Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 31, 2014, 11:00:49 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81394 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11 Print
Author Topic: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left  (Read 33014 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #50 on: July 24, 2011, 11:10:51 AM »

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/23/report-democrat-rep-david-wu-admits-sexual-encounter-with-donors-young-daughter/

Report: Democrat Rep. David Wu admits sexual encounter with donor’s young daughter



 







By Michelle Malkin  •  July 23, 2011 12:13 AM



Wu-hoo! Hey, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Nancy Pelosi, I’m over here!
 
When last I wrote about the bizarre behavior of Democrat Rep. David Wu of Oregon, it was February of this year.
 
I said he needed a Democrat leadership intervention after he freaked out his staff, posed in the above costume obtained by Willamette Week, and engaged in other inexplicable antics. As I noted, Wu’s behavior has caused Capitol Hill concern dating back to 2003. But none of the swamp-draining Democrat leaders bothered to do anything about it. And Wu went on a national media tour asserting he can continue to hold office.
 
Now, this from the Oregonian:
 
Sources: Young woman accuses Oregon Rep. David Wu of aggressive, unwanted sexual encounter
 

A distraught young woman called U.S. Rep. David Wu’s Portland office this spring, accusing him of an unwanted sexual encounter, according to multiple sources.
 
When confronted, the Oregon Democrat acknowledged a sexual encounter to his senior aides but insisted it was consensual, the sources said.
 
The woman is the daughter of a longtime friend and campaign donor. She apparently did not contact police at the time.
 
One person who heard the voice mail described the woman as upset, breathing heavily and “distraught.”
 
In the voice mail, the young woman accused Wu of aggressive and unwanted sexual behavior, according to sources with direct knowledge of the message and its contents.
 
Reporters could not verify the young woman’s age. Notes on Facebook over the past 18 months indicate she graduated from high school in 2010. California records show she registered to vote in August.

RedState reviewed Wu’s unseemly history here, including this:
 

Allegation of assault on woman in 1970s in college shadow U.S. Rep. David Wu
 
This is an actual headline from an article in The Oregonian in October, 2004, on the eve of his reelection to a fourth term in Congress.
 
From the article:
 
David Wu, future Oregon congressman, and the woman later dated in their junior year. But that spring, in 1976, she broke things off. A few months later, an encounter occurred that neither wants to discuss.
 
That summer, the 21-year-old Wu was brought to the campus police annex after his ex-girlfriend said he tried to force her to have sex, according to Raoul K. Niemeyer, then a patrol commander who questioned him.
 
Wu had scratches on his face and neck, and his T-shirt was stretched out of shape, Niemeyer said.
 
Earlier, someone had interrupted a scuffle in the woman’s dorm room. A Stanford professor said the woman told him the next day that Wu had angrily attacked her. An assistant dean who counseled the woman for two months said that the woman called it attempted rape and that Wu used a pillow to muffle her screams.
 
Wu told police that what happened was consensual. “He said, ‘We just, I was with my girlfriend, and we just got a little carried away,’ ” Niemeyer remembered. After that, he said, Wu “clammed up.”
 
The woman declined to press charges. However, this episode has apparently been well known for a long while…
 
Geez. Does he need to get caught Tweeting lurid photos of his un-costumed package before Democrat leaders — in particular, Democrat women — step up and do something?
 
Hello, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? Nancy Pelosi? Bueller? Bueller?
 
***
 
Update….You won’t believe this. Never mind. You will. News media misidentified Wu as a Republican.
 
On a related note: Anthony Weiner says he is cured.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2011, 11:12:48 AM by G M » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #51 on: July 24, 2011, 11:20:42 AM »

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/23/report-democrat-rep-david-wu-admits-sexual-encounter-with-donors-young-daughter/

Report: Democrat Rep. David Wu admits sexual encounter with donor’s young daughter



 
**Good news! The Nat'l Organization for Women endorsed him!http://www.nowpacs.org/2004/endorse/or.html?printable











Logged
Cranewings
Guest
« Reply #52 on: July 24, 2011, 01:01:23 PM »

A crat is a crat is a crat is a crat.  Not surprising.  Weiner puts himself above all else.  The Dems put party above the country.
And the crats who vote all want the free benefits confiscated from taxpayers.  I don't know hwy people like my nephew bother to fight for our country.  Even our leaders are a bunch of selfish pigs.

In my opinion, all this crap about Anthony Weiner being immoral for sending naked photos is a joke. These people treat US soldiers as political pawns. The level and degree of the politician's immorality is of biblical proportions. These people, in my opinion, republican and democrat, are as good as murderers. Weiner's photos are the least of their crimes.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #53 on: July 24, 2011, 02:40:46 PM »

Weiner wasn't criminally charged.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30661


« Reply #54 on: July 24, 2011, 03:46:54 PM »

CW:  Going after hypocritical leaders is a good thing.  So too is noting the hypocrisy of those who absolve them wink
Logged
Cranewings
Guest
« Reply #55 on: July 24, 2011, 03:49:58 PM »

CW:  Going after hypocritical leaders is a good thing.  So too is noting the hypocrisy of those who absolve them wink

Haha, true.
Logged
Cranewings
Guest
« Reply #56 on: July 24, 2011, 04:06:20 PM »

I'm no Obama basher. I didn't vote for him (or McCain) but now that he is in I really like his foreign policy and domestic terrorism policies when compared to Bush. I think he has done a lot of good when it comes to breaking the cycle of violence with them (as much as possible). I like that he bows to kings and doesn't target Arabs for searches in the airports. I get that most people prefer to honor the right hand over the left hand, to use a Taoist expression, but I think the way he is doing it seems wise.

Still, the whole Afghanistan thing really has me bothered. I wish that he would listen to his generals more rather than try to keep political promises over the use of troops.

Didn't they call Afghanistan the unconquerable land? Those people have whipped the crap out of everyone that has gone in there, and after having endured 10 years of our space age fire power, they held it together, wore us out, and we are in negotiations with them now. To make matters worse, Obama is pulling out a ton of men while leaving the rest in. Its crazy. I have friends that get deployed there periodically and it pisses me off that they are acting like half measures are good enough at this point.

The only thing I can guess is that this whole exercise in foreign war has just been to make certain people money. I'd sound like a conspiracy nut if I talked too much about who, but its the only explanation for how they did this.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #57 on: July 24, 2011, 05:51:44 PM »

"I'm no Obama basher. I didn't vote for him (or McCain) but now that he is in I really like his foreign policy and domestic terrorism policies when compared to Bush. I think he has done a lot of good when it comes to breaking the cycle of violence with them (as much as possible). I like that he bows to kings and doesn't target Arabs for searches in the airports. I get that most people prefer to honor the right hand over the left hand, to use a Taoist expression, but I think the way he is doing it seems wise."

Ok, I must admit I don't know how you parse the difference between Bush's and Obama's terrorism policies, except that Obama has been more aggressive targeting AQ with drone strikes in Pock-ee-stahn.You do know that the racial profiling policy for the USG came out under the Bush administration, right?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #58 on: July 24, 2011, 06:17:21 PM »

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 (202) 514-2008
WWW. USDOJ. GOV
TDD (202) 514-1888

FACT SHEET RACIAL PROFILING
"It's wrong, and we will end it in America. In so doing,  we will not hinder the work of our nation's brave police officers. They protect us every day -- often at great risk. But by stopping the abuses of a few, we will add to the public confidence our police officers earn and deserve.''  -- President George W. Bush, Feb.  27, 2001

"This administration… has been opposed to racial profiling and has done more to indicate its opposition than ever in history.  The President said it's wrong and we'll end it in America, and I subscribe to that.  Using race… as a proxy for potential criminal behavior is unconstitutional, and it undermines law enforcement by undermining the confidence that people can have in law enforcement."  -- Attorney General John Ashcroft, Feb. 28, 2002

Defining the Problem: Racial Profiling Is Wrong and Will Not Be Tolerated Racial profiling sends the dehumanizing message to our citizens that they are judged by the color of their skin and harms the criminal justice system by eviscerating the trust that is necessary if law enforcement is to effectively protect our communities.

America Has a Moral Obligation to Prohibit Racial Profiling.  Race-based assumptions in law enforcement perpetuate negative racial stereotypes that are harmful to our diverse democracy,  and materially impair our efforts to maintain a fair and just society.   As Attorney General John Ashcroft said, racial profiling creates a "lose-lose" situation because it destroys the potential for underlying trust that "should support the administration of justice as a societal objective, not just as a law enforcement objective. " The Overwhelming Majority of Federal Law Enforcement Officers Perform Their Jobs with Dedication, Fairness and Honor,  But Any Instance of Racial Profiling by a Few Damages Our Criminal Justice System.  The vast majority of federal law enforcement officers are hard-working public servants who perform a dangerous job with dedication, fairness and honor.  However, when law enforcement practices are perceived to be biased or unfair,  the general public, and especially minority communities, are less willing to trust and confide in officers, report crimes, be witnesses at trials, or serve on juries. Racial Profiling Is Discrimination, and It Taints the Entire Criminal Justice System. Racial profiling rests on the erroneous assumption that any particular individual of one race or ethnicity is more likely to engage in misconduct than any particular individual of other races or ethnicities. 2 Taking Steps to Ban Racial Profiling: Due to the Seriousness of Racial Profiling, the Justice Department Has Developed Guidelines to Make Clear that It Is Prohibited in Federal Law Enforcement President Bush Has Directed that Racial Profiling Be Formally Banned.  In his February 27, 2001, Address to a Joint Session of Congress, President George W. Bush declared that racial profiling is Awrong and we will end it in America. @  He directed the Attorney General to review the use by federal law enforcement authorities of race as a factor in conducting stops, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures.  The Attorney General, in turn, instructed the Civil Rights Division to develop guidance for federal officials to ensure an end to racial profiling in federal law enforcement. The Bush Administration Is the First to Take Action to Ban Racial Profiling in Federal Law Enforcement.  The guidance has been sent to all federal law enforcement agencies and is effective immediately.  Federal agencies will review their policies and procedures to ensure compliance. The Guidance Requires More Restrictions on the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement than Does the Constitution.  The guidance in many cases imposes more restrictions on the use of race and ethnicity in federal law enforcement than the Constitution requires.  This guidance prohibits racial profiling in federal law enforcement practices without hindering the important work of our nation=s public safety officials, particularly the intensified anti-terrorism efforts precipitated by the attacks of September 11, 2001. Prohibiting Racial Profiling in Routine or Spontaneous Activities in Domestic Law Enforcement:  In making routine or spontaneous law enforcement decisions, such as ordinary traffic stops, federal law enforcement officers may not use race or ethnicity to any degree, except that officers may rely on race and ethnicity if a specific suspect description exists.  This prohibition applies even where the use of race or ethnicity might otherwise be lawful. Routine Patrol Duties Must Be Carried Out Without Consideration of Race.  Federal law enforcement agencies and officers sometimes engage in law enforcement activities, such as traffic and foot patrols, that generally do not involve either the ongoing investigation of specific criminal activities or the prevention of catastrophic events or harm to the national security.  Rather, their activities are typified by spontaneous action in response to the activities of individuals whom they happen to encounter in the course of their patrols and about whom they have no information other than their observations.  These general enforcement responsibilities should be carried out without any consideration of race or ethnicity. Example :  While parked by the side of the highway, a federal officer notices that nearly all vehicles on the road are exceeding the posted speed limit.  Although each
Logged
Cranewings
Guest
« Reply #59 on: July 24, 2011, 06:22:20 PM »

Yeah, I now Obama has been more aggressive in that regard.

As far as the racial profiling thing, it was passed in 2001 I guess.

I don't have anything to quote you but I don't think they stopped racially profiling people then. I can't find anything about it quickly now, but Obama has definitly supported Bush's policy despite heavy right wing anger over it. That, and they were definately still racially profiling in airports just a few years ago.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #60 on: July 24, 2011, 06:24:21 PM »

"Yeah, I now Obama has been more aggressive in that regard."

What makes you think that? 
Logged
Cranewings
Guest
« Reply #61 on: July 24, 2011, 07:21:42 PM »

"Yeah, I now Obama has been more aggressive in that regard."

What makes you think that? 


I was referring to your comment that he has been bombing the heck out of Pakistan.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #62 on: July 24, 2011, 07:33:06 PM »

"Yeah, I now Obama has been more aggressive in that regard."

What makes you think that? 


I was referring to your comment that he has been bombing the heck out of Pakistan.

Ok, understood.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3979


« Reply #63 on: August 01, 2011, 04:54:48 PM »

Add this guy to Warren Buffet, Bill Gates who instead of writing a check of their own money to the treasury have felt it better to call for higher taxes for the "wealthy":

August 01, 2011
Categories:Celebs
Matt Damon weighs in on the debt ceiling
Last week, Ben Affleck briefly became part of the conversation about the debt ceiling. And now his longtime buddy and fellow actor Matt Damon has weighed in on the debate.

“I’m so disgusted man. … I don’t know what you do in the face of that kind of intransigence. You know, so my heart does go out to the president. He is dealing with a lot,” Damon told video journalist Nicholas Ballasy on Saturday. The actor, who’s rocking a shaved head these days, was in Washington to take part in the Save Our Schools March.

Asked is he supports tax increases for the wealthy, Damon said, “Yes, the wealthy are paying less than they’ve paid in any time else, certainly in my lifetime. …It’s criminal that like, you know, so little is asked of people who are getting so much, I mean, I don’t mind paying more. I really don’t mind paying more taxes.”

Damon went on to call the tea party “completely intransigent" in the debt negotiations, explaining: "They are absolutely willing to drive it all off a cliff."

Posted by Caitlin McDevitt 05:32 PM
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #64 on: August 10, 2011, 09:00:45 AM »

**It's almost like it was a cynical partisan movement.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/08/08/obama-gets-a-blank-check-for-e

Obama Gets a Blank Check for Endless War

Record numbers of U.S. troops are dying under Obama, but the anti-war movement is nowhere to be found.

Ira Stoll | August 8, 2011


 



The Obama administration is on pace to have more American soldiers killed in casualties related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than the George W. Bush administration did in its first term.
 
Already, hundreds more American troops have been killed in Afghanistan during the less than three years of the Obama administration than during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration. According to the iCasualties.org Web site, whose count more or less tracks that of other sites devoted to these statistics, 630 American soldiers died in the Afghanistan operation in the years 2001 through 2008, when Mr. Bush was president, while 1097 American soldiers have died in the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Even if you allocate the 30 or so American soldiers killed in January 2009 entirely to Mr. Bush, who was president until the January 20 inauguration, it is quite a record.
 
Include Iraq, and the comparison tells a similar story: about 1,300 Americans killed in operations related to Iraq and Afghanistan combined during the first two and a half or so years we’ve had of the Obama administration, versus less than 600 American casualties in the first full three years of the George W. Bush administration.
 
It all raises at least two related questions. First, where are the antiwar protests? And second, where is the press?
 
In a phone interview, the national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, which organized some of the largest antiwar protests during the Bush administration, Michael McPhearson, said part of the explanation is political partisanship. A lot of the antiwar protesters, he said, were Democrats. “Once Obama got into office, they kind of demobilized themselves,” he said.
 
“Because he’s a Democrat, they don’t want to oppose him in the same way as they opposed Bush,” said Mr. McPhearson, who is also a former executive director of Veterans for Peace, and who said he voted for President Obama in 2008. “The politics of it allows him more breathing room when it comes to the wars.”
 
Mr. McPhearson says antiwar protests of the sort that drew hundreds of thousands of people during the George W. Bush administration now draw 20,000 at best. He said his group’s strategy now is to emphasize the cost of the wars and the Pentagon amid Washington’s focus on trimming the deficit.
 
As for the press, a New York Times article on the helicopter downed over the weekend in Afghanistan included the sentence, “Although the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan has steadily risen in the past year, with a 15 percent increase in the first half of 2011 over the same period last year, NATO deaths had been declining — decreasing nearly 20 percent in the first six months of 2011 compared with 2010.” Why compare it to 2010? Why not to 2009, or to 2008? A Chicago Tribune news article, by contrast, declared that the helicopter downing “comes at a time of growing unease about the increasingly unpopular and costly war.”
 
By the standards of American history, the deaths in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are small, a mere fraction of those suffered in World War II or the Civil War or even Vietnam or Korea. And there are measures of success or failure in war other than American casualties. It doesn’t only matter how many Americans die; it also matters how many enemy soldiers die, and whether America is achieving its war aims.
 
The approaching tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, is a sober time to weigh these issues for those of us New Yorkers and other Americans who supported the wars in part out of hope that they would decrease the chances of major terrorist attacks here at home. Mr. Obama can make the case here, as he does with the economy, that he is merely cleaning up and winding down the bad situation he was left by his predecessor. With the war as with the economy though, eventually even Mr. Obama will have to take ownership, or have it assigned to him by the voters.
 
Mr. Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of Samuel Adams: A Life.
 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30661


« Reply #65 on: August 10, 2011, 09:48:35 AM »

To be precise here, Baraq did run and get elected on Afpakia being "the right war"-- which was a major strand in the line of thoughts against Bush.  Yes his concept of how to wage it is incoherent (Vital we win, but we are going to start leaving in 18 months) but the logic of his mini-Surge inherently is to bring it to the enemy much more than the also not very coherent strategy from Bush.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #66 on: August 10, 2011, 10:19:17 AM »

Just pointing out the "anti-war" movement is really the "Anti-American/Pro-America's enemies" movement.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30661


« Reply #67 on: August 10, 2011, 10:28:17 AM »

We agree!
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #68 on: August 10, 2011, 11:49:24 AM »

Why, if one opposes a particular war, or the foreign policy of our President,  believing that it's not in America's best interest, is
that being "Anti-American"?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30661


« Reply #69 on: August 10, 2011, 12:01:23 PM »

That's not the point being made.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #70 on: August 10, 2011, 12:12:07 PM »

What is the point?  Or maybe this is a new point/question.  It seems to me that one can be a member of the anti-war movement, i.e. strongly oppose and protest our involvement in a particular war, for example Iraq or Afghanistan and/or the President's foreign policy, yet at the same time be considered very Pro-American.  Agreed?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #71 on: August 10, 2011, 12:35:02 PM »

What is the point?  Or maybe this is a new point/question.  It seems to me that one can be a member of the anti-war movement, i.e. strongly oppose and protest our involvement in a particular war, for example Iraq or Afghanistan and/or the President's foreign policy, yet at the same time be considered very Pro-American.  Agreed?

You might be able to make that argument if the "anti-war" movement was active now, but it's not.

It's just like the "anti-war" activists that claimed to care so much for the Vietnamese people, until the communists overran the south (After the dems cut all support to them) and the mass graves and re-education camps went into action without so much as a whimper of protest from the left.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #72 on: August 10, 2011, 12:47:46 PM »

I concede your point, why the anit-war movement is not active now I don't know, although the fact we are winding down both wars and pulling out troops
probably has a lot to do with it.

But my question is a generic one.  Not only pertinent to this week or even this war.

"It seems to me that one can be a member of the anti-war movement, i.e. strongly oppose and protest our involvement in a particular war, for example Iraq or Afghanistan and/or the President's foreign policy, yet at the same time be considered very Pro-American.  Agreed?"

For example I would argue that we never should have gone into Afghanistan and now that we are there, it's time to get out.  History shows us this is a losing battle.  Now you can disagree, but my point is that we are both Pro-American's we just have a different opinion.  Nothing wrong with that.

The same argument or question can be applied to economic matters.  You strongly disagree with Obama's policies.  Me? I'm not sure.  Good people in Congress disagree on both sides.  But I don't think anyone in the discussion is any less Pro-American; they just have different opinions on how to solve the problem.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #73 on: August 10, 2011, 12:48:50 PM »

http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/virtualarchive/items.php?item=2322203025

http://www.virtual.vietnam.ttu.edu/cgi-bin/starfetch.exe?3pgW2FjZd3bbZgaQjZy9b3@eKRA4@XHtltVUkOj2.SHD9rViMmw3sZNg1QPy7Y@HUAU1WAq9ag0pqu3gNYS72V9nsW0fP93bwZoI40B4s2LkvbD@.6e72g/2322203025.pdf

Where were the protests?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #74 on: August 10, 2011, 12:53:43 PM »

You seem to be getting off topic.  It's a simple question; can you answer it?

"It seems to me that one can be a member of the anti-war movement, i.e. strongly oppose and protest our involvement in a particular war, for example Iraq or Afghanistan and/or the President's foreign policy, yet at the same time be considered very Pro-American.  Agreed?"


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #75 on: August 10, 2011, 12:55:59 PM »

Again JDN, you can see who drapes themselves in "anti-war" guises that then drop them when it's no longer useful.

Remember when we had to pull out of Iraq ASAP? Remember when Harry Reid stated that the war was lost? Remember the undercutting of the war effort from president Downgrade when he was running for office? Remember how president Downgrade decried the airstrikes in Afghanistan?

Remember how crucial it was that Gitmo be closed down? Where are the lefty protesters in orange jumpsuits now?

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #76 on: August 10, 2011, 12:58:42 PM »

You seem to be getting off topic.  It's a simple question; can you answer it?

"It seems to me that one can be a member of the anti-war movement, i.e. strongly oppose and protest our involvement in a particular war, for example Iraq or Afghanistan and/or the President's foreign policy, yet at the same time be considered very Pro-American.  Agreed?"



Theoretically? Sure. In reality, no.

Just like the "Anti-war" movement in the 60's/70's was really just pro-communist. Once the communists won, the "anti-war" mission was accomplished.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #77 on: August 10, 2011, 01:05:40 PM »


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=316

LESSONS AND LEGACIES OF THE VIETNAM WAR
 
The Vietnam War had a profound and lasting impact on the American psyche. Beginning in the 1960s, the New Left (and the anti-war movement that it led) seized upon U.S. involvement in the war as a justification for smearing the country as an imperialist, racist aggressor. The left's relentless assault upon American traditions, values, and motives imbued the nation's consciousness with a deep sense of guilt and shame that ultimately became manifest in the so-called "Vietnam Syndrome," whose hallmark was America's subsequent reluctance to intervene militarily in foreign affairs -- particularly where the conflict was likely to be protracted and hard-fought.

New Leftists organized the first "anti-war" demonstration in the U.S. in 1962. One prominent New Leftist reflects on the objectives that he and his ideological comrades pursued at that time:

"Let me make this perfectly clear: those of us who inspired and then led the anti-war movement did not want merely to stop the killing, as so many veterans of those domestic battles now claim. We wanted the communists to win. It is true that some of us may have said we only wanted the United States to get out of Vietnam, but we understood that this meant the communists would win. 'Bring the troops home' was our slogan; the fall of Saigon was the result."

Many of these New Leftists were communists and socialists who believed that Marxist economic planning was the most rational means of bringing prosperity to the world. At the same time, they were convinced that America, however amenable to reform in the past, was set on a course that would make it increasingly rigid, repressive, and ultimately fascist; that the United States was the leviathan of a global imperialist system; and that its ruling class could only grow more reactionary and repressive. This expectation was the basis of the New Left's political view of the world generally and of its strategy of opposition to America's war in Vietnam in particular.

As leftists' opposition to the war grew more passionate (and violent) and their prophecies of impending fascism more intense, they deliberately crossed the line of legitimate dissent and abused every First Amendment privilege and right granted them as Americans. They spat on the flag, broke the law, denigrated and disrupted the institutions of government and education, and gave comfort and aid (even revealing classified secrets) to the enemy. Some of them provided a protective propaganda shield for Hanoi's communist regime while it tortured American servicemen; others engaged in violent sabotage against the war effort. The erosion of American pride and self-confidence continued inexorably.

The leftist agitators began as a peripheral minority, but as the war dragged on without an end in sight, other people joined them: first in thousands and then in tens of thousands, swelling their ranks until finally they reached the conscience of the nation. This trend was propelled,in large measure, by the media. For example, after the 1968 Tet Offensive -- a decisive American victory militarily -- major figures in the American press depicted Tet instead as an emblem of a military quagmire from which the U.S. needed to extract itself as quickly as possible. "It seems now more certain than ever," the revered newsman Walter Cronkite told his audience in a de facto editorial, "that the bloody experience of Vietnam is a stalemate" and that the war was "unwinnable." Cronkite's statement, and his call for U.S. withdrawal, helped turn public opinion against the war. It also demoralized American troops and President Johnson. The nation simply lost its will to continue the war and withdrew.

America not only withdrew its forces from Vietnam, as the left had said it would never do, but also from Laos and Cambodia and, ultimately, from its role as guardian of the international status quo. But far from increasing the freedom and well-being of Third World nations, as the left had predicted, America's withdrawal resulted in an international power vacuum that was quickly filled by the armies of Russia, Cuba, and the mass murderers of the Khmer Rouge. After U.S. funding to Vietnam and Cambodia was terminated in January 1975, the regimes of both countries were quickly overrun by the Communists, who would go on to slaughter some 2.5 million Indochinese peasants.

These events confronted leftists with a supreme irony: the nation they had believed to be governed by corporate interests, a fountainhead of world reaction, was halted in mid-course by its conscience-stricken and morally aroused populace. Meanwhile, the forces the left had identified with progress, once freed from the grip of U.S. "imperialism," revealed themselves to be oppressive, predatory, and unspeakably ruthless. But the left failed to acknowledge or learn from these Marxist atrocities, adhering instead to the narrative of a racist, imperialist America intruding on the internal affairs of other nations. Thus did the Vietnam Syndrome gain its foothold in the American psyche.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the U.S. was involved in a handful of military incursions (including, most famously, the Gulf War of 1991), but none of these ever threatened to drag on interminably or to cause large numbers of American casualties.

The Vietnam Syndrome reasserted itself post-9/11, however, when the U.S., in its first protracted battle since Vietnam, engaged a bloodthirsty Islamist enemy in the Middle East. Once again, the left, as it had done in the Sixties, placed the blame for the conflict squarely on America's shoulders. Once again, the left impugned America's motives for waging the war -- claiming that the nation was chiefly interested in establishing worldwide hegemony and usurping the lucrative oil fields of Iraq. Once again, the left spotlighted, and greatly exaggerated, instances of U.S. transgressions in the war -- most notable were the charges of abuse and torture in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and the charge of mass murder in Haditha. Once again, the media was complicit in misrepresenting, overstating, and even fabricating the nature of these alleged transgressions. Once again, the U.S. fought this war with self-imposed restraint, as evidenced by the restrictive rules-of-engagement to which its troops were required to adhere. And once again, the constant drumbeat of negativity by leftists in politics and the press steadily eroded the American people's support for the war.

Parts of this summary are adapted from "My Vietnam Lessons," by David Horowitz (1985). 
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #78 on: August 10, 2011, 01:18:07 PM »

"It is true that some of us may have said we only wanted the United States to get out of Vietnam, but we understood that this meant the communists would win. 'Bring the troops home' was our slogan; the fall of Saigon was the result."

Substitute Afganistan if you like; of course the other side "wins".  But what do they "win"?

Is America truly worse off because we ended the Vietnam war?  I don't think so.  We never should have been there in the first place.

Did atrocities happen.  Probably.  But then atrocities happen world wide every year.  Are we as a nation to always get involved?  Send troops? 
I suggest no.  We have enough problems here at home to worry about.

But you answered my question, you agreed, albeit theoretically, "that one can be a member of the anti-war movement, i.e. strongly oppose and protest our involvement in a particular war, for example Iraq or Afghanistan and/or the President's foreign policy, yet at the same time be considered very Pro-American."

Thank you.  That was my point.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #79 on: August 10, 2011, 01:27:22 PM »

"It is true that some of us may have said we only wanted the United States to get out of Vietnam, but we understood that this meant the communists would win. 'Bring the troops home' was our slogan; the fall of Saigon was the result."

Substitute Afganistan if you like; of course the other side "wins".  But what do they "win"?

Is America truly worse off because we ended the Vietnam war?  I don't think so.  We never should have been there in the first place.

**You might have heard of this thing called the "Cold War", where we were in a global struggle to preserve human freedom? Should we have prevented Stalin from invading Japan? Should we have been there? Should we have preserved South Korea, or should all of Korea enjoy the benevolent leadership of the Kim dynasty? Should we defend Japan now from China? Why is that our problem?

Did atrocities happen.  Probably.  But then atrocities happen world wide every year.  Are we as a nation to always get involved?  Send troops? 
I suggest no.  We have enough problems here at home to worry about.

**Yeah, if China wants to invade Japan, it's not our problem. Time to end the defense treaty and pull out our troops. We can use them to secure our border w/ Mexico.

But you answered my question, you agreed, albeit theoretically, "that one can be a member of the anti-war movement, i.e. strongly oppose and protest our involvement in a particular war, for example Iraq or Afghanistan and/or the President's foreign policy, yet at the same time be considered very Pro-American."

Thank you.  That was my point.


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #80 on: August 10, 2011, 01:35:01 PM »

Why is that our problem? We've got our own problems here at home, right JDN.

Without our protection, Japan will have no choice but adjust to the growing power of China and make the appropriate agreements. They didn't need all those territorial waters anyway. Not my problem, right?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #81 on: August 10, 2011, 02:09:19 PM »

From Moron.org:

#Invalid YouTube Link#
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #82 on: August 10, 2011, 09:51:45 PM »

Baby boomer anti-war movement: "War is bad for children and other living things. We care about the Vietnamese people.


Narrator: The US has withdrawn it's troops and cut off aid to South Vietnam. Saigon falls and America's allies are killed and tortured by the victorious communists.


Baby boomer anti-war movement: Oh look, Disco, leisure suits and cocaine!



The End
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #83 on: August 12, 2011, 03:34:32 PM »

Jimmy Carter faced a challenge from within his own party from Teddy Kennedy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/12/obama-s-reelection-helped-by-the-left-s-primary-vacuum.html

Eleanor Clift: "The difference now there is no Kennedy heir apparent figure on the horizon, and we’re talking about the first African-American occupant of the White House in a party identified with civil rights."

African-descendant perhaps, but I thought we just determined that he was a Hawaiian-American, more recently an Illinoisan-American.  What does any of that have to do with dissatisfied Democrats not running against him in primaries?

Assume for a second that Obama wins in 2012, but loses the House again and the Senate too this time, and governs about like he is now.  What kind of shape does he leave his party in (much less his country) coming into the next cycle?  His VP will be 74, Hillary 69.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #84 on: August 20, 2011, 03:52:01 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/20/president-mccain-is-clearly-a-warmonger/

President McCain is clearly a warmonger
 
posted at 4:00 pm on August 20, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

 
I sure wish we had elected that Obama guy back in 2008. If we had, we wouldn’t be looking at staying in Iraq even longer. Obama would have – at a minimum – gotten out of Iraq on the same schedule that the warmonger Bush had set up.
 
Of course, there’s still the matter of Afghanistan. If we had elected Barack Obama, I can assure you that he would have set up a firm plan to begin a major draw-down of our forces by this year and gotten the rest out in short order. But not President McCain! Oh, no! We just found out this weekend that he’s close to signing an agreement to keep not only training details, but special forces and air power in country until… are you ready for this? Until 2024.
 
And as far as the rest of the world goes, I still fondly recall candidate Obama’s spot on criticism of the way President Bush launched wars in a willy-nilly fashion, ignored the War Powers Act and ignored the powers of Congress, as well as the wishes of the American people. Why couldn’t we have elected that guy? Instead, we watched as President McCain launched an attack on yet another nation – Libya – sneering out of one side of his face that we would only be there for days. Right, Mr. President. It’s been nearly 200 of them so far.
 
Meanwhile, the warmonger McCain is already looking at the possibility of even further commitment of American troops in places ranging from Somalia to who-knows-where next? If we keep going at this rate we’re going to be in five or six wars by the time McCain is up for a second term. Are you going to stand for this? I know I’m not.
 
That’s why I’m calling on all good Democrats and progressives to continue the efforts which have been underway since 2003. Take to the streets with your signs and your bullhorns! In 2004 there were more than a million of you in Manhattan shaking the very pavement with your cries for peace. And this is no time to slack off in your efforts.
 
So I’ll meet you all in Times Square tomorrow morning for the massive protest march against President McCain and his endless wars. And I’ll bring the donuts. See you there!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #85 on: August 23, 2011, 02:46:56 PM »

This could fall under media but the question posed is perplexing the left.  Ezra Klein, a 20-something year old 'whiz kid' is the Washington Post's answer to the demand for more leftists in main media opinion writing.  His column yesterday: "What could Obama have done?"  His answer is basically, I have no clue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-could-obama-have-done/2011/08/12/gIQAEBYbWJ_blog.html

"But I’ve never been able to come up with a realistic scenario in which a lot more got done, the economy is in much better shape, and the president is dramatically more popular today. Anything that even comes close is really a counterfactual of what the chairman of the Federal Reserve could have done, and I’m not confident that I understand Bernanke’s constraints nor that a more massive intervention on the part of the Fed would have been the cure-all some suggest.

Indeed, if you had taken me aside in 2008 and sketched out the first three years of Obama’s presidency, I would have thought you were being overoptimistic: an $800 billion stimulus package — recall that people were only talking in the $200-$300 billion range back then — followed by near-universal health-care reform, followed by financial regulation, followed by another stimulus (in the 2010 tax deal), followed by the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” followed by the killing of Osama bin Laden and the apparent ousting of Moammar Gaddafi? There was no way. And yet all that did get done. But the administration hasn’t able to get unemployment under control — perhaps it couldn’t have gotten unemployment under control — and so all of that has not been nearly enough.

But perhaps I’m missing something obvious." - Ezra Klein, Washington Post 8/22/2011
-----
Yes you are missing something (plural) obvious, namely how a private economy works.  First, your timeframe is wrong.  Obama burst on the scene as a surprise star speaker at the Dem convention, Aug 2004 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awQkJNVsgKM.  When he said, "Harry, I have a gift", he meant a pied piper like gift of oratory and being able to say nearly nothing and sound like oceans have been moved.  He did not purport to know any special knowledge about how to turn around in a positive way an economy that was already running on all cylinders.  The question is, with all his rising star influence in the new majority congress, what policies should he have advocating and leading with as they campaigned for and took the majority in Nov 2006/Jan 2007.  They cam in promising anti-growth economics - and got it.

The answer is something like what just came out of an Arthur Laffer advice column to him just posted recently:

 “Reaganomics would fix any economy that’s in the doldrums,” Laffer said. “It’s not a magic sauce, it’s common sense.

“You’ve got to get rid of all federal taxes in the extreme and replace them with a low-rate flat tax on business net sales, and on personal unadjusted gross income. That’s number one.

“Number two, you have to have spending restraint. Government spending causes unemployment, it does not cure unemployment.

“Number three, you need sound money. Ben Bernanke is running the least sound monetary policy I’ve ever heard of," Laffer said.

“Number four you need regulations, but you don’t need those regulations to go beyond the purpose at hand and create collateral damage. The regulatory policies are really way off here.

“And lastly you need free trade," Laffer said. "Foreigners produce some things better than we do and we produce some things better than foreigners. It would be foolish in the extreme if we didn’t sell them those things we produce better than they do in exchange for those things they produce better than we do.”

http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1467.msg52868#msg52868
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/laffer-obama-reaganomics-gop/2011/08/10/id/406893?s=al&promo_code=CCF6-1

He moved in the opposite direction instead and got the opposite results.  Now would be another time that he could try what has already been proven to work.

All the components need to be done at once.  Instead, none of the ideas are even on the table for the after Labor Day speech.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3979


« Reply #86 on: August 24, 2011, 12:32:30 PM »

Doug,

This is the guy who according to Wikepedia started the Journolist which according to Wikepedia he reports to have disbanded (though we know that is obviously not true and they just keep a lower profile).  See the portion I have highlighted between the stars below:

Ezra Klein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ezra Klein

Klein on Halloween, 2008
Born May 9, 1984 (1984-05-09) (age 27)
Irvine, California
Nationality American
Education B.A., Political Science
Alma mater UCLA
Occupation Journalist and Political pundit
Employer Washington Post, MSNBC, Bloomberg
Website
Ezra Klein - Washington Post
Ezra Klein (born May 9, 1984) is an American blogger and columnist for The Washington Post, columnist for Bloomberg, a columnist for Newsweek, and a contributor to MSNBC. He was formerly an associate editor of The American Prospect political magazine and a political blogger at the same publication.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Early life
2 Career
2.1 Health care debate
2.2 JournoList
3 Personal life
4 Awards
5 Notes
6 External links
 

[edit] Early life
Klein was born and raised in Irvine, California, and went to school at University High School. He attended the University of California, Santa Cruz but later transferred to the University of California, Los Angeles, from which he graduated in 2005 with a B.A. in political science. While at UCLA, he applied to write for the Daily Bruin but was rejected.[2]

Klein is a middle child,[2] raised in a Jewish family, though today, he identifies as a devout agnostic.[3] His father is a math professor, his mother an artist.[2]

[edit] Career
Klein started his first blog in February 2003.[4] He soon joined with Matt Singer, and the name was changed to "Klein/Singer: Political Consulting on the Cheap." In June 2003, he moved to the blog "Not Geniuses" along with Matt Singer, Ryan J. Davis, and Joe Rospars.[5]

Following "Not Geniuses," Klein partnered with Jesse Taylor at Pandagon. This partnership helped Klein gain even more visibility, leading to his eventual founding of his blog "Ezra Klein."[6]

Besides his online contributions, Klein worked on Howard Dean's primary campaign in Vermont in 2003, and interned for the Washington Monthly in Washington, D.C. in 2004. "I used to have political aspirations," said Klein. "...in the sense of getting my name on a ballot and promising Iowans more ethanol subsidies than they could handle. But over time, I found that I enjoy writing far more. More to the point, I think that the creation of a media environment that can sustain and propel progressivism is more important than any single elected official. I'd trade a liberal O'Reilly (or Limbaugh!) for 5, 10 congressmen. The media is as effective and important an agent for change as the legislative bodies, and I think it's where I'm happiest and most effective."[7]

In 2003, he and Markos Moulitsas were two of the earliest bloggers to report from a political convention, that of the California State Democratic Party.[8] In 2006, Klein was one of several writers pseudonymously flamed by The New Republic writer Lee Siegel (posting as a sock puppet called sprezzatura).[9]

On December 10, 2007, Klein moved his blog full time to the American Prospect.[10]

Klein's prolific blogging caught the attention of Steve Pearlstein, the Washington Post's veteran business columnist. A friend referred him to Klein's work in the American Prospect. "I was blown away by how good he was—how much the kid wrote—on so many subjects," Pearlstein said. Pearlstein sent samples of Klein's work to managing editor Raju Narisetti. A few weeks after he heard from Pearlstein, Post foreign correspondent John Pomfret asked Klein to have lunch with him and financial editor Sandy Sugawara. Narisetti quickly hired Klein to be the Post’s first pure blogger on politics and economics.[2] On May 18, 2009, he began writing at the newspaper.[11]

His writing interests include health policy, the labor movement, electoral politics and food.[12] He writes a primer on policy called "Wonkbook," which is delivered by e-mail and on his blog each morning.

Klein frequently provides political commentary on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show and Hardball with Chris Matthews. He is a former contributor to the now-cancelled Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

In May 2011 when it launched, Klein became a columnist for Bloomberg View in addition to his work at The Washington Post and MSNBC.[13]

[edit] Health care debate
In December 2009, Klein wrote an article in the Washington Post that because Senator Joe Lieberman was motivated to oppose health care legislation in part out of resentment at liberals for being defeated in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic Primary, it meant that Lieberman was "willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score".[14] Klein based his estimate off of an Urban Institute report that estimated that 22,000 people died in 2006 because they lacked health-care insurance.[15] This article was criticized by Jonah Goldberg of the National Review, who called it a "silly claim."[16] Charles Lane, also of the Washington Post, described Klein's article as an "outrageous smear". But EJ Dionne, also of the Washington Post, agreed with Klein's claim, saying that "Klein is right that there is not a shred of principle in Lieberman's opposition."[17] Klein later said he regretted the phrasing[18] and his position is that despite universal coverage, the social determinants of health are still powerful predictors that, on average, ensure the lower socioeconomic classes die sooner than those with more income and education.[19][20]

[edit] JournoList
Main article: JournoList

******In February 2007 Klein created a Google Groups forum called "JournoList" for discussing politics and the news media. The forum's membership was controlled by Klein and limited to "several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics."[21] Posts within JournoList were intended only to be made and read by its members.[22] Klein defended the forum saying that it "[ensures] that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff analysis and instant reactions". JournoList member, and Time magazine columnist, Joe Klein added that the off-the-record nature of the forum was necessary because “candor is essential and can only be guaranteed by keeping these conversations private”.[21]

The existence of JournoList was first publicly revealed in a July 27, 2007 blog post by blogger Mickey Kaus.[23] However, the forum did not attract serious attention until March 17, 2009 when an article was published on Politico that detailed the nature of the forum and the extent of its membership.[21] The Politico article set off debate within the Blogosphere over the ethics of participating in JournoList and raised questions about its overall purpose. The first public excerpt of a discussion within JournoList was posted by Mickey Kaus on his blog on March 26, 2009.[24]

Members of JournoList included, among others: Ezra Klein, Jeffrey Toobin, Eric Alterman, Paul Krugman, Joe Klein (no relation to Ezra Klein), Matthew Yglesias, and Jonathan Chait.

On June 25, 2010, Ezra Klein announced in his Washington Post blog that he would be terminating the Journolist group. This decision was instigated by fellow blogger Dave Weigel's resignation from the Post following the public exposure of several of his Journolist emails about conservative media figures.[25][26]*****

Klein had justified excluding conservative Republicans from participation as "not about fostering ideology but preventing a collapse into flame war. The emphasis is on empiricism, not ideology".[27]

[edit] Personal life
Klein is engaged to Annie Lowrey, an economics reporter at Slate.[28]

[edit] Awards
2007 The Hillman Prize, for "Tapped", The American Prospect.
[edit] Notes
^ The American Prospect political magazine.
^ a b c d Jaffe, Harry (2010-03-04). "Post Watch: Whiz Kid on the block". The Washingtonian. http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/15063.html. Retrieved 2011-01-30. 
^ "Ezra Klein: Religion Archives". Blog.prospect.org. http://blog.prospect.org/blog/ezraklein/religion/. Retrieved 2009-09-01. 
^ Ezra K blog.
^ Not Geniuses blog.
^ Ezra Klein blog.
^ "A Conversation With Political Blogger Ezra Klein of Pandagon". LAist.com. 2004-11-02. http://laist.com/2004/11/02/a_conversation_with_political_blogger_ezra_klein_of_pandagon.php. Retrieved 2011-01-30. 
^ Weiss, Joanna (May 10, 2004). "Blogs colliding with traditional media: Convention credentials expected for Web logs". Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/05/10/blogs_colliding_with_traditional_media?mode=PF. Retrieved 2008-01-12. [dead link]
^ Carr, David (2006-09-11). "A Comeback Overshadowed by a Blog". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/11/technology/11carr.html. Retrieved 2008-01-12. 
^ Goodbye post at Klein's old blog
^ Introductory post at the Washington Post
^ "Down with the GVP!". Washington Post. 2010-04-07. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/down_with_the_gvp.html. Retrieved 2011-01-30. 
^ Hagey, Keach (April 29, 2011). "Bloomberg View reveals columnists, editorial board". Politico.com. http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0411/Bloomberg_View_reveals_columnists_ed_board.html. Retrieved August 6, 2011. 
^ "Joe Lieberman: Let's not make a deal!". The Washington Post. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/joe_lieberman_lets_not_make_a.html. Retrieved 2010-05-03. 
^ Dorn, Stan. Uninsured and Dying Because of It: Updating the Institute of Medicine Analysis on the Impact of Uninsurance on Mortality. Urban Institute.
^ Jonah Goldberg (2009-12-15). "Lieberman Loves Death More than Ezra Klein Loves Life". The Corner. National Review Online. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzJlMDlhOWIzZmYwMWMyYzIzNTkyZWRmNWQ0YTQ2YmY=. Retrieved 2010-07-29. 
^ "The public option died last summer". The Washington Post. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/12/the_public_option_died_last.html. Retrieved 2010-05-03. 
^ "Washington's Brat Pack Masters Media". The New York Times. 2010-03-25. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/fashion/27YOUNGPUNDITS.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1301529679-mk6oLlEdLch/o9b3TPMRCQ. Retrieved 2011-03-31. 
^ Carney, Timothy (2011-02-28) Turns out ObamaCare might not save hundreds of thousands of lives, Washington Examiner
^ Ezra Klein (February 28, 2011). "Health care doesn't keep people healthy -- even in Canada" The Washington Post Accessed July 14, 2011.
^ a b c Michael Calderone (2009-03-17). "JournoList: Inside the echo chamber". The Politico. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20086.html. Retrieved 2009-03-30. 
^ JournoList Google Groups.
^ Mickey Kaus (2007-07-27). "Educating Ezra Klein". Slate (magazine). http://www.slate.com/id/2171362/#kleinklub. Retrieved 2009-03-30. 
^ Mickey Kaus (2009-03-26). "JournoList Revealed! Inside the Secret Liberal Media Email Cabal". Slate (magazine). http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/03/26/journolist-revealed-inside-the-liberal-media-email-cabal.aspx. Retrieved 2009-03-30. 
^ Klein, Ezra (June 25, 2010). "On Journolist, and Dave Weigel". The Washington Post. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/on_journolist_and_dave_weigel.html. Retrieved June 25, 2010. 
^ Keach Hagey, "David Weigel quits – and a debate begins, Politico.com, June 25, 2010. Retrieved 6-27-2010.
^ "EzraKlein Archive". The American Prospect. http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2009&base_name=obligatory_journolist_post. Retrieved 2010-07-29. 
^ Klein, Ezra (2010-11-03). "Reconciliation -- and more". The Washington Post. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/reconciliation_--_and_more.html. Retrieved 2010-11-04. 
[edit] External links
 Biography portal
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Ezra Klein
Ezra Klein's blog at Washingtonpost.com
The American Prospect Ezra Klein page and writings
Ezra Klein's old blog at The American Prospect magazine
Ezra Klein's articles and essays published in various media
Video conversations and debates involving Ezra Klein on Bloggingheads.tv
Persondata
Name Klein, Ezra
Alternative names 
Short description 
Date of birth 1984-05-09
Place of birth Irvine, California
Date of death 
Place of death 

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Klein"
View page ratingsRate this pageRate this page
Page ratings
What's this?Current average ratings.Trustworthy
 
Objective
 
Complete
 
Well-written
 
I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)
I have a relevant college/university degreeIt is part of my professionIt is a deep personal passionThe source of my knowledge is not listed here I would like to help improve Wikipedia, send me an e-mail (optional)
We will send you a confirmation e-mail. We will not share your address with anyone. (Privacy policy)Submit ratings
 Saved successfullyYour ratings have not been submitted yetYour ratings have expired
Please reevaluate this page and submit new ratings.
An error has occured. Please try again later.Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Please take a moment to complete a short survey.
Start survey
Maybe later
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Do you want to create an account?
An account will help you track your edits, get involved in discussions, and be a part of the community.
Create an account
orLog in
Maybe later
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Did you know that you can edit this page?
Edit this page
Maybe later
Categories: 1984 births | American bloggers | Video bloggers | American journalists | American political writers | American Jews | Jewish agnostics | American agnostics | The Washington Post people | Newsweek people | Living people | Biography articles of living people | People from Irvine, California | University of California, Los Angeles alumni
Hidden categories: All articles with dead external links | Articles with dead external links from October 2010 | Articles with hCards | Persondata templates without short description parameter
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #87 on: August 26, 2011, 10:31:00 AM »

Jonathon Alters writes, in essence, what more could he have done, with a school kid title of "You Think Obama’s Been a Bad President? Prove It".

In a nutshell, all that he did was is the wrong direction.  Question is, what less (harm) could he have done?

The right answer IMHO is (again) streamline the tax system to remove as much of the disincentives to produce as possible while funding essential government functions, restrain public spending, open up the production of abundant energy, more progress across the globe on free trade and protect the US$.  Hard to think of one Obama initiative that wasn't in the opposite direction.

Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-26/you-think-obama-s-been-a-bad-president-prove-it-jonathan-alter.html
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3979


« Reply #88 on: August 26, 2011, 11:03:58 AM »

"clueless" is not the only word.

Alter is one of the Jewish progressives who sit in their little narcisstic world thinking they are better, smarter, more all knowing than those that cling to guns and religion.  They think because they come out publically to champion the poor this somehow makes them better.  It is not just a religious thing wherein Judaism teaches to help the poor.  It is as had been clued to me by a post on this board - NARCISSM.   These sort of Jews (and non-Jewish liberals as well) really do think they are better, smarter and more clever because they are for the Democrat party.  Yet many if not most spend their entire lives working to get better of financially.

Apart from their outrageous hypocracy, they refuse to admit their political theories of redistribution, equal wealth to all, government enforcement of this, socialism, communism and the rest of it is actually going to make things worse.  History proves it makes things worse.  They think they are levelling the playing field for all when instead they are creating power for those few elites who pretend to know what is best for all.

It is more precisely this all knowing all paternalitstic attitude and condescention that turns the world off to Jews IMHO.  For all their pretending to lose sleep over the poor (until their pocketbooks are threatened - not the "taxpayers") - just to the contrary - intead of us being appreciated and loved for our (Jewish) concern for the downtrodden, the underdog if you will - Jews are the most despised disliked and beaten down group in history.  Look at Soros.  He himself stated he has "inadvertantly" served to propogate the idea that Jews run the world.  Well, he has certainly used every ounce of his financial power and political connections that confers to do just that.

So Jonathan ALter thinks because he votes as a Democrat we/he will be loved?

He certainly loves himself.  Narcissim IS the word that explains it to me.  It hit me like a club a few weeks ago.  That is the key that unlocks the mystery behind why Jews are so liberal.  It makes them think they are therefore better than everyone else.  That is it.   The answer. 

Quite the contrary.  We are resented.  Who the hell do we think we are telling what is best for everyone and forcing it all on us with big government!

I am proud of being Jewish yet I am disgusted by this narcissistic group within our ranks. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #89 on: August 26, 2011, 11:17:41 AM »

Krugman with his Nobel peace prize doesn't need to use the logic or charts of Grannis to predict no new 'help' from the Fed.  He blames it on political intimidation from Rick Perry.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/opinion/bernankes-perry-problem.html?_r=1
"Why don’t I expect much from Mr. Bernanke? In two words: Rick Perry.
O.K., I don’t mean that Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, is personally standing in the way of effective monetary policy. Not yet, anyway. Instead, I’m using Mr. Perry — who has famously threatened Mr. Bernanke with dire personal consequences if he pursues expansionary monetary policy before the 2012 election — as a symbol of the political intimidation that is killing our last remaining hope for economic recovery. "
----
"...our last remaining hope for economic recovery" - is to destroy our currency?  This is from the lead economic opinion maker on the left?  Does the Nobel committee have no recall procedure??

If you are out of new ideas after two and half years and everything you tried failed, how about just give back the keys.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #90 on: August 26, 2011, 12:01:56 PM »

CCP, Interesting points.  I would add that line of liberal thinking is not limited to Jewish opinion leaders.  I'm out of my area to talk religion but it seems to me that the foundations of Christianity are the same.  Helping the poor is a wonderful theme - always on display in church.  We are merely arguing politically over which system helps them best.  I have not yet found in the Bible where they measure the good you do in terms of coercive measures you impose on other people's work and money, or anything that supports the erosion of responsible personal freedoms.  More specifically I believe it warns (commands) against the worship of these other Gods, like sacred govt entitlement programs.

1 in 2 children in America are born into food stamps.  The real needy among us, those families who truly are incapable of providing life's basics for themselves in a benevolent, free society, are an important but very small proportion.  Not 50% or anywhere near that.  We are doing a myriad of things to ourselves on all fronts to make basic, safe, healthy living so enormously and unnecessarily expensive that half the people can't afford it.  (Stop doing those things!) For those who are truly in need of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, transportation, energy assistance etc etc, are they really best helped by totally blind, unaccountable government programs run from the furthest point away, based on coercive, baseline-expansion-based, runaway funding, or are they better administered on a personal level in the neighborhoods where people might actually know them and know the families, and funded by good and generous people living closer to them, on a voluntary, help your neighbor basis.

Even if you come down on the government side of that argument, why have it run from the furthest away point and why not get it completely out of the tax code and over to the spending side of the ledger.

Like CCP says, whether we see them as elitist or narscissist, decentralized solutions closer to home do not meet their needs for attention and accomplishment.  OTOH, the failures of their programs may leave us broke but more importantly (to the elitists/narsisscists) failure leaves them clueless and frustrated.  Still saying blame George Bush ("it was worse than we thought") at this 3rd/5th year point is really starting to sound like needing therapy.  George Bush has had no new domestic policy initiatives since the election of November 2006 and the left had all the legislative votes they needed for long enough to repeal anything at all that they wanted. 

The only thing they accomplished was answering their own question, what could be worse than George Bush and the reckless spending Republicans of the last decade.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3979


« Reply #91 on: August 26, 2011, 12:43:44 PM »

Doug,
Thanks for your response.

"the foundations of Christianity are the same.  Helping the poor is a wonderful theme - always on display in church.  We are merely arguing politically over which system helps them best.  I have not yet found in the Bible where they measure the good you do in terms of coercive measures you impose on other people's work and money, or anything that supports the erosion of responsible personal freedoms.  More specifically I believe it warns (commands) against the worship of these other Gods, like sacred govt entitlement programs.

Excellent points.  What is moral about forcing some to pay for others or for those others to sit back and demand that the some pay for them?

It seems it is no longer hallowed to speak about God.  We can no longer sing the national enthem.  The pedge of allegence is banned.  No prayer in school.  God and anything public must be banned.  No clergy at 9/11.  Yet say anything bad about Social Security or Medicare and those on those doles howl like warewolves.  These have become the (false) Gods/idols as you suggest.

They are now the hollowed framework or ground of America.

Everyone is entitled to not just  health care whether they can or will pay for it or not, but school, education, food, housing, retirement, pensions, vacation, travel time, unemployment, disability for anything, free internet. 

But it doesn't work when the numbers of people footing the bills for all this are becoming less and less.

Liberals will never give in.  I  am guessing it is too late for change without a real disaster.  The disaster may not be around the corner but it is inevitable because of the malignant growth and persistance of progressive ideology. 

For example, do away with mother or father and use only "parent".  Why not get do away with male, female, heterosexual, homosexual, black, white, muslim, jew, christian, hindu, rich poor, american french, arab, indian, chinese.  We should all be the same.  Not fat, not skinny, not tall.  Just people.  "individual" - my point is there can be no end to this.


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #92 on: August 26, 2011, 02:01:42 PM »

CCP, Step one in helping the poor should be to not let yourself be poor, and step two should be to go out personally and help someone in true need.
------------------
Krugman this week repeats the mantra that WWII was the jobs program that ended the Great Depression.  Strange then that economic growth was 17% the year BEFORE spending US government money on the war effort.

a) Hoover was an economic meddler, Hoover increased federal spending by 50%, far from his revised legacy of a laissez faire administration, b) FDR's big programs worsened our problems in the 30s.  WPA funding peaked in 1938 - unemployment was 19% in 1939.   c) It was actually the winding down of New Deal programs and regulations*, significant WPA direction, funding and rules changes in 1940, that led to 17% growth in the year PRIOR to America being attacked in Pearl Harbor.

*http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/08/25/no-paul-krugman-wwii-did-not-end-the-great-depression/

Other views?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30661


« Reply #93 on: August 26, 2011, 02:24:49 PM »

The economic history of FDR's liberal fascism is very important.  May I suggest taking it to the Economics thread in the SCH forum?
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 765


« Reply #94 on: September 04, 2011, 04:36:05 AM »

 
 Alderman: Target police, fire contracts to reduce budget deficit
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter fspielman@suntimes.com September 2, 2011 1:02AM
Reprints37ShareTweet
Anthony Beale
Updated: September 2, 2011 2:14AM

  Mayor Rahm Emanuel could wring $300 million from the combined $1.8 billion budgets of Chicago’s Police and Fire Departments, in part by dramatically altering union contracts that expire June 30, an influential alderman said Thursday.

“There’s no more sacred cows when the taxpayers are hurting like they are,” said Ald. Anthony Beale (9th), former chairman of the City Council’s Police and Fire Committee.

Beale has already infuriated the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) by targeting the $1,800-a-year uniform allowance officers receive as well as duty-availability pay, a $2,800-a-year lump sum that essentially compensates officers for being on call at any time.

Now, he’s going even further.

Instead of having the same number of police officers assigned to every watch and district, Beale is talking about putting officers when and where the crime is. That would allow Emanuel to eliminate 1,400 police vacancies and shrink the police force through attrition.

“I know it’s an unpopular thing to say. ... But if you put the officers where they’re needed vs. where they’re wanted, you could see a reduction,” he said.

“It has to be a conscious effort to make the unpopular decision to say, ‘We’re gonna move officers around to where they’re most needed — not where they’re most wanted.’ If we’re gonna make the entire city safe, we can do it with less officers.”

Instead of doling out annual uniform checks, Beale wants to switch to a voucher system to save as much as $50 million a year. Officers who need shirts, pants and jackets would get reimbursed. Those who don’t would get nothing.

Arguing that overtime is normally tacked on to an officers shift, Beale is also talking about eliminating duty availability pay, reducing disability claims and about eliminating a virtually unheard of policy that allows officers to take as many as 365 sick days every two years.

In the Chicago Fire Department, Beale wants to permanently reduce the minimum staffing requirements for fire apparatus and switch firefighters to an eight-hour shift — and away from the cherished 24-hours-on, 48-hours-off schedule that allows them to work second and third jobs.

Many of the changes proposed by the aldermen would have to be negotiated when police and fire union contracts expire on June 30.

Former Mayor Richard M. Daley threatened repeatedly to switch firefighters to an eight-hour shift in response to a sharp decline in the number of fires, only to back off the demand.

Daley was similarly thwarted in his efforts to relax the requirement that there be five employees on every piece of fire apparatus — the issue that triggered the bitter 1980 firefighters strike. He only managed to increase to 35 the number of times each day when the city is allowed to dip below that requirement.

Tom Ryan, president of the Chicago Firefighters Union Local 2, could not be reached for comment on Beale’s suggestions.

But FOP president Mike Shields ripped the alderman’s proposal.

“The Chicago Police Department today is stretched to the limit. We have had seven police officers killed in the line of duty over the past two years. Now, Ald. Beale wants to give us a pay cut? That is a real insult,” Shields said.

“If the mayor and the city are really serious about saving money, they can save tens of millions per year by cutting the number of aldermen in half and ending all of their ridiculous perks. The mayor asked for suggestions from citizens. That is what the citizens want. They do not want a demoralized and underpaid police force.”

Shields further noted that Beale raised the same concerns about uniforms and duty pay during the last round of contract talks that dragged on for years.

“His positions were soundly rejected,” Shields said.

Emanuel’s communications director, Chris Mather, did not dismiss Beale’s suggestions.

“We have to be honest about the fiscal challenges our city faces and any ideas — be it from the City Council, the FOP or the public — that will help close the budget gap without impacting the safety on streets and in our neighborhoods should be considered,” Mather said.

Police Supt. Garry McCarthy told the Chicago Sun-Times earlier week that he’s been asked to cut $190 million from the Police Department’s $1.3 billion-a-year budget and would only get halfway there by eliminating 1,400 police vacancies.

Beyond the vacancies, there are 730 officers on medical rolls each day and 641 officers on limited desk duty. Emanuel campaigned on a promise to change the sick leave policy.

  Then in a totally unrelated story....
  
 6 killed in holiday weekend violence
SUN-TIMES MEDIA WIRE September 4, 2011 2:42AM
ReprintsShareTweetUpdated: September 4, 2011 2:42AM

 Six men have been killed in acts of violence on the city’s streets this Labor Day weekend. Since Friday night five men have been fatally shot and one stabbed to death in Chicago.


A man walking on a Southwest Side street was killed in a Saturday afternoon drive-by shooting.


The man — identified by the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office as 38-year-old David Lucas — was shot about 2:50 p.m. in the 6500 block of South California Avenue, police News Affairs Officer Veejay Zala said.


Police said the man was walking when a light-colored four-door vehicle approached, a gunman exited and began shooting then fled in the vehicle.


Lucas, of the 6900 block of South Mozart St., was pronounced dead at 4:01 p.m. at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, the medical examiner’s office said.


Police said he was shot in the chest.


Two men standing on a Garfield Park street were killed in a Saturday afternoon drive-by shooting on the West Side.


The men were standing in the 2900 block of West Adams Street when the driver of a passing car pulled a gun about 12:45 p.m. and shot the men, Zala, citing preliminary information, said.


The medical examiner’s office identified the men as 18-year-old Deandre Boatman and 34-year-old Devonne Polk.


Boatman, of an unidentified home address, was pronounced dead at 1:25 p.m. at John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County. Polk, of the 5300 block of West Harrison St., was also taken to Stroger Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 1:22 p.m.


Police described the vehicle as a light-colored two-door car of an unidentified make and model.


Police said both men suffered multiple gunshot wounds.


A gunman walked up to a 32-year-old man in a wheelchair on the West Side early Saturday and opened fire, killing him.


The victim, identified by the medical examiner’s office as Martez Benton, was in a wheelchair when he was shot, according to police News Affairs Officer Michael Sullivan.


About 1:45 a.m., Benton was on the sidewalk in the 5400 block of West Division Street when a male approached him on foot and fired at him, striking him in the neck, head and back, a report from police News Affairs said.


Benton, of in Maywood, was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 2:10 a.m., according to the medical examiner’s office.


One man died and another was injured after they were stabbed in the North Side Lincoln Park neighborhood early Saturday.


The two were stabbed during a fight about 12:50 a.m. in the 1100 block of West Wrightwood Avenue, police said. A 19-year-old man was stabbed in the chest and abdomen and was taken to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center where he later died.


Rodney Kyles Jr. of the 5100 block of Roberta Lane in Richton Park was pronounced dead at 1:23 a.m. after being stabbed in the street at 1132 W. Wrightwood Ave., according to the medical examiner’s Office.


An 18-year-old man was stabbed in the buttocks and was taken in good condition to Illinois Masonic.


A man was shot and killed Friday night while he sat on a park bench on the South Side, police said.


Tyrone Robertson, 20, of the 10000 block of South Wentworth Ave., was pronounced dead at Saint Bernard Hospital at 9:36 p.m. after being shot at 449 W. 72nd St., according to the medical examiner’s Office.


He was sitting on a park bench at Hamilton Park about 8:50 p.m., when shots rang out from behind the fieldhouse and struck him, police News Affairs Officer Laura Kubiak said.


No one was in custody for any of these homicides as of early Sunday.


 And yet another totally unrelated story...


 The Worst and Best Public Art in Chicago This Year (so far)


 It’s already been quite the year for public art in Chicago, even if the year is little more than half over by now.  Unfortunately, “quite the year” in this case means a year I would already rather forget.

Millennium Park is undoubtedly the single most important and visible site for public art in Chicago with both permanent and temporary pieces.  Opened in 2004, four years behind its slated opening on the millennium, the park hosts two permanent public art works, Anish Kapoor’s Cloud Gate and Jaume Plensa’s Crown Fountain, as well as exhibitions of temporary sculpture.

There should be high expectations for the exhibitions in Millennium Park. It’s in the heart of downtown, attracts volumes of foot traffic, and has become quite popular, all of which are good things. This year saw an exhibition from sculptor Yvonne Domenge, following exhibitions from Mark di Suvero in Millennium Park and a group exhibition of contemporary sculpture from China, curated by University of Chicago Art History professor Wu Hung. 



Installation view of Yvonne Domenge in Millennium Park, April 2011. Black metal barriers now ring each work.

Domenge’s exhibition presents swirling globes of color and a sinuous abstracted tree, all fabricated out of metal, all painted bright colors.  All utterly boring.  As I wrote for my review of the exhibition, the aesthetic is as interchangeable as the titles of the work. To top it off, the sculpture is now surrounded by eye-gougingly ugly black metal barriers. Wu Hung’s sculpture show had personality and di Suvero is pretty important, but what we received this year was art that’s boring and lacking ambition. Regrettably this misfire will remain on view through most of 2012 as well.

And then J. Seward Johnson returned with a monstrosity. Now it could rightly be pointed out that this isn't public art; it sits on private land, was privately funded and was privately selected.  But that ignores the highly public location, at the beginning of Chicago's über-shopping stretch, the Magnificent Mile, and in the Pioneer Court, nestled next to the Neo-Gothic glory of the Tribune Tower, across from the beaux-arts beauty of the Wrigley Building.  Needless to say, like Millennium Park, this location gets a lot of traffic. 

Public art doesn’t necessarily have to be on city land or paid for by public money for it to be public, but it does need the public itself, and these locations get the public in droves.

The high-visibility location made the installation of J. Seward Johnson’s Forever Marilyn, a giant statue of Marilyn Monroe holding down her skirt lifted from the iconic pose from The Seven Year Itch (1955), impossible to ignore.  Well that, and the fact that you can see her panties if you move around to the rear.  This fact has not been lost on many male viewers, causing middle-aged men to act like prepubescent boys.  Thanks to Johnson we now have an opportunity close to home for what was dubbed on Twitter as “group perving.” I like the Flickr guy who decided to rate the reactions.

Johnson is a master of kitsch. It’s like he read Clement Greenberg’s definition of it and mistook it for a good thing: “Kitsch is mechanical and it operates by formulas.  Kitsch is vicarious experience and faked sensations...Kitsch is the epitome of all that is spurious in the life of our times.” Yes, Johnson’s sculpture is all of those.  At least Jeff Koons attempts to rescue kitsch, or elevate it.  Again I find myself deeply looking forward to the end date of this exhibition, no pun intended.

Chicago is really in debt -- next year's budget already predicts a shortfall of over $600 million.  The Mayor is taking suggestions.  Literally, that is -- there's a website.  I suggest imposing a heavy tariff on all cross-state importing of J. Seward Johnson's work.


There was a bright spot in this year’s public art so far, and it wasn’t big or expensive, in fact, it was dirt-cheap.  For the opening night of Chicago’s newest art fair, MDW Fair, artist duo Dutes Miller and Stan Shellabarger quietly made outlines of their bodies with dirt on the grounds around the fair building.  Discovered by groups walking to the fair itself, the outlines were quiet moments of encounter, like the way we experience art in museums, the mere trace of a one-time human presence, now gone. The outlines also wore their impermanence on their sleeve, subject to not only the elements, but also vulnerable to an unsympathetic viewer who could destroy the figures with a mere kick of the foot.  They were mortal.

It's unfortunate that two of the best locations in Chicago will be occupied by sculpture that's both bad and not indicative of artists and art in the city. Not everything has to be gigantic and in steel for it to have a big impact; I will remember Miller and Shellabarger’s pieces for far longer than Domenge’s or Johnson’s.  It is ironic that in times of tight budgets and penny-pinching, curators and the powers-that-be are bringing in startlingly lackluster artists when they could easily find better ones in their own city if they only looked.



--Abraham Ritchie, Senior Editor ArtSlant living and working in Chicago.

 

Buddy, Buddy, Buddy.... tongue                            P.C.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 04:57:31 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #95 on: September 04, 2011, 08:54:48 AM »

Frankly, did you read the proposed police/fire changes.  They all seem VERY reasonable to me.  It's high time...

"Instead of having the same number of police officers assigned to every watch and district, Beale is talking about putting officers when and where the crime is. That would allow Emanuel to eliminate 1,400 police vacancies and shrink the police force through attrition.

“I know it’s an unpopular thing to say. ... But if you put the officers where they’re needed vs. where they’re wanted, you could see a reduction,” he said.

“It has to be a conscious effort to make the unpopular decision to say, ‘We’re gonna move officers around to where they’re most needed — not where they’re most wanted.’ If we’re gonna make the entire city safe, we can do it with less officers.”

Instead of doling out annual uniform checks ($1800.00 to every officer every year), Beale wants to switch to a voucher system to save as much as $50 million a year. Officers who need shirts, pants and jackets would get reimbursed. Those who don’t would get nothing.

Arguing that overtime is normally tacked on to an officers shift, Beale is also talking about eliminating duty availability pay (pay for doing nothing), reducing disability claims and about eliminating a virtually unheard of policy that allows officers to take as many as 365 sick days every two years.

In the Chicago Fire Department, Beale wants to permanently reduce the minimum staffing requirements for fire apparatus and switch firefighters to an eight-hour shift — and away from the cherished 24-hours-on, 48-hours-off schedule that allows them to work second and third jobs."



As for the art being objected to, did you notice:

"Now it could rightly be pointed out that this isn't public art; it sits on private land, was privately funded and was privately selected."

So what's the problem?

« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 09:45:10 AM by JDN » Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 765


« Reply #96 on: September 04, 2011, 05:32:54 PM »

Woof,
 And does it dawn on you that crime will increase in the areas that cops are moved out from and the areas that have a lot of crime, already have twice the officers now? My thought is maybe policing isn't the problem but maybe Liberal policies are. What they've basically done is created open block, "dependant's of the State" prisons with cops as guards. In the mean time the greater community is concerned with installing swank sculpture downtown, while dropout rates, teen pregnancy, single parent households, unemployment, drug addiction, crime and murder rates soar just a couple of blocks away. tongue angry cry
                                    P.C.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 06:46:34 PM by prentice crawford » Logged

JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #97 on: September 04, 2011, 07:08:30 PM »

Prentice, did you read your post?

Did you disagree that only those who need a new uniform should get $1800.00 extra per year?  Not everyone every year? For nothing?

Instead of assigning officers evenly, they are suggesting assigning more officers to the trouble areas; make sense?

Take away a $3000.00 "duty pay" for doing nothing; pay just being available for working overtime for which you also of course get paid.

Now officers are allowed 365 sick days in two years!  You must be kidding.  Who gets that?


As for the Fire Department, don't most people work an 8 hour shift?  Then go home?  No one else has 24 shifts; who "works"  24 hours on, 48 hours off.  I know Fireman in LA who all have second jobs paying them double because of so much time off.  That's ridiculous.

Times are tight; there is no reason the Police and Fire Department can't do their share as well.


As for "installing swank sculpture downtown, while dropout rates, teen pregnancy, single parent households, drug addiction, crime and murder rates soar just a couple of blocks away." AGAIN did you read your own post?  It sits on PRIVATE land and is PRIVATELY FUNDED and privately selected.  If McDonalds for example wants to put an ugly Ronald McDonald statue in front of their restaurant, on their land, what does that have to do with teen pregnancy, single parent households, drug addition, crime ad murder rates" or anything else?  YOUR POINT?   huh

What "liberal policies" are we talking about   huh  The city is trying to cut union contracts!  Save money! Isn't that a conservative Republican idea?

Well, whose ever idea it is, it's a pretty good idea   grin

Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 765


« Reply #98 on: September 04, 2011, 08:15:26 PM »

Woof,
 My point is they wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if they didn't do the Lib thing and get in bed with the unions to begin with. Police unions, Fire unions, Teacher unions. And if the Lib community that's tired of paying taxes on all of this would turn their attention to actually helping the people in these crime ridden hell holes that they created with their nanny state Lib idealogogy and put people to work instead of handing them a check, instilling personal and moral responsibility, teaching basic math instead of social justice and handing out condoms in schools then maybe just maybe they wouldn't need the police much at all, but no, they're worried about art projects. tongue
                                          P.C.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 08:19:08 PM by prentice crawford » Logged

G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #99 on: September 04, 2011, 08:17:30 PM »

Lots of police departments are cutting to the bone. CPD needs to embrace the suck like everyone else.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!