the Olympic games. Despite the fact that she wears clothing from head to toe and that stupid burhka on her head, fundamentalist muslims in Afghanistan still called her a whore and a disgrace to Islam.

She disappeared in July from her training facility, and what I want to know is, why isn't the entire Olympics organization trying to find this woman? Is anyone trying to find her?

And doesn't this just point out the evil of fundamental Islam, that women who simply want to run and jump and feel like human beings can be kidnapped, probably raped, and murdered, and no one cares because, after all, they're just women?

John Edwards admits he had an affair

A couple of weeks ago, I blogged here about the stupidity of John Edwards, or any politician, having an affair in this day and age. With all the scrutiny by reporters, people with cellphones, etc. etc, how in the world do these politicians think they can get away with it?

Well, Bill Clinton got away with it, but I dont' doubt that he torpedoed his wife's chances of getting elected president. (Well...not him... but her acceptance of his actions rather than divorcing him after it happened the 3rd or 4th time.)

Now we've got Edwards, who admits lying repeatedly when he said he wasn't having an affair, but he denies that his mistress' child is his.

"The timing of the birth isn't right for it to be mine," he says.

My question is this, "What do you mean, the timing isn't right? Shouldn't it be, 'that baby isn't mine because I wore a condom because I did not want to father a child out of wedlock.'" Wouldn't that make more sense? Show a bit more intelligence? Or even better --- that child isn't mine because I had a vasectomy, so that I could cheat on my wife with lots of women, but never have to risk getting her pregnant.

But politicians are stupid. That's all there is to it.

His wife is dying of cancer. I'm sure she just feels great to know that he was cheating on her while she was enduring chemo. Or perhaps she thinks it's okay... "Well, I couldn't give him any so he got his sex elsewhere." Frankly - most men have affairs and that's why they have it.

So Edwards might not be a scumbag because he had an affair - but he's a scumbag for lying about it.

Will his political career end on this note? Probably not.... there's lots of crooked politicians still voted into office by idiot voters.... which is why this country is in the mess it is in.

On the other hand, there's no reason at all for Sean Hannity to be playing clips of Edwards and his ill wife and be all smug about it. No need to rub the wife's face in it even more than Edwards did.

This and That

What are the duties of a doorman? To open the door for the guests of a hotel, or the residents of an apartment house. To summon cabs. To help with luggage (for which they probably get tipped.) I would have thought that a doorman would make minimum wage, but it turns out that that's not so. At least one doorman makes $40,000 a year.

Doorman who won $5M, said he'd stay at job gets ax

Who knew doormen had a Union? That's probably why they make $40,000 a year for doing very little work. And the guy referenced in the story above wins $5 million, and can't think of anything better to do with his life than to continue to open doors for people?

Then there's the case of a teen hunter who killed a woman hiker because he thought she was a bear. Now, I don't have a problem with hunters, but it seems to me that hunters are not supposed to be hunting anywhere near where people, such as hikers or bikers,are gathered! And this murder - yes, murder - took place on the Sauk County Trail.

So this kid, because he's a teen, probably won't go to jail at all. And his name won't be released. Presumably the woman's family will file a wrongful death suit againt the boy involved, and hopefully he'll learn that you don't go shooting animals until you absolutely know what you're firing at.

And finally, if you're going to have an affair, don't get drunk! Jesus this woman was stupid.
Judge censured for having sex with lawyer
Mark you - the judge was a woman. This judge got drunk at a party, and revealed she'd had sex with a lawyer. How are her peers supposed to have any respect for her after that? Even if the case had been reversed and it would have been a male judge, he still would have been an idiot... although much more likely to have been fondly called a "swordsman" by his fellow judges for his sexual prowess...

Obama - the Dan Quayle of today's generation, with a difference

Dan Quayle was ridiculed out of the Presidential race because he spelled potato wrong... yet Obama continually makes foolish statements and he's still in the race for the Presidency.

Obama believes that if everyone inflated their tires and had regular tuneups, they would "save" as much gas as could be drilled out of American deposits.



Here's the problem with gas.

China has 6 billion people, and they're gradually getting cars. They're going to buy gas for those cars, and where are they going to get it? From countries that hate us. Once China's gas purchasing goes up, the Arabs and Venezuela won't need to sell oil to us to make money.

And once they don't need to sell it to us, they won't.

So our entire economy will grind to a halt.

Then, we'll start drilling on our own resources, you may be sure. And when we start drilling, we'll have to wait 10 years for those benefits, and at the end of those 10 years, we'll be the third world country and China will be in economic charge of the world...

Why are Men (and Women) So Stupid???

The news today is all over John Edwards, who apparently has a mistress and a "love" child.

In one sense, that's not unusual. Tons of men, in particular athletes, have kids out of wedlock because they can't be bothered to wear a condom and think it's the women's role to "protect" herself against getting pregnant, and some women who have sex with wealthy men frankly want to get pregnant so they can make money out of the guy.

But politicians are supposed to be smart, aren't they? Politicians must realize - at least since Bill Clinton - that they are under scrutiny by the press and no quarter will be given (although Democrats seem to get away with things more often than Republicans, when it comes to press coverage.)

Yet politician John Edwards not only had a mistress, he also got her pregnant!

Jesus Christ, male politicians! If you're going to have affairs, don't trust condoms, don't trust the woman and her promises that she uses birth control. Get a vasectomy for God's sake!

Otherwise, you too, eventually, will end up like John Edwards.

Is it the NBA or the NFL? No, it's Congress!

Well, well, well...


I found this quiz on another site and thought I'd share it here. What can I say... it was "in print" so I believed it. The moreso because I don't have a high opinion of politicians.

So I posted it here.... then I decided to go see where it came from to see the corrobative details.

But there are none.

This "quiz" is 10 years old.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp



Is It NBA Or NFL?


36
have been accused of spousal abuse


7
have been arrested for fraud


19
have been accused of writing bad checks



117
have directly or indirectly
bankrupted at least 2 businesses



3
have done time for assault



71,
repeat

71 cannot
get a credit card due to bad credit


14
have been arrested on drug-related charges


8
have been arrested for shoplifting



21
currently
are defendants in lawsuits, and



84
have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year


Can you guess which organization this is?

Give up yet? . . Scroll down,


Neither,
it's the 435 members of the
United States Congress

_____________________

The point I'm making is that I think most people who see these types of "quizzes" distributed - with no authors name, no dates on them, no links so people can go see the proof for themselves - are all too often believed. It doesn't even occur to people to verify the facts for themselves - whether it be about politicians, or the actors and actresses whose doings so many people are obsessed over...

On the other hand...it certainly wouldn't surprise me to find out that a goodly percentage of our 435 members of congress did have some of those charges hanging over them... after all the vast majority of them are lawyers....

Rush Limbaugh hypocritical again

I didn't listen to the Rush Limbaugh show today, but I checked his website to see the highlights.

And one of the headlines, in his stack of stuff, was:

Story #1: Michelle Obama Causes Whoopi to Wet Herself

RUSH: Michelle (My Belle) Obama was on The View today, and Whoopi Goldberg wet herself. I am not making this up. Whoopi got so excited, she wet herself. "Rush, what can you possibly mean?" Very simple, ladies and gentlemen. She got so excited she spilled her drink cup all over herself. Now, watching replay highlights, let me check the audio sound bite roster. I'm not sure we have any; I'm not sure I want any. Let's see what we have here. Doesn't look like it. I'll betcha Cookie's in the process of breaking some down if she said anything interesting.

Now isn't that just disgusting? Rush Limbaugh constantly complains that he's quoted out of context, or paraphrased in order to be made to look bad... but of course he has no problem doing that to other people on his show.

To "wet yourself," is a phrase which makes people think that you've lost control of your bladder and urinated, and that's what Limbaugh is trying to make people think Whoopi did. But, no... turns out all she did was spill her water.

Hopefully Whoopi will visit Limbaugh in his tiny little studio (grandiosely called his "southern commmand") and spill some hot coffee all over him, see how he likes it.

The Straight Talk on Preventing Your Home Foreclosure

Before I begin my entry, let me point out that I have no control over the google ads that appear on this site. Because I'll be talking about "loss mitigation" and "home foreclosure," you may very well see advertisements for loss mitigation companies pop up if you visit this article from a "discrete" link. And if you see them...my advice to you would be not to click on them.

Home foreclosures have been spiralling gradually out of control since 2006, thanks to sub-prime loans, Adjustable rate mortgages, and a variety of other factors. People needed to talk to their lenders in order to get a "loan workout" - some kind of an arrangment where their mortgage could be refinanced so that they could somehow afford their house and keep it. And because lenders are swamped, they're not reacting as quickly as they should be...and so lots of homes are falling by the wayside.

"If only there were some magical solution," the desperate homeowner cries...

And with every arise of desperation...people will come along to try to make money out of the situation.

The current business that is popping up like mushrooms after a rainstorm is the "loss mitigation" business. Businessmen have seen the profits that can be gained by charging homeowners money to talk to their lenders on their behalf. And if they're unable to obtain a loan workout...they still get to keep that money.

But who are these businessmen? Take a look at their websites. They will undoubtedly claim to have 20 years in the "loss mitigation" business, but .... most of them don't. Most of these companies were founded in the last 2 years, and consist of an army of sales people who will take phone calls and persuade people to use their company's services, and pay for it up front...and a handful of people who've attended a seminar or two on loss mitigation and who will call up your lender and try to get you a loan workout.... doing nothing that you couldn't do for yourself, and charging you a month or two's mortgage payment into the bargain.

(I've got to admit this puzzles me. If you can afford to pay some company the equivalent of two month's mortgage money up front...why not just pay that money to your lender and do a little bit to help yourself, instead?)

I'm not saying these companies are criminal enterprises (although there are scam artists out there). All I'm saying is that they aren't doing anything that you can't do yourself. If you simply don't have time to make phonecalls or talk to your lender, then I suppose you will want to deal with a third party who can handle that for you -- but if you do, at least make sure that they've been in business for at least two years - and demand to talk in person to people they've helped! Don't believe "testimonials" on their website.

How to find out how long a company has been in business? Again, don't trust their website. Check with your local better business bureau. Check with your local HUD or FHA office.

If you want to save your home from foreclosure, the thing to do is to tackle it in a logical and dispassionate manner.

1. If you get a loan workout, will you still be able to make your payments?

2. If you've got the equivalent of two months of mortgage payments, dont' give it to some total stranger. Visit your local lender and say, "Hey, pal. THis is incentive money. Get my deal done today." Okay, that's probably bribery, but it makes more sense to me than giving your much needed mortgage money to someone else who's only going to be making a couple of phone calls for you!

So, okay, don't bribe. Threaten with a lawsuit. There is lots of legislation coming down from the guv'mint designed to help lenders offer distressed homebuyers programs to help them. Demand that you be given time on your home payments until that legislation comes through, or you and a whole lot of other people being displaced from your homes will file a class-action lawsuit.

3. As a matter of fact, instead of giving that money to a loss mitigation person...find out if there's a real estate lawyer in your home town, and find out if they will take your case.... a lawyer walking into the bank is a lot more galvanizing to a lender than a phonecall from someone in a state way cross the country.

4. Grassroots organizations - for example in your church - are springing up also to help the home owner. Deal with them first, too.

EDUCATE YOURSELF

Some of you got into a mess because you had a catastrophic illness adn fell behind in your payments, and it's legitimately not your fault. Others of you just overspent your income, and you are to blame for your problems.

But there's no reason why you can't educate yourself, fix the problem now, LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES, and keep your home.

So go out and buy some books on the subject - you know they're going to be published like hotcakes now too... in fact - don't buy them, just check them out from the library, or check out the web.

Indeed, good ol' Youtube is full of videos of people either selling their services to save your property, or selling their services to help people with money by your property. Learn all the angles.

Here's an example:



I'm not recommending this person, this is just an example of what's on Youtube. Go to Youtube and do a search on "loss mitigation," and you'll find lots of stuff like this.

So, the decision is up to you.

1) Talk to your lender yourself, bringing all your financial documents with you, and get the problem solved yourself - and CONTINUE to make payments while you're waiting for a loan workout so you don't fall even further behind.

2) Find a legitimate loss mitigation company to help you. I'd suggest you find one in your own local area, so that you can visit their offices, and get the addresses of people whom they've actually helped save their homes. Make sure they have a Money back guarantee clause - and find out exactly how much of your money they'll give back if they fail to help you. (READ THE FINE PRINT ON THE CONTRACT, IT'LL PROBABLY SAY THEY GET TO KEEP A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR MONEY REGARDLESS.)

3) Try renting out a room to somebody...or indeed, renting out the whole home and using that rent money to pay your mortgage... You'll need to talk to a lawyer, and treat that rental like a business...but it's a possiblity (especially now when people who've had to leave their own homes now need a place to stay!) Of course lingering feelings of bitterness or anger might place your home in jeopary so you'll want to vet any renters and get damage deposits, but I'm just throwing it out there as an option....

3) Know your own capabilities. If you cannot afford to keep your home...then there's no point in hiring a loss mitigation company to help you, because they won't be able to help you - but that still won't stop them taking your money and "trying" to help you.

Indeed - don't deal with any loss mitigation company that doesn't "pre-qualify" you over the phone to make sure they at least have a chance of getting a loan workout for you. If they charge you money to "pre-qualify" you - go somewhere else!

I appreciate that the home foreclosure problem is going to get worse before it gets better... and I know the emotional toll this is placing on you. But if you educate yourself as to your options, persuade a non-working spouse who is able to work to get a job, etc. etc. you will be able to keep your home .... and reap the benefits that home ownership has....

Tom Brokaw reports the death of Tim Russert

This is a very effecting video. In the first place, obviously, because it's reciting the career of an important man who was only 58 years when he died, after a vacation to Europe to celebrate his son's graduation... but also because you can tell Tom Brokaw is close to tears throughout the entire tribute.

"Anytime, anywhere" but not at townhall meetings...

Below is a video of Barack Obama saying he'll meet John McCain or George Bush anywhere, anytime to talk about military policy:



Here's an article from CBS News: Obama won't appear at "unmoderated" townhall meetings. WHere he wont have teleprompters or speech writers telling him what to say.

With No Rival At Town Hall, McCain Attacks Oil Companies

In surfing through Youtube to see if there's a video of Michelle Obama using the term "whitey", I found one vidoe that had that title...it had been uploaded a week ago, was seen by 25,000 people, and had been "removed by user". So who knows what it really was.

Taxpayers - take back your money!

There was an article in the Washington Post today.

Senate Votes To Privatize Its Failing Restaurants

Year after year, decade upon decade, the U.S. Senate's network of restaurants has lost staggering amounts of money -- more than $18 million since 1993, according to one report, and an estimated $2 million this year alone, according to another.

The financial condition of the world's most exclusive dining hall and its affiliated Capitol Hill restaurants, cafeterias and coffee shops has become so dire that, without a $250,000 subsidy from taxpayers, the Senate won't make payroll next month.

See link for complete article

If I understand this article correctly, we, the American tax payers, have paid $18 million since 1993 to cover the payments to the food service workers, because the restaurants have been run so incompetently that if they'd been "real" restaurants, they would have gone out of business ages ago.

This is interesting:

In a letter to colleagues, Feinstein said that the Government Accountability Office found that "financially breaking even has not been the objective of the current management due to an expectation that the restaurants will operate at a deficit annually."

And, then, of course, this typical thinking:

"I know what happens with privatization. Workers lose jobs, and the next generation of workers make less in wages. These are some of the lowest-paid workers in our country, and I want to help them," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a staunch labor union ally, said recently. The wages of the approximately 100 Senate food service workers average $37,000 annually.

Is a $37,000 income "among the lowest in the country"? I'm thinking that there are a lot of people who make a lot lower than that.

And in any even what does it matter? We taxpayers pay enough of our money to politicians to subsidize their lavish life styles without paying even more money to subsidize their food.

And its these people who can't even run a food service properly who want to take over health care? The oil companies?

The US is in sad shape and its only going to get worse until tax payers stand up for their rights. Politicians should not be able to vote themselves raises, still less make them retroactive.

Obama when he doesn't have a prepared speech...

Well, Limbaugh aired two clips today of Obama completely losing his train of thought while talking on a couple of issues.

Well...did he do it because he hasn't been getting much sleep, or because he doesn't really know the subject he's talking about?

And, will Obama's followers care one way or the other?

Iraq:


"Inhalators"


And true to form, the Obama supporters who post on the YouTube Comments section on each of these videos, has absolutely no problem with his imcomprensability.

Obama Fist Bump

Not quite sure what the big deal is... Michelle started it...

Hannity Confesses that He Lied

What did I say a few days ago, hmmm?

I said that Sean Hannity had no tape of Michelle Obama saying something stupid that would cost her husband the election, and that he was a hypocritical weasel for saying on his program, "I know that I've always promised to be upfront and honest with you, my audience, and I am going to be upfront and honest, and say that I'm not going to say if I have such a tape.

Well, it's 3.17 pm on Tuesday, June 2, 2008, and after 5 minutes of building up his big story that the rumors had been growing that he, Sean Hannity, had a tape that would break Obama's campaign, he says, "I've always promisted that I'll be upfront and honest with you, my audience, and so I'm going to tell you that no, I don't have such a tape nor have I ever heard such a tape. And I had to tell you that, so please stop calling and emailing."

And I've got to confess that Hannity's credibility should now sink into the toilet. He never had such a tape, and if it had been a tape about one of the Republicans, Hannity would have been the first to scream that whoever was holding the tape (if the rumor had been that a Democrat had it) should release it immediately.)

But he spins it out and spins it out, and now today he confesses he has no such tape, and I gotta tell you - he has just made himself look really stupid.

But, just as Obama supporters won't abandon Obama despite his frequent gaffes, ditto Clinton supporters, ditto the supporters of probably every politician...despite Hannity's revelation today that his entire "Obama tape" was a hoax and that he IN NO WAY was honest and upfront with his audience.

He's trying to pass it off as a joke...the joke's on him.

Women should not be treated like children

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh again today. A man called in - sounded like someone in his 50s - who said that he had told his wife that he wanted the steaks that Rush Limbaugh advertised on his show - and his wife wasn't going to get them for him. Now at this point I turned the sound down, but they were still talking about it five minutes later when I turned the sound back up again, but this time they were talking about women in general.

"The wife is always right" was one of the cliches they threw out, and "A man is either hen-pecked or lying."

And this brought to mind an episode of Frasier I saw a couple of days ago - an episode that had aired in 1992 or so, about a psychiatrist who is now divorced, who also came up with the phrase, "No matter who is right in the argument, the husband is always wrong and the woman is always right."

Then there was an episode of Home Improvement, which was also probably aired in the early 1990s, where Jill the wife is talking to Wilson the all-knowing next door neighor, and Wilson said, "Every man marries a woman hoping she'll never change, and every woman marries a man hoping he will."

And I'm thinking to myself... let's say all this is true... why is it true?

Because girls are treated like children when they are children...and they are treated like children when they are teenagers, and they are treated like children when they're all grown up.

No - the wife is not always right, and the husband - or boyfriend - should not give in to what she says just because she nags him and nags him and won't shut up until he does what she wants.

But the wife should not be a "surrendered wife" either - one who doesn't point out when her hubby makes a mistake because that will ruin his ego...

The idea is that men and women are equal partners in any relationship, and this should be when they're girls and boys as well.

The idea is also that people get to know each other before they make the committment of marriage...or living together, whatever.

Guys, if your girlfriend keeps nagging you - dump her!
Ladies, if you guy wont' do anything for you without you nagging him about it incessantly, dump him!

And since nagging and procrastination are not gender specific - the same holds true if your guy nags you to change when you dont' want to, or if your girl won't do what you ask her to do - spending money or cleaning wise, etc.

Okay, rant over for today.

Rush Limbaugh Just Doesn't Get It

I was listening to the Rush Limbaugh Show today...(May 29, 2008)...and he really torqued me off today.

As I've said on a couple of occasions here, I agree with some of what he says (secure borders, not giving amnesty to illegal aliens, reward excellence and don't reward mediocrity) and disagree with other stuff (global warming, no right to marriage for gays, don't pull the plug on people who are mental vegetables i.e. Terry Schiavo, God is just and merciful, ya da ya da.)

But as a person, I gotta tell you, I really dislike the man, for a simple reason. He's a male chauvanist pig. His beliefs on the inferiority of women pervade his show.

For example, whenever he refers to a female news reporter, he always - always - calls her a news "babe" or a sports "babe" - or some kind of "babe." If that's not demeaning to these women who work very hard at their craft - regardless of whether they are Democrat or Republic in their beliefs - I don't know what is.

Today, he referred to some woman as a "sexetary" - this woman is not a secretary to a businessman but the secretary of some kind of political group, in the "Secretary of State" type of usage... and this creep has the gall to call her a sexetary.

In previous shows he has made fun of the accent of Arianna Huffington, saying she sounds like a Bond girl...made fun of the fact that she comes from Greece...

And a few weeks ago he referred to the Governor of Alaska - the Governor of Alaska, as a "dish" or a "hot babe." Okay, I can't remember the exact phrase he used, but it was something along those lines. "Yeah, she's a good governor but her looks are the icing on the cake," to paraphrase.

Now, it's true that the average man - from boy to teen to man - obsesses over women's looks and when he's with his buddies that's the type of stuff they talk about it [And do not fool yourself, gents, ladies do the same thing with guys.]
... but when you're on national radio you do not refer to women in that diminishing way. Because that's what he's doing - he's diminishing these women in the ears - and thus the hearts and minds - of his listeners.
He will say, perhaps, that he doesnt' really think women are inferior, he just says that stuff jokingly. But when you do those types of references every single day...you know that's what he really thinks.

Sure, he talks demeaningly about individual men, referring to the Breck Girl, Dingy Harry, etc, but when he talks demeaningly about a single woman, he always gets in shots about the entire sex.

Banned from Hannity.com!

I posted a link to my blog entry calling Hannity a hypocrite on the Hannity.com forums.

Went back to post something else and found out that I'd been banned.

Reason: "Contempt of host."

Well...that's true enough in this instance...but I wonder if they meant it the way it sounded.

Perhaps its the "host" of Hannity.com who has "contempt" for me...and instead of engaging in dialog about Hannity's action, just decided to ban me!

http://themuntabquestion.blogspot.com/2008/05/sean-hannity-is-hypocrite.html

Sean Hannity is a hypocrite!

I was listening to Sean Hannity today, and he was making great play of the fact that there are rumors rife on the web and in news columns that he has a tape of Michelle Obama which will "blow the lid off" the Obama campaign.

But he's not going to confirm it one way or the other. "Let's keep it a mystery," to paraphrase.

Oh, please. If he possessed any such tape, he would not be keeping it a secret.

By delaying its release, if there is such a tape, he would run the risk of a "that's it?" reaction. "here we thought it was something terrible, and its this?"

Let's not forget that after everything that Obama has done in the last few months, the gaffes, the "typical white person" comment about his grandmother, Reverend Wright, etc, he still took the 98% white state Oregon just a few days ago with ease.

What could Michelle Obama possibly say now that would make Obama followers not want to vote for him?

But it's more than this. If Hannity had such a tape, he would air it because it's news. Because he wouldn't want to get scooped by the "drive-bys". Because he knows that time is running out and that if it took the drivebys a year to catch on to the Reverend Wright story, it'll take them another year to latch onto this tape - when it will be too late.

So by pretending that he "may" or "may not" have such a tape, Hannity is doing his listeners a disservice, he's doing Hilary Clinton a disservice, and he's doing the American people a disservice.

He's lying by omission.

Man up, Hannity. If you've got a damaging tape - play it now. If you don't, stop trying to boost ratings by being coy.