Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 01, 2016, 02:02:08 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
97535 Posts in 2328 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 78 79 [80] 81 82 ... 122
3951  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Math,a human invention or a human way of seeing reality? on: July 30, 2011, 12:42:51 PM
Why Math Works
Is math invented or discovered? A leading astrophysicist suggests that the answer to the millennia-old question is both

By Mario Livio  | August 3, 2011 | 3
Share Email Print   
Fractals, such as this stack of spheres created using 3-D modeling software, are one of the mathematical structures that were invented for abstract reasons yet manage to capture reality.
Image: Illustration by Tom Beddard
In BriefThe deepest mysteries are often the things we take for granted. Most people never think twice about the fact that scientists use mathematics to describe and explain the world. But why should that be the case?
Math concepts developed for purely abstract reasons turn out to explain real phenomena. Their utility, as physicist Eugene Wigner once wrote, “is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.”
Part of the puzzle is the question of whether mathematics is an invention (a creation of the human mind) or a discovery (something that exists independently of us). The author suggests it is both.

Most of us take it for granted that math works—that scientists can devise formulas to describe subatomic events or that engineers can calculate paths for space­craft. We accept the view, initially espoused by Galileo, that mathematics is the language of science and expect that its grammar explains experimental results and even predicts novel phenomena. The power of mathematics, though, is nothing short of astonishing. Consider, for example, Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell’s famed equations: not only do these four expressions summarize all that was known of electromagnetism in the 1860s, they also anticipated the existence of radio waves two decades before German physicist Heinrich Hertz detected them. Very few languages are as effective, able to articulate volumes’ worth of material so succinctly and with such precision. Albert Einstein pondered, “How is it possible that mathematics, a product of human thought that is independent of experience, fits so excellently the objects of physical reality?”

As a working theoretical astrophysicist, I encounter the seemingly “unreasonable effectiveness of math­ematics,” as Nobel laureate physicist Eugene Wigner called it in 1960, in every step of my job. Whether I am struggling to understand which progenitor systems produce the stellar explosions known as type Ia supernovae or calculating the fate of Earth when our sun ultimately becomes a red giant, the tools I use and the models I develop are mathematical. The uncanny way that math captures the natural world has fascinated me throughout my career, and about 10 years ago I resolved to look into the issue more deeply.
3952  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Biofuels: false hope on: July 30, 2011, 12:37:15 PM
A waste of money?  From Scientific American - biofuels unable to live up to promise.  A synopsis of an article from recent issue:

 ****Scientific American Magazine » August 2011
Feature Articles | Energy & Sustainability 
The False Promise of Biofuels
The breakthroughs needed to replace oil with plant-based fuels are proving difficult to achieve

By David Biello  | August 10, 2011 | 3

In BriefDespite extensive research, biofuels are still not commercially competitive. The breakthroughs needed, revealed by recent science, may be tougher to realize than previously thought.
Corn ethanol is widely produced because of subsidies, and it diverts massive tracts of farmland needed for food. Converting the cellulose in cornstalks, grasses and trees into biofuels is proving difficult and expensive. Algae that produce oils have not been grown at scale. And more advanced genetics are needed to successfully engineer synthetic micro­organisms that excrete hydrocarbons.
Some start-up companies are abandoning biofuels and are instead using the same processes to make higher-margin chemicals for products such as plastics or cosmetics.

Range fuels was a risky but tantalizing bet. The high-tech start-up, begun by former Apple executive Mitch Mandich, attracted millions of dollars in private money plus commitments for up to $156 million in grants and loans from the U.S. government. The plan was to build a large biofuels plant in Soperton, Ga. Each day the facility would convert 1,000 tons of wood chips and waste from Georgia’s vast pulp and paper industry into 274,000 gallons of ethanol. “We selected Range Fuels as one of our partners in this effort,” said Samuel Bodman, then secretary of energy, at the groundbreaking ceremony in November 2007, “because we really believe that they are the cream of the crop.”

That crop has spoiled in the ground. Earlier this year Range Fuels closed its newly built biorefinery without selling a drop of ethanol. Turning biomass into a commercially viable, combustible liquid is tougher than anticipated, the company has found. As expensive equipment sits idle, the firm is searching for more funding to try to solve the problem.
3953  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Race in America on: July 30, 2011, 12:30:07 PM
Good post on the Blow piece about his father.

I can certainly appreciate his pride for his father's service and the logical associated thought:

"Maybe it was the pain of risking his life abroad for a freedom that he couldn’t fully enjoy at home."

It is hard not to feel some disgrace over the treatment of Blacks only a generation ago.
I wish the South would do away with the Confederate flag once and for all.  All the spinning arguments in the world do not make me see how this symbol is not hurtful to those who suffered from racial disparity.

Yeah it is a free country and one can wave the Nazi flag but as Jew I still don't have to like it.

In any case I agree with George Will that "Glory" was by far the best Civil War movie made which is within the theme of this thread.
3954  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Marriage and Family on: July 29, 2011, 02:31:39 PM
"but I am questioning why it's illegal and criminal"

I'll answer it a different way:
Only because it is not politically correct to be a polygamist.
3955  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, budget process on: July 29, 2011, 11:57:31 AM
Scott G wrote,

"I suspect the great majority of Americans would be stunned to realize that if we
allowed government spending to increase by only 2% a year, then we could probably
balance the budget in about 7 years, without any need to increase tax rates or
actually cut anybody's spending."

Is it possible we can get rid of all our debt and not just " balance the budget?"

Why is it good taxation has to continouosly be done to cover interest rates?

Understand I am a novice so I am not sure my question is clear.
3956  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Marriage and Family on: July 29, 2011, 11:04:56 AM
"I do not understand why it's illegal; a criminal act."

Well if polygamists can organize into a radical semi militant poltical action group like the gays and make it politically correct than it will become legal.

If "father" "mother" is to be replaced with "parent" then why not "parent's", wives and husbands (plural intended).

Just one more step in gutting our cultural norms.

Isn't it all just glorious and beautiful?
3957  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / My view Noonan is off a bit on: July 29, 2011, 10:47:35 AM
"The fact is, he's good at dismantling. He's good at critiquing. He's good at not being the last guy, the one you didn't like. But he's not good at building, creating, calling into being. He was good at summoning hope, but he's not good at directing it and turning it into something concrete that answers a broad public desire."

Not exactly right in this analysis.  The problem is the guy does not like America as we know it.  He is angry at whites, capitilism, conservatism.  He is hugely anti what America has been all about for 200+ years.   As his obnoxious statement,
""Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you."
But, he had to concede, "that's not how our system works."
He *again* reveals his disdain for our republic and is in all out effort to change the system to what suits him.  He has been obvious this way from day one but only to those who listened carefully and were not stupid of naive enough to fall for his con.

I have agreed with all those about his true nature - liberal, angry minority, personality DISORDER.  I suspected this guy would fold once people finally started to catch on more and more to his con.

Unfortunately there are many people who are quite happy to support him and many indeed who feel he has not played liberal enough and want wealth transfer and big government so Brock is certainly not without a big group of people who are also angry and dislike America.

Yes he is ultimately a loser, but it is his whole philisophy about himself his role who he is and his beliefs that make him that way.

Not just incompetance.
3958  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: July 28, 2011, 02:15:18 PM
"Earlier yesterday, as National Journal reports, Obama "let his frustration over the stalled debt talks seep into an address on Latino issues, confessing that he'd like to 'bypass Congress and change the laws on my own' ":

He told the National Council of La Raza, "Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you."
But, he had to concede, "that's not how our system works."

He said this??  The guy is "f*ing" tyrant.

This kind of talk should certainly be headline news on every national media.  But of course not a peep from MSM.
3959  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / From Forbes off Drudge:Gobal Warming data wrong on: July 28, 2011, 02:08:55 PM
Nasa satellite data shows atmosphere releases far more heat than WHO computer data:
3960  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Mexico-US matters on: July 27, 2011, 12:25:12 PM
Is the Wikepedia blurb above outdated?  It claims Congress can do this.

How could one expect the DOJ to investigate itself or in this case the connected WH?
3961  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, budget process on: July 27, 2011, 12:23:19 PM
"I do think his tenants are entitled to electrical work that is safe, i.e. not prone to cause a fire"

OK his tenants can get an outside opinion at their expense.

Rather than have *everyone* else pay up and go through a bureacracy.

3962  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Media Issues/entertainment/corporate/crime complex on: July 27, 2011, 11:43:46 AM
Almost certianly Piers Morgan is lying.  The entire entertainment industry is rampant with criminal behavior.  We have had our phones hacked, tapped, listening devices, breaking and entering, stolen intellectual property, surveillance to do harm, bribery theft at the Copyright Office, bribery of government officials and more.  The stolen lyrics and anything else we say or do that can be sold to make a buck shows up in commercials, comedy skits, talk shows, cartoons, movie lines, marketing ads, throughout the "entertainment" industry.  Everyone has connections, and spread the material around.   No most of them are not doing the stealing but the are party to passing it around, making deals amongst themselves, looking the other way, claiming it for themselves, and following the code of silence. 

The News corp is not an exception - it is the rule.  I have claimed this for years.  But I am not a powerful person with billions and connections.  So no one gives a shit about me or Katherine.  But News has many wealthy and politically connected enemies.  So this gets traction and people to actually do something about it.

Folks let me say again - this behaviour is not the exception - it is the rule.   Indeed the device makers have ways to "get in" your devices.  Try finding it embedded.  Try doing anyhting about it.

When I hear the doppy girly news anchors ask their guest who come on their shows to talk of the surveillance ask, "can one opt out?" all I can do is cringe at their ignorance an naivity:

*****Phone Hacking

CNN's Piers Morgan 'told interviewer stories were published based on phone tapping'
Piers Morgan, the CNN broadcaster, has said that newspaper articles based on the findings of people paid to tap phones and rake through bins were published during his time as a tabloid newspaper editor, it can be disclosed.
Piers Morgan, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson have all edited the News of the World Photo: REX
 By Jon Swaine, New York
12:40AM BST 27 Jul 2011
Mr Morgan, a former News of the World and Daily Mirror editor who is now a high-profile television presenter in the US, has spent the past week categorically denying ever printing material derived from phone hacking.

He spoke out after being accused by a Conservative MP and political bloggers of being involved in the phone hacking scandal that has engulfed Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, for which he used to work.

“For the record, in my time at the News of the World and the Mirror, I have never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, or published any stories based on the hacking of a phone,” he said last week on CNN, where he now hosts a talk-show.

But it has emerged that Mr Morgan gave a notably different response when asked during an interview with the BBC about his potential involvement in covert "gutter" journalistic practices during his time as a tabloid editor between 1994 and 2004.

“What about this nice middle-class boy, who would have to be dealing with, I mean essentially people who rake through bins for a living, people who tap people’s phones, people who take secret photographs, who do all that nasty down-in-the-gutter stuff,” he was asked on BBC's Desert Island Discs in June 2009. “How did you feel about that?"
Mr Morgan replied: “To be honest, let’s put that in perspective as well. Not a lot of that went on. A lot of it was done by third parties rather than the staff themselves. That’s not to defend it, because obviously you were running the results of their work.

"I’m quite happy to be parked in the corner of tabloid beast and to have to sit here defending all these things I used to get up to, and I make no pretence about the stuff we used to do,” he told the programme's host, Kirsty Young.

“I simply say the net of people doing it was very wide, and certainly encompassed the high and low end of the supposed newspaper market.”

The discovery of Mr Morgan’s comment, first hinted at by the Guido Fawkes political blog, came after Trinity Mirror, the parent company of The Daily Mirror, announced it had opened an investigation into editorial standards at its newspapers in light of the phone hacking scandal.

Clive Goodman, a reporter for The News of the World, and Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator employed by the newspaper, were jailed in 2007 for illegally hacking mobile phone voicemails. News International, the paper's parent company, initially said the scandal was limited to a "rogue reporter" but in recent weeks conceded it was in fact widespread.

The News of the World was shut down and several more arrests have been made, including Andy Coulson, a former News of the World editor hired by David Cameron to be the chief spokesman at 10 Downing Street and Rebekah Brooks, Mr Murdoch's former British newspaper chief. But News International has made clear it believes hacking was widespread among other tabloids.

At the weekend James Hipwell, a Daily Mirror financial columnist between 1998 and 2000, said that illegal phone hacking was “endemic” during Mr Morgan's editorship. "You know what people around you are doing,” he said.

Last week Mr Morgan was accused in a parliamentary committee by Louise Mensch, the Tory MP for Corby, of publishing an article in 2002 about an affair between Sven Goran Eriksson, the England football coach, and Ulrika Jonsson, the television presenter, which he knew had been obtained via phone hacking. He denied this and demanded an apology during a nine-minute row on live television.

Sources close to Mr Morgan said that he was referring to the tabloid industry in general. In a statement, he said: “I have never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, nor to my knowledge published any story obtained from the hacking of a phone. I am not aware, and have never seen evidence to suggest otherwise, that any Mirror story published during my tenure was obtained from phone hacking.”
3963  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, budget process on: July 27, 2011, 11:28:36 AM
"However, I think safety codes, i.e. electrical, structural, etc. have some merit"

I knew you would.  That is why I asked if you say the giov. is looking out for us?

3964  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Should Congress appoint special prosecutor? on: July 27, 2011, 11:27:20 AM
Surprise tongue high up white official knew of the fast and furious operation.  Obviously Holder will look the other way.  But Congress has the power to appoint a special prosecutor to look for the cover up:

******CBSNews Investigates   
 (Credit: CBS/AP) At a lengthy hearing on ATF's controversial gunwalking operation today, a key ATF manager told Congress he discussed the case with a White House National Security staffer as early as September 2010. The communications were between ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office, Bill Newell, and White House National Security Director for North America Kevin O'Reilly. Newell said the two are longtime friends. The content of what Newell shared with O'Reilly is unclear and wasn't fully explored at the hearing.

It's the first time anyone has publicly stated that a White House official had any familiarity with ATF's operation Fast and Furious, which allowed thousands of weapons to fall into the hands of suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels in an attempt to gain intelligence. It's unknown as to whether O'Reilly shared information with anybody else at the White House.

Congressional investigators obtained an email from Newell to O'Reilly in September of last year in which Newell began with the words: "you didn't get this from me."

"What does that mean," one member of Congress asked Newell, " 'you didn't get this from me?' "

"Obviously he was a friend of mine," Newell replied, "and I shouldn't have been sending that to him."

Newell told Congress that O'Reilly had asked him for information.

"Why do you think he asked for that information," Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) asked Newell.

"He was asking about the impact of Project Gunrunner to brief people in preparation for a trip to Mexico... what we were doing to combat firearms trafficking and other issues."

Today, a White House spokesman said the email was not about Fast and Furious, but about other gun trafficking efforts. The spokesman also said he didn't know what Newell was referring to when he said he'd spoken to O'Reilly about Fast and Furious.

President Obama has said neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder authorized or knew about the operation. Holder has asked the Inspector General to investigate.******

*****Special prosecutor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A special prosecutor generally is a lawyer from outside the government appointed by an attorney general or, in the United States, by Congress to investigate a government official for misconduct while in office. A reasoning for such an appointment is that the governmental branch or agency may have political connections to those it might be asked to investigate. Inherently, this creates a conflict of interest and a solution is to have someone from outside the department lead the investigation. The term "special prosecutor" may have a variety of meanings from one country to the next, from one government branch to the next within the same country, and within different agencies within each government branch. Critics of the use of special prosecutors argue that these investigators act as a "4th branch" to the government because they are not subject to limitations in spending or have deadlines to meet.*****
3965  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / code tax on: July 27, 2011, 11:13:17 AM
"My friend just did a major $500K+ renovation.  Among minor issues was an expansion of his garage.  It seems it is now 24' feet from the street.  The inspector this week told him to tear it down; the code says 24'.  My friend is not very happy."

The codes here in NJ obnoxious.  I can't even put in an electical line from one side of my basement to the other without having to clear it with code "enforcement".

This is a great example of government gone too far.  I say get government the hell off my property.  There is no end to the government expanding its power its reach, its taxation, in a self fulfilling cycle.  I say enough.

You say what?

They are looking out for us?

I am tired of being a victim of the Democrat/lawyer/union trifecta taxes.
3966  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / above post moved to government porgrams thread on: July 27, 2011, 11:12:34 AM
JDN see response on other thread.
3967  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tea Party, Glen Beck and related matters on: July 27, 2011, 11:10:54 AM
"My friend just did a major $500K+ renovation.  Among minor issues was an expansion of his garage.  It seems it is now 24' feet from the street.  The inspector this week told him to tear it down; the code says 24'.  My friend is not very happy."

The codes here in NJ obnoxious.  I can't even put in an electical line from one side of my basement to the other without having to clear it with code "enforcement".

This is a great example of government gone too far.  I say get government the hell off my property.  There is no end to the government expanding its power its reach, its taxation, in a self fulfilling cycle.  I say enough.

You say what?

They are looking out for us?

I am tired of being a victim of the Democrat/lawyer/union trifecta taxes.

3968  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 80 representatives multiplied networth 2002 to 2009 on: July 27, 2011, 11:04:00 AM
These people are immune from insider trading laws???

Where is the journolist on this?

We are being robbed by Wall Street, some banks, many politicians, some foreign recipients of "aid", fraud and abuse in all government programs, illegals, corporate crime (phone hacking which I can assure you is the very tiny tip of the iceberg based on my experience - I have been posting this for years), organized crime, and more.

Yet the Brock DOJ sees it fit to expand the civil rights division to protect gays, Muslims from being called bad names.

And anyone can wonder for my disgust at the world.  And we in this country pretend corruption is only rampant in other countries?
It is rampant here.

Instead of police officers retiring at 50 they should be retrained to go after white collar crime and paid better.
3969  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Brock: Carter 2 on steroids on: July 26, 2011, 01:44:28 PM
At this rate the only one voting for Brock is JDN:     grin grin grin cool
3970  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Appearance of Soros cover up on: July 26, 2011, 01:24:20 PM
"The new requirements would call for funds to report information about the assets they manage, potential conflicts of interest, and information on investors and employees."

Insider info cover up?  Oh he is so for the "poor".

***By Robert Holmes     07/26/11 - 08:04 AM EDT

(TheStreet) -- George Soros, the billionaire hedge-fund manager and philanthropist best known for breaking the Bank of England in 1992, will return capital to investors in order to avoid reporting requirements under the Dodd Frank reform act.

Soros will return money to investors by the end of the year, Bloomberg reported Tuesday, citing two people briefed on the matter. Soros Fund Management will focus on managing assets for his family, according to a letter to the firm's investors. Soros will turn 81 on August 12. 
George Soros 

"We wish to express our gratitude to those who chose to invest their capital with Soros Fund Management LLC over the last nearly 40 years," the letter to investors reads, according to the Bloomberg report. "We trust that you have felt well rewarded for your decision over time."

Initial media reports trumpeted the end of Soros' 40-year career as a hedge-fund manager, although the billionaire investor's firm is far from being done. Soros will return less than $1 billion to external investors, a drop in the bucket compared to the firm's total assets of more than $25 billion.

The reason? Under new requirements from the Dodd Frank act, hedge funds are required to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission by March 2012 if the fund continues to manage more than $150 million in assets for outside investors. The new requirements would call for funds to report information about the assets they manage, potential conflicts of interest, and information on investors and employees. The act allows an exemption for what the Commission considers "family office" advisers.

"We have relied until now on other exemptions from registration which allowed outside shareholders whose interests aligned with those of the family investors to remain invested in Quantum," the letter continued, according to the Bloomberg report. "As those other exemptions are no longer available under the new regulations, Soros Fund Management will now complete the transition to a family office that it began eleven years ago."

While less than $1 billion is small compared to the firm's overall assets, some positions will have to be trimmed through the end of the year. According to Soros' last 13F filling with the SEC for the quarter ended March 31, his firm's top 10 holdings included Adecoagro(AGRO_), InterOil(IOC_), Motorola Solutions(MSI_), Monsanto(MON_), Citigroup(C_) and Wells Fargo(WFC_), among others.

-- Written by Robert Holmes in Boston.***
3971  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Museum of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology on: July 23, 2011, 02:36:57 PM
Part of Walter Reed or at least it was.  Walter Reed is closing I guess.

It appears to be moving its location.  In the 70s it had fascinating exhibits like the vertebra showing the bullet tract the bullet that killed James Garfield.  I haven't been their in decades but it still looks unique:
3972  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / GWill2teaparty: more patients - your kicking Brock's a on: July 23, 2011, 02:24:31 PM
Tea Party would defeat Obama by supporting McConnell plan on debt

By George Will | The Tea Party, the most welcome political development since the Goldwater insurgency in 1964, lacks only the patience necessary when America lacks the consensus required to propel fundamental change through our constitutional system of checks and balances. If Washington's trajectory could be turned as quickly as Tea Partyers wish — while conservatives control only one-half of one of the two political branches — their movement would not be as necessary as it is. Fortunately, not much patience is required.

The Goldwater impulse took 16 years to reach fruition in the election of Ronald Reagan. The Tea Party can succeed in 16 months by helping elect a president who will not veto necessary reforms. To achieve that, however, Tea Partyers must not help the incumbent achieve his objectives in the debt-ceiling dispute.

One of those is to strike a splashy bargain involving big — but hypothetical and nonbinding — numbers. This would enable President Obama to run away from his record and run as a debt-reducing centrist. Another Obama objective is tax increases that shatter Republican unity and dampen the Tea Party's election-turning intensity. Because he probably can achieve neither, he might want market chaos in coming days so Republicans henceforth can be cast as complicit in the wretched recovery that is his administration's ugly signature.

Mitch McConnell's proposal would require Obama to make three requests for additional debt-ceiling increases. Each time he would be required to recommend commensurate spending reductions. Concerning them, Congress would, of course, retain its constitutional power to do what it wishes.
 Obama could muster sufficient Democratic votes (one-third plus one, in one house) to sustain his veto of Congress's disapproval of his requests. But this would not enhance presidential power. Rather, McConnell's proposal would put a harness on the president, tightly confining him within a one-time process.

Congressional primacy would be further enhanced by McConnell's proposed special congressional committee. It would not be another commission; it would have no administration members or other outsiders. Its proposals would be unamendable, and would be voted on this year.

Thanks largely to the Tea Party, today, more than at any time since Reagan's arrival 30 years ago, Washington debate is conducted in conservatism's vocabulary of government retrenchment. The debt-ceiling vote, an action-forcing mechanism of limited utility, has at least demonstrated that Obama is, strictly speaking, unbelievable.

Five months ago he submitted a budget that would have accelerated indebtedness, and that the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected in May, 97 to 0. Just three months ago he was demanding a "clean" increase in the debt ceiling, containing nothing to slow the spending carousel. Now he calls for "the largest possible" debt-reduction deal. Today, he says, "If you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up." Last year he advertised Obamacare as a sufficient reform of health care. He denounces Republicans as uncompromising regarding tax increases but vows "I will not accept" a deal that does not increase taxes.

Obama vaguely promises to "look at" savings from entitlements because "we need to find trillions in savings over the next decade." But when McConnell learned that negotiations chaired by Vice President Biden had identified a risible $2 billion in 2012 discretionary spending cuts — a sum equal to a rounding error on the GM bailout — McConnell concluded that Obama's frugality pantomime required a response that will define the 2012 election choice.

Obama's rhetorical floundering is the sound of a bewildered politician trying to be heard over the long, withdrawing roar of ebbing faith in a failing model of governance. From Greece to California, with manifestations in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Illinois and elsewhere, this model is collapsing. Entangled economic and demographic forces are refuting the practice of ever-bigger government financed by an ever-smaller tax base and by imposing huge costs on voiceless future generations.

Richard Miniter, a Forbes columnist, is right: "Obama is not the new FDR, but the new Gorbachev." Beneath the tattered, fading banner of reactionary liberalism, Obama struggles to sustain a doomed system. Democrats' dependency agenda — swelling the ranks of government employees, multiplying government-subsidized industries, enveloping ever-more individuals in the entitlement culture — is buckling under an intractable contradiction: It is incompatible with economic growth sufficient to create enough wealth to feed the multiplying tax eaters.

Events are validating the Tea Partyers' arguments. Time is on their side — but not on America's, unless the impediment to reform is removed in 16 months.
3973  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: July 22, 2011, 10:00:14 PM
Brock in *his* tizzy speech tonight stated:

"The American people voted for a divided government, not a dysfunctional government."

Wrong on both counts Brockster:

The American people voted for *less* government -  ya stooge.

God almighty we have to get rid of this guy.
3974  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: July 22, 2011, 09:55:38 PM
Jeb Bush on Hannity this evening sounded quite good and I was surprised.  He didn't just sound like a moderate establish type. He is quite adept at highlighting the total failures of Brock and why we need to change course.  All we need is a candidate who can do this with vigor and with eloquent oratory.

Jeb is not running.  Perry maybe can do this? undecided  Pawlenty is just too laid back from what I have seen.  Bachman is still not prime time on national/international issues. 

We have to get rid of Brock.  This country cannot afford figuratively and finanically another 4 yrs of this disaster or as the great Bob Grant talk show host descirbes him - this abomination!

3975  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Herman Cain on: July 18, 2011, 09:59:29 AM
Herman Cain was on Stossel over the weekend and it was noted he is a "survivor" of stage 4 colon cancer.
Unfortunately this is not a curable disease.  I am afraid this rules him out as a Presidential candidate in my mind:
3976  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Morris compares Obama to FDR term 2 on: July 17, 2011, 04:12:48 PM
Obama wil plunge us into a second dip just like FDR in his second term plunged the country into a sceond depression:
3977  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / hillsdale college piece on unions on: July 17, 2011, 02:54:11 PM
Imprimis is the free monthly speech digest of Hillsdale College and is dedicated to educating citizens and promoting civil and religious liberty by covering cultural, economic, political and educational issues of enduring significance.  The content of Imprimis is drawn from speeches delivered to Hillsdale College-hosted events, both on-campus and off-campus.  First published in 1972, Imprimis is one of the most widely circulated opinion publications in the nation with over 1.9 million subscribers.

May/June 2011

Mark Mix
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
The Right to Work: A Fundamental Freedom
MARK MIX is president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, as well as of the National Right to Work Committee, a 2.2 million member public policy organization. He holds a B.A. in finance from James Madison University and an associate’s degree in marketing from the State University of New York. His writings have appeared in such newspapers and magazines as the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the Detroit Free Press, the San Antonio Express-News, the Orange County Register and National Review.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on January 31, 2011, during a conference co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series.

BOEING IS A GREAT AMERICAN COMPANY. Recently it has built a second production line—its other is in Washington State—in South Carolina for its 787 Dreamliner airplane, creating 1,000 jobs there so far. Who knows what factors led to its decision to do this? As with all such business decisions, there were many. But the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—a five-member agency created in 1935 by the Wagner Act (about which I will speak momentarily)—has taken exception to this decision, ultimately based on the fact that South Carolina is a right-to-work state. That is, South Carolina, like 21 other states today, protects a worker’s right not only to join a union, but also to make the choice not to join or financially support a union. Washington State does not. The general counsel of the NLRB, on behalf of the International Association of Machinists union, has issued a complaint against Boeing, which, if successful, would require it to move its South Carolina operation back to Washington State. This would represent an unprecedented act of intervention by the federal government that appears, on its face, un-American. But it is an act long in the making, and boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom.

Where does this story begin?

The Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley

In 1935, Congress passed and President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), commonly referred to as the Wagner Act after its Senate sponsor, New York Democrat Robert Wagner. Section 7 of the Wagner Act states:

Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.

Union officials such as William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and John L. Lewis, principal founder of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), hailed this legislation at the time as the “Magna Carta of Labor.” But in fact it was far from a charter of liberty for working Americans.

Section 8(3) of the Wagner Act allowed for “agreements” between employers and officers of a union requiring union membership “as a condition of employment” if the union was certified or recognized as the employees’ “exclusive” bargaining agent on matters of pay, benefits, and work rules. On its face, this violates the clear principle that the freedom to associate necessarily includes the freedom not to associate. In other words, the Wagner Act didn’t protect the freedom of workers because it didn’t allow for them to decide against union membership. To be sure, the Wagner Act left states the prerogative to protect employees from compulsory union membership. But federal law was decidedly one-sided: Firing or refusing to hire a worker because he or she had joined a union was a federal crime, whereas firing or refusing to hire a worker for not joining a union with “exclusive” bargaining privileges was federally protected. The National Labor Relations Board was created by the Wagner Act to enforce these policies.

During World War II, FDR’s War Labor Board aggressively promoted compulsory union membership. By the end of the war, the vast majority of unionized workers in America were covered by contracts requiring them to belong to a union in order to keep their jobs. But Americans were coming to see compulsory union membership—euphemistically referred to as “union security”—as a violation of the freedom of association. Furthermore, the nonchalance with which union bosses like John L. Lewis paralyzed the economy by calling employees out on strike in 1946 hardened public support for the right to work as opposed to compulsory unionism. As Gilbert J. Gall, a staunch proponent of the latter, acknowledged in a monograph chronicling legislative battles over this issue from the 1940s on, “the huge post-war strike wave and other problems of reconversion gave an added impetus to right-to-work proposals.”

When dozens of senators and congressmen who backed compulsory unionism were ousted in the 1946 election, the new Republican leaders of Congress had a clear opportunity to curb the legal power of union bosses to force workers to join unions. Instead, they opted for a compromise that they thought would have enough congressional support to override a presidential veto by President Truman. Thus Section 7 of the revised National Labor Relations Act of 1947—commonly referred to as the Taft-Hartley Act—only appears at first to represent an improvement over Section 7 of the Wagner Act. It begins:

Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any and all such activities. . . .

Had this sentence ended there, forced union membership would have been prohibited, and at the same time voluntary union membership would have remained protected. Unfortunately, the sentence continued:

...except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title.

This qualification, placing federal policy firmly on the side of compulsory union membership, left workers little better off than they were under the Wagner Act. Elsewhere, Taft-Hartley did, for the most part, prohibit “closed shop” arrangements that forced workers to join a union before being hired. But they could still be forced to join, on threat of being fired, within a few weeks after starting on the job.

Boeing’s Interest, and Ours

It cannot be overemphasized that compulsory unionism violates the first principle of the original labor union movement in America. Samuel Gompers, founder and first president of the AFL, wrote that the labor movement was “based upon the recognition of the sovereignty of the worker.” Officers of the AFL, he explained in the American Federationist, can “suggest” or “recommend,” but they “cannot command one man in America to do anything.” He continued: “Under no circumstances can they say, ‘you must do so and so, or, ‘you must desist from doing so and so.’” In a series of Federationist editorials published during World War I, Gompers opposed various government mandate measures being considered in the capitals of industrial states like Massachusetts and New York that would have mandated certain provisions for manual laborers and other select groups of workers:

The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are held to be not only impractical but a menace to their rights, welfare and their liberty.

This argument applies as much to compulsory unionism—or “union security”—as to the opposite idea that unions should be prohibited. And in a December 1918 address before the Council on Foreign Relations, Gompers made this point explicitly:

There may be here and there a worker who for certain reasons unexplainable to us does not join a union of labor. This is his right no matter how morally wrong he may be. It is his legal right and no one can dare question his exercise of that legal right.

Compare Gompers’s traditional American view of freedom to the contemptuous view toward workers of labor leaders today. Here is United Food and Commercial Workers union strategist Joe Crump advising union organizers in a 1991 trade journal article: “Employees are complex and unpredictable. Employers are simple and predictable. Organize employers, not employees.” And in 2005, Mike Fishman, head of the Service Employees International Union, was even more blunt. When it comes to union organizing campaigns, he told the Wall Street Journal, “We don’t do elections.”

Under a decades-old political compromise, federal labor policies promoting compulsory unionism persist side by side with the ability of states to curb such compulsion with right-to-work laws. So far, as I said, 22 states have done so. And when we compare and contrast the economic performance in these 22 states against the others, we find interesting things. For example, from 1999 to 2009 (the last such year for which data are available), the aggregate real all-industry GDP of the 22 right-to-work states grew by 24.2 percent, nearly 40 percent more than the gain registered by the other 28 states as a group.

Even more dramatic is the contrast if we look at personal income growth. From 2000 to 2010, real personal incomes grew by an average of 24.3 percent in the 22 right-to-work states, more than double the rate for the other 28 as a group. But the strongest indicator is the migration of young adults. In 2009, there were 20 percent more 25- to 34-year-olds in right-to-work states than in 1999. In the compulsory union states, the increase was only 3.3 percent—barely one-sixth as much.

In this context, the decision by Boeing to open a plant in South Carolina may be not only in its own best interest, but in ours as well. So in whose interest is the National Labor Relations Board acting? And more importantly, with a view to what understanding of freedom?

Public Sector Unionism

As more and more workers and businesses have obtained refuge from compulsory unionism in right-to-work states in recent decades, the rationality of the free market has been showing itself. But the public sector is another and a grimmer story.

The National Labor Relations Act affects only private-sector workers. Since the 1960s, however, 21 states have enacted laws authorizing the collection of forced union dues from at least some state and local public employees. More than a dozen additional states have granted union officials the monopoly power to speak for all government workers whether they consent to this or not. Thus today, government workers are more than five times as likely to be unionized as private sector workers. This represents a great danger for taxpayers and consumers of government services. For as Victor Gotbaum, head of the Manhattan-based District 37 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said 36 years ago: “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.”

How this works is simple, and explains the inordinate power of union officials in so many states that have not adopted right-to-work laws. Union officials funnel a huge portion of the compulsory dues and fees they collect into efforts to influence the outcomes of elections. In return, elected officials are afraid to anger them even in the face of financial crisis. This explains why states with the heaviest tax burdens and the greatest long-term fiscal imbalances (in many cases due to bloated public employee pension funds) are those with the most unionized government workforces. California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin represent the worst default risks among the 50 states. In 2010, an average of 59.2 percent of the public employees in these nine worst default-risk states were unionized, 19.2 percentage points higher than the national average of 40 percent. All of these states except Nevada authorize compulsory union dues and fees in the public sector.
* * *
Fortunately, there are signs that taxpayers are recognizing the negative consequences of compulsory unionism in the public sector. Just this March, legislatures in Wisconsin and Ohio revoked compulsory powers of government union bosses, and similar efforts are underway in several other states. Furthermore, the NLRB’s blatantly political and un-constitutional power play with regard to Boeing’s South Carolina production line is sure to strike fair-minded Americans as beyond the pale. Now more than ever, it is time to push home the point that all American workers in all 50 states should be granted the full freedom of association—which includes the freedom not to associate—in the area of union membership.
Copyright © 2011 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.

    33 East College St. Hillsdale, MI 49242 • Tel: +1 517 437-7341 • Fax: +1 517 437-3923
© 2007-09 Hillsdale College. All rights reserved.
3978  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Dems in armbar on: July 15, 2011, 02:15:14 PM
"The Republican House should immediately pass a short-term debt-ceiling hike of $500 billion containing $500 billion in budget cuts."

Even Krauthammer smells Democratic blood in the air!  Time to lock the armbar and break their arm!

Mark Levin was right all along.  Time to go for the kill.  It is now or never and they are on the run.

As Bachman said the other night to a grinning OReilly she has a titanium spine. Time for all Repubs to get titanium rods implanted in their/our spines.
3979  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: July 15, 2011, 01:19:55 PM
"It's not a health care issue, it's a character flaw."

Yes, we spoke of his obvious narcisstic personality disorder.

It is not called a "disorder" for nothing.  These people can be extraordinarily deceptive, dishonest, placing blame always on others, never really accepting responsibility for anything.  They love themselves and think they are superior.  As a result they think they can charm and manipulate everyone around them to their whim.

In the beggining they often/usually are successful.  Savvy people will soon catch on.  Those who think they are good judges of character but are not will take longer.  And of course there are those that will always be suckered.

It does appear more and more people are catching on.  WE can only hope the Repubs can rally behind a candidate who can give an alternative message before it is too late.

Mark my words if Brock loses we will see him pardon every illegal here and around the world.  That will be HIS payback.

3980  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: July 15, 2011, 01:09:17 PM
"You've got crushing student loans, no jobs and you must buy health insurance to subsidize everyone else."

Don't forget we ought to pay for the education of illegals too.

If one is born here to a family that works to pay for their children's education good.

If your illegal and cannot afford an education the above group will be forced to subsidize you out of the good heartedness of the ruling Democrat party itching for a vote.

For a long time people have clamored that health care is a "right".

When did retirement often before 60 and even 50 become a "right"?

3981  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: July 15, 2011, 11:36:59 AM
"Constitutional Law Professor Barack Obama"

Mark Levin had a law professor from Univ of Chicago on his show last year.  He knew Brock and is a pro 2nd amendment professor.  Apparantly this is rare.  He stated Brock was the only prof who would never speak to him because of his political stance.  He said this was unusual.  The other liberal professors would at least be polite and friendly.  The world's first post partisan prez was the only one who was a cold fish.  This professor also stated he witnessed absolutely no research, no original legal thought, and no real insterest in the Constitution by Brock.  the whole reason from what he could tell Brock was at U of C was to establish a political base.  It is was all about political calculation. 

This goes along with the other circumstantial evidence that Brock was the chosen one by the progressive movement to be their mouthpiece.  It also goes along with the obvious that he is not an original thinker, not a conciliator, very political/partisan.

He is the angry Black, who dislikes Jews (he just uses them), whites, capatilizism, and America.

Krauthammer had it slightly wrong.  It is not Brock's temperment that is what makes him "special" it is his ability to lie and deceive.
3982  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / AMA votes for individual mandate on: July 15, 2011, 10:45:19 AM
Apparantly the AMA is more interested their members get paid then in individual freedom.  It is almost always about the money.

I got this in my email.  I am not and never have been an AMA member but I got this from the ACP American College of Physicians who are generally rather liberal but to some degree follow the trends in a politically realistic fashion.  Unlike years ago where medical groups had enormous political sway in Washington they hold almost NO sway now.  So they just jump on board and play both sides as best they can and go with the political winds.  Right or wrong that is the way it is.  Not like the legal lobby which controls the country like a vice.

***Welcome to The ACP Advocate.

I’m pleased to start off this issue by reporting to you the news in our first story.  At its June meeting, the American Medical Association's House of Delegates passed a resolution to reaffirm the necessity of a personal responsibility requirement (the individual mandate) as part of health reform.  Continuing to emphasize the importance of the requirement is crucial.  Without requiring everyone (including the young and healthy among us) to have health insurance, the system simply won’t be able to provide coverage to all at rates that are affordable.  This sort of requirement is necessary in order to continue to have a viable private payer system.
3983  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, budget process on: July 15, 2011, 10:05:41 AM
Who was fired from MSNBC for calling Brock for what he is, a "dick"?
3984  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / "contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans" on: July 15, 2011, 10:03:45 AM
What?  This is a topic that must be taught in grade schools??  If this is ok than why are liberals so against Mormons and polygamy?

What the hell is wrong with polygamy between consenting adults?  It will not end till the foundations of this country are destroyed.
There is no compromise.  I am glad I am at the end of life.  I have had enough.  I don't care what gays or the rest of them do but we need to teach this in school as though it is just sort of variation of normal? 

****Sacramento --

Public schools in California will be required to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans starting Jan. 1 after Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday signed a controversial bill to add the topic to the social sciences curriculum.

Textbooks now must include information on the role of LGBT Americans, as well as Americans with disabilities, though California's budget crisis has delayed the purchasing of new books until at least 2015.

"History should be honest," Brown, a Democrat, said in a statement. "This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books."

The governor called the legislation, SB48, introduced by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, "historic."

The law - the first of its kind in the nation - adds the two groups to an existing list of minority and other groups that are required to be part of the social sciences curriculum.

Safer schools
Gay rights supporters heralded Brown's action as a major victory. They said the law will help make public schools a safer place for LGBT students as well as give those students, and their classmates, examples of accomplished and important LGBT people.

Throughout the debate on the measure, backers noted the recent spate of suicides among young LGBT people and said it would help to combat bullying that typically occurs beforehand.

Opponents, however, fiercely opposed the measure, citing religious objections to homosexuality and questioning whether such instruction is necessary. They expressed dismay with Brown's signing of the bill.

"If children in other countries are learning math and science, and American children are learning about the private lives of historical figures, how will our students compete for jobs in the global economy?" said Sen. Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster (Los Angeles County), the vice chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Education.

Beyond California
The provision on inclusion in textbooks could reach beyond California, too, as many book publishers tailor their texts to California's standards because of the state's large population. The bill does not prescribe how schools will teach the subject, and Leno said that decision will be made by local school officials and teachers.

"What the bill calls for is for the contributions of LGBT people to be included," Leno said, adding, "We wrote it broadly for a reason. We would be subject to more criticism than we've already been getting if we were more dictatorial."

Leno said the mandates apply broadly, though, telling reporters it would affect kindergarten through high school curriculum, "and, of course, in an age-appropriate way."

Gay rights advocates said they will be vigilant about making sure schools across California comply.

Carolyn Laub, the founder and executive director of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network, which works to establish gay-straight clubs in schools, said such clubs exist in 55 percent of California's high schools.

"We'll certainly be letting all of our constituents know about this bill, and when it goes into effect I can assure you there will be thousands of students" watching to see how it is implemented, she said.

Proponents have cited slain San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk as a person with historical significance, along with events such as the Stonewall Riots in New York City that helped launch the LGBT rights movement as examples of topics that could be taught.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, a Democrat, praised Brown's move, saying, "Our history is more complete when we recognize the contributions of people from all backgrounds and walks of life."

Cutting into class time
Still, opponents questioned the effect the bill would have and the need for explicit instruction for all students about a relatively small group.

The bill "does absolutely nothing to reduce bullying, improve the poor state of our education system, ensure students graduate or prepare them for global competitiveness," said Paulo Sibaja, legislative director of the Capitol Resource Institute, a socially conservative organization in Sacramento. "Instead it diverts precious classroom time away from science, math, reading and writing, and focuses on the agenda of a small group of people."****

3985  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: July 14, 2011, 03:11:31 PM
Crafty, Doug, Gm all,

Would the economy really tank if a debt ceiling is not raised as the crats claim?

Any one know?
3986  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: california on: July 14, 2011, 02:57:03 PM
GM, it is a free state for probably more than 50%. undecided
3987  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Barack Hussain Obama in Hebrew on: July 14, 2011, 02:55:25 PM
BROCK at alah add annoy
3988  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: July 14, 2011, 02:53:08 PM
Ask not what our country can do for you, ask what you (immigrant) can do for our country.
3989  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / It is a gigantic problem on: July 12, 2011, 05:05:35 PM
I am sure there are some doctors along with everyone else who are abusing the drug prescirption thing.

"The Colorado system is full of abuse including no oversight of the 'doctors' and leaving the dispensaries unregulated."

We don't need doctors prescribing this garbage (pot).  We can't even control the narcotics prescriptions.  I do my best yet I have  a single digit number of patients who I suspect are taking advantage of the drugs yet I can't prove it.  One actually did tell me she went snowboarding!  huh  She shut up fast when I just glared at her.  angry I thought she was in such pain. rolleyes

The doctors who blatantly participate in the drug dispensing scams are I truly think a small minority.  Although I don't have a good handle as to how many do this.  I really think most of us *cannot stand* the scammers who come in trying to con us for drugs.  Most of druggies can be filtered out but a few are really tough to tell from people truly in need  in my estimations.  Some are superb bullshit artists - like the people in the music/entertainment industry. 

3990  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, budget process on: July 12, 2011, 04:47:32 PM
"These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks"

How about his check?  And the other, Lord knows how many, DC employees - our masters.
3991  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / If Brock wins in 2012 this will be me: on: July 12, 2011, 04:43:38 PM
3992  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the Republicans on: July 12, 2011, 01:53:18 PM
I don't think they are winning over any independents or any new people to the Republican party. And they are certainly not winning the confidence of the tea partiers or stricter conservatives.  Of course I am an armchair expert. cheesy
3993  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / marijuana on: July 12, 2011, 01:50:07 PM
  The only reason to decriminalize this drug is to take the profit motive out of it. That may be a good reason to make it legal but no other reason I can see is legitimate.  Not to tax it and not for "medicinal" purposes in vast majority of most cases. Medically it is a sham except for maybe those who are otherwise in unusual situations like on chemotherapy or terminally ill.  People who want it legal are mostly hippies, druggies, or those who want to profit from it.  With all the problems facing this country we need to debate over pot?

Personally I agree with the following:

****Obama administration slams medical marijuana
By Liz Goodwin

National Affairs Reporter

PostsEmailRSSBy Liz Goodwin | The Lookout – 20 hrs agotweet48EmailPrint

Medical marijuana in Denver (Ed Andrieski/AP)
The Obama administration's newly released drug control strategy slams states that have legalized medical marijuana, arguing that smoking any drug is unsafe--and that marijuana's medical benefits have yet to be evaluated by the FDA.

"While there may be medical value for some of the individual components of the cannabis plant, the fact remains that smoking marijuana is an inefficient and harmful method for delivering the constituent elements that have or may have medicinal value," the White House's National Drug Control Strategy for 2011 says.

The strongly anti-marijuana report comes on the heels of the Justice Department's decision against reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. As The Los Angeles Times reports, the government took nine years to respond to marijuana advocates' request that they take into account studies that show marijuana has medical benefits and reclassify the drug. At the end of its review, the Justice Department held firm to its earlier decision that marijuana should be classified alongside other dangerous drugs such as heroin. The Americans for Safe Access group is now appealing the decision in federal court, the paper says.

It's unclear what the consequences will be for people involved in the medical marijuana business in the 16 states (and Washington, D.C.) that currently allow it. The report states unequivocally that "outside the context of Federally approved research, the use and distribution of marijuana is prohibited in the United States," and the Justice Department recently suggested in a memo that state-approved marijuana dispensaries and growers could face prosecution.

The report also made a detailed case against legalization or decriminalization of marijuana, an idea that has won the endorsement of a group of ex-global leaders who called the war on drugs a "failure." The report says that while tobacco and alcohol are legalized and taxed, neither provide a "net economic benefit to society," due to health-care expenses and various criminal justice costs, such as drunken driving arrests.

Neil Franklin, the director of a pro-legalization group of former police and other law-enforcement agents called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said in a statement that the anti-marijuana tone of the administration is disappointing.

"It's sad that the drug czar decided to insert a multi-page rant against legalizing and regulating drugs into the National Drug Control Strategy instead of actually doing his job and shifting limited resources to combat the public health problem of drug abuse," Franklin said.****
3994  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Progressives and subversives have absconded the education system on: July 12, 2011, 10:36:35 AM
What is most astounding about all this is all we hear about is how bad our education that so many children know astoundingly NOTHING about the nature and founding of the principals of our country.

They know all about slavery of blacks, the driving of Indians off lands, etc.  Everything is political correctness.

I felt proud of being an American growing up.

Now children are taught to be ashamed of our heritage, our history culture, the legacies, the principals this country was founded on.

I remember in college in the 70's one history professor was rumored to be "communist" in his philosophy as though he was the execption.  Now from what one reads this is at least at the Ivy league schools the *rule*, not the *exception*.

I just cannot believe we have children who don't know who Abraham Lincoln is from a picture or that the US was a colony of Britain.

This is astounding. This is a disgrace.  
3995  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How can repubs get rid of Boehner? on: July 12, 2011, 09:33:51 AM
Without any doubt the Republicans really should start looking for another House majority leader.
When you see the MSM state something like this:

"Boehner was praised for his early efforts to strike a major deal with the Obama" then Republicans should know its time for him to be replaced.  This guy Boehner is absolutely the worst Republican house leader in memory:

***Cantor-Boehner Rivalry, Loafers Hold Up a Debt Deal

By Connor Simpson | The Atlantic Wire – 2 hrs 50 mins agotweet0EmailPrintA long rumored rivalry between the two top Republicans seems to be causing problems at the negotiating table while the president tries to hammer out a debt reduction deal before the August 2 deadline. Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor are on opposing sides of the idealogical coin when it comes to debt reduction, and sartorial choices, reports the Los Angeles Times' Lisa Mascaro and Kathleen Hennessey.

Related: GOP Intensifies Demands for Votes to Raise the Debt Ceiling

Boehner was praised for his early efforts to strike a major deal with the Obama administration that would trim spending from social programs like Medicare and Social Security, but would also close tax loopholes for upperclass Americans. Cantor has hardly swayed from party lines during the negotiation process, favoring a mid-range deal more popular with the rest of "rank-and-file" Republicans. Mascaro and Hennessey describe Boehner as older, wiser and with an "old school cool." Cantor is young, scrappy and has some, "aspirations to occupy the No. 1 spot someday," meaning Boehner's job as Speaker of the house. Also, apparently, Boehner, "mocks Cantor's Italian loafers."

Related: Debt Talks Stall on Sunday

"If there's a popularity contest right now, Cantor wins it," one aide told the Times. "I don't think Boehner would want to serve in a foxhole anytime with Eric Cantor," said another.
3996  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: July 08, 2011, 10:24:17 AM
Isn't in Kali-fornia there is a bill that would make mandatory gay history in schools.

We have a large percentage of children who cannot tell you what Abraham Lincoln looks like, who do not know the US was originally part of the British empire but we must have gay history in grade school!

Right.  And it wasn't the gays spreading aids it was Ronald Reagan.
3997  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tea Party, Glen Beck and related matters on: July 01, 2011, 02:42:57 PM
"Good riddance.  He was fired"

Not in the too distant future we will all be saying the same for Brock.

He can travel the world and wine and dine with his wife on their dime.
3998  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / "Men & Women" no more on: June 30, 2011, 08:05:41 PM
Forget "boy" or "girl".  It is friends or I guess person.  I don't know if this should be under the gay heading, parenting heading gender heading or under a heading of "crazy':

***No "boys" or "girls" at gender-neutral preschool in Sweden
At Egalia preschool in Stockholm, children are not called "him" and "her," or "boy" and "girl," in an attempt to fight gender stereotypes.
News DeskJune 26, 2011 12:04
Swedish children from a kindergarden wear their obligatory traffic safety vests as they play in a Stockholm park. At the "Egalia" preschool in Sweden, staff refer to the children as "friends" instead of "boys" and "girls," in an attempt to breakdown gender stereotypes for boys and girls. (SVEN NACKSTRAND/AFP/Getty Images)A preschool in Sweden wants to eliminate gender bias by referring to children as “friends,” instead of girls and boys, and avoiding gender-specific pronouns such as “him” or “her.”

At the taxpayer-funded “Egalia” preschool in Stockholm, which opened last year for children ages 1-6, boys and girls play together with a toy kitchen, which is located next to the Lego bricks, the Associated Press reports.

They read books featuring gay and lesbian couples, single parents and adopted children, instead of fairy tales such as “Cinderella” or “Snow White,” which are rife with gender stereotypes.

School staff try to avoid masculine and feminine references in their speech, for example by not using the Swedish pronouns “han” or “hon” for him or her, and instead using the genderless word “hen,” which doesn’t formally exist in the Swedish language.

"Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," teacher Jenny Johnsson told the AP. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."

A 2010 report by the World Economic Forum on the global gender gap found that Sweden and three other Nordic countries lead the world when it comes to gender equality. Sweden is also considered a pioneer in legalizing gay and lesbian partnerships.

A Canadian couple recently drew international attention for their decision to try and raise a genderless baby by not telling anyone whether their child is a boy or girl.

When Storm was born, the couple from Toronto told friends and family that they had decided not to share the baby’s sex.

“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” mother Kathy Witterick explained to the Toronto Star. “If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs.”

Storm’s brothers Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2, choose their own clothes and hairstyles. Jazz prefers to wear his hair long and in three braids, and his favorite color is pink.****

3999  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / An awakening on: June 29, 2011, 12:44:47 PM
Are some liberal fellow Jews awakening that they may really have to give up their capatilistic freedom lifestyle if they keep voting for Brock and the rest of the crat party?   Well their not just giving away Israel.  They are giving away this great country too.  Wake up you fools.

***Some of these traditional Democrats now say, to their own astonishment, that they’ll consider voting for a Republican in 2012.***

WOW!  Although I will have to see this to believe on election day....

***Jewish Dems losing faith in Obama
By: Ben Smith
June 29, 2011 04:32 AM EDT
David Ainsman really began to get worried about President Barack Obama’s standing with his fellow Jewish Democrats when a recent dinner with his wife and two other couples — all Obama voters in 2008 — nearly turned into a screaming match.

Ainsman, a prominent Democratic lawyer and Pittsburgh Jewish community leader, was trying to explain that Obama had just been offering Israel a bit of “tough love” in his May 19 speech on the Arab Spring. His friends disagreed — to say the least.

One said he had the sense that Obama “took the opportunity to throw Israel under the bus.” Another, who swore he wasn’t getting his information from the mutually despised Fox News, admitted he’d lost faith in the president.

If several dozen interviews with POLITICO are any indication, a similar conversation is taking place in Jewish communities across the country. Obama’s speech last month seems to have crystallized the doubts many pro-Israel Democrats had about Obama in 2008 in a way that could, on the margins, cost the president votes and money in 2012 and will not be easy to repair. (See also: President Obama's Middle East speech: Details complicate 'simple' message)

“It’s less something specific than that these incidents keep on coming,” said Ainsman.

The immediate controversy sparked by the speech was Obama’s statement that Israel should embrace the country’s 1967 borders, with “land swaps,” as a basis for peace talks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seized on the first half of that phrase and the threat of a return to what Israelis sometimes refer to as “Auschwitz borders.” (Related: Obama defends border policy)

Obama’s Jewish allies stressed the second half: that land swaps would — as American negotiators have long contemplated — give Israel security in its narrow middle, and the deal would give the country international legitimacy and normalcy.

But the noisy fray after the speech mirrored any number of smaller controversies. Politically hawkish Jews and groups such as the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Emergency Committee for Israel pounded Obama in news releases. White House surrogates and staffers defended him, as did the plentiful American Jews who have long wanted the White House to lean harder on Israel’s conservative government.

Based on the conversations with POLITICO, it’s hard to resist the conclusion that some kind of tipping point has been reached.

Most of those interviewed were center-left American Jews and Obama supporters — and many of them Democratic donors. On some core issues involving Israel, they’re well to the left of Netanyahu and many Americans: They refer to the “West Bank,” not to “Judea and Samaria,” fervently supported the Oslo peace process and Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and believe in the urgency of creating a Palestinian state.

But they are also fearful for Israel at a moment of turmoil in a hostile region when the moderate Palestinian Authority is joining forces with the militantly anti-Israel Hamas.

“It’s a hot time, because Israel is isolated in the world and, in particular, with the Obama administration putting pressure on Israel,” said Rabbi Neil Cooper, leader of Temple Beth Hillel-Beth El in Philadelphia’s Main Line suburbs, who recently lectured his large, politically connected congregation on avoiding turning Israel into a partisan issue.

Some of these traditional Democrats now say, to their own astonishment, that they’ll consider voting for a Republican in 2012. And many of those who continue to support Obama said they find themselves constantly on the defensive in conversations with friends.

“I’m hearing a tremendous amount of skittishness from pro-Israel voters who voted for Obama and now are questioning whether they did the right thing or not,” said Betsy Sheerr, the former head of an abortion-rights-supporting, pro-Israel PAC in Philadelphia, who said she continues to support Obama, with only mild reservations. “I’m hearing a lot of ‘Oh, if we’d only elected Hillary instead.’”

Even Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who spoke to POLITICO to combat the story line of Jewish defections, said she’d detected a level of anxiety in a recent visit to a senior center in her South Florida district.

“They wanted some clarity on the president’s view,” she said. “I answered their questions and restored some confidence that maybe was a little shaky, [rebutted] misinformation and the inaccurate reporting about what was said.”

Wasserman Schultz and other top Democrats say the storm will pass. (Related: Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Jewish voters will stick with Obama)

They point out to anyone who will listen that beyond the difficult personal relationship of Obama and Netanyahu, beyond a tense, stalled peace process, there’s a litany of good news for supporters of Israel: Military cooperation is at an all-time high; Obama has supplied Israel with a key missile defense system; the U.S. boycotted an anti-racism conference seen as anti-Israel; and America is set to spend valuable international political capital beating back a Palestinian independence declaration at the United Nations in September.

The qualms that many Jewish Democrats express about Obama date back to his emergence onto the national scene in 2007. Though he had warm relations with Chicago’s Jewish community, he had also been friends with leading Palestinian activists, unusual in the Democratic establishment. And though he seemed to be trying to take a conventionally pro-Israel stand, he was a novice at the complicated politics of the America-Israel relationship, and his sheer inexperience showed at times.

At the 2007 AIPAC Policy Conference, Obama professed his love for Israel but then seemed, - to some who were there for his informal talk - to betray a kind of naivete about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians: “The biggest enemy” he said, using the same rhetoric he applied to American politics, was “not just terrorists, it’s not just Hezbollah, it’s not just Hamas — it’s also cynicism.”

At the next year’s AIPAC conference, he again botched the conflict’s code, committing himself to an “undivided Jerusalem” and then walking it back the next day.

Those doubts and gaffes lingered, even for many of the majority who supported him.

“There’s an inclination in the community to not trust this president’s gut feel on Israel and every time he sets out on a path that’s troubling you do get this ‘ouch’ reaction from the Jewish Community because they’re distrustful of him,” said the president of a major national Jewish organization, who declined to be quoted by name to avoid endangering his ties to the White House.

Many of Obama’s supporters, then and now, said they were unworried about the political allegiance of Jewish voters. Every four years, they say, Republicans claim to be making inroads with American Jews, and every four years, voters and donors go overwhelmingly for the Democrats, voting on a range of issues that include, but aren’t limited to Israel.

But while that pattern has held, Obama certainly didn’t take anything for granted. His 2008 campaign dealt with misgivings with a quiet, intense, and effective round of communal outreach.

“When Obama was running, there was a lot of concern among the guys in my group at shul, who are all late-30s to mid-40s, who I hang out with and daven with and go to dinner with, about Obama,” recalled Scott Matasar, a Cleveland lawyer who’s active in Jewish organizations.

Matasar remembers his friends’ worries over whether Obama was “going to be OK for Israel.” But then Obama met with the community’s leaders during a swing through Cleveland in the primary, and the rabbi at the denominationally conservative synagogue Matasar attends — “a real ardent Zionist and Israel defender” — came back to synagogue convinced.

“That put a lot of my concerns to rest for my friends who are very much Israel hawks but who, like me, aren’t one-issue voters.”

Now Matasar says he’s appalled by Obama’s “rookie mistakes and bumbling” and the reported marginalization of a veteran peace negotiator, Dennis Ross, in favor of aides who back a tougher line on Netanyahu. He’s the most pro-Obama member of his social circle but is finding the president harder to defend.

“He’d been very ham-handed in the way he presented [the 1967 border announcement] and the way he sprung this on Netanyahu,” Matasar said.

A Philadelphia Democrat and pro-Israel activist, Joe Wolfson, recalled a similar progression.

“What got me past Obama in the recent election was Dennis Ross — I heard him speak in Philadelphia and I had many of my concerns allayed,” Wolfson said. “Now, I think I’m like many pro-Israel Democrats now who are looking to see whether we can vote Republican.”

That, perhaps, is the crux of the political question: The pro-Israel Jewish voters and activists who spoke to POLITICO are largely die-hard Democrats, few of whom have ever cast a vote for a Republican to be president. Does the new wave of Jewish angst matter?

One place it might is fundraising. Many of the Clinton-era Democratic mega-donors who make Israel their key issue, the most prominent of whom is the Los Angeles Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, never really warmed to Obama, though Saban says he will vote for the Democrat and write him a check if asked.

A top-dollar Washington fundraiser aimed at Jewish donors in Miami last week raised more than $1 million from 80 people, and while one prominent Jewish activist said the DNC had to scramble to fill seats, seven-figure fundraisers are hard to sneer at.

Even people writing five-figure checks to Obama, though, appeared in need of a bit of bucking up.

“We were very reassured,” Randi Levine, who attended the event with her husband, Jeffrey, a New York real estate developer, told POLITICO.

Philadelphia Jewish Democrats are among the hosts of another top-dollar event June 30. David Cohen, a Comcast executive and former top aide to former Gov. Ed Rendell, said questions about Obama’s position on Israel have been a regular, if not dominant, feature of his attempts to recruit donors.

“I takes me about five minutes of talking through the president’s position and the president’s speech, and the uniform reaction has been, ‘I guess you’re right, that’s not how I saw it covered,’” he said.

Others involved in the Philadelphia event, however, said they think Jewish doubts are taking a fundraising toll.

“We’re going to raise a ton of money, but I don’t know if we’re going to hit our goals,” said Daniel Berger, a lawyer who is firmly in the “peace camp” and said he blamed the controversy on Netanyahu’s intransigence.
 © 2011 POLITICO LLC****
4000  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: June 29, 2011, 12:26:47 PM

I like Pawlenty.

I am not sure why the DC/MSM (even Fox too)  press keeps writing him off though.

Bachmann is clearly way in over her head.

So was "Brock" though, though he had a lot of savvy people surrounding him who knew the ropes and pushed him through and gave him his script.

Bachmann does not have the same politically wise sheisters surrounding her as she just keeps saying one thing after another (like mixing up John Wayne Gacy with John Wayne).  Who is advising her?   These kinds of mistakes really makes her sound absolutely stupid.  Too bad there is not a conservative movement of Jews like the liberal Jews jornolist, Soros, and the rest who got "Brock" into power doing the same for a Republican. 

As Levin would say - "OK I SAID IT".  Yes liberal Jews got Brock in power!  Dammit!
Pages: 1 ... 78 79 [80] 81 82 ... 122
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!