Sarah Palin, ONCE AGAIN.....is playing the role of martyr. In the event that you have been in a drug induced coma, let me fill you in. David Letterman, droll boring comic late at night did a top ten list about Palin in which he claimed that "Palin's daughter was knocked up by ARod". Tasteless? Of course. Appropriate? Hardly, you should note the fact that her first reaction was not about her daughter.
For all of her "Mommy angst", it's interesting that her first reaction was that of dismissal...."Must have been a slow news day". THAT was her first response! You would think that her first concern would be her
DAUGHTER not a stupid put down on being named in a "Top Ten" gag.
It's funny that she would think that a "news day" would be pertainent to a comic on a talk show. I guess she was confused about his job title. It does call to question her motive though. I doubt that this is anything but another of her stupic political posturings.
This isn't about Bristol. It's not about Willow either. It's about her desire to stay in the spotlight.I love the righteous indignation about this being proof of our country's values that are responsible for young ladies having poor self images! COME ON SARAH. If you are so concerned about the self image of young women why did you not raise hell about Laura Ingram referring to Megan McCain as being a "plus sized model"? Why didn't you get on TV and DEMAND and an apology THEN?
If you are so concious about young woment's feelings, I wonder if you
threw up to John McCain his own comment about Chelsea Clinton? Did
you ask HIM what a young impressionable teen would think about being
joked about as being "ugly"? How about THAT for creating a poor self image? What about the insult to Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton too?
But then again, you're new to this role as feminist.
Grow up Sarah and go back to Alaska.I BELIEVE that you ARE still
their Governor. I can't imagine why anybody would vote for an absentee
Goveror to hold any further office if this is an example of how you fullfill those duties. But, David Letterman, don't think that this lets you off the hook, buddy. You owe ARod an apology.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Who says they can't question an opinion?
Today Andrea Mitchell got a solid F in failing to ask probative questions.
She asked a guest, this blogger missed the name of....sorry....my erro....about
who is winning the "debate about Gitmo....FORMER VP Dick Cheney or CURRENT President Barack Obama"? The guest said....."Why Dick Cheney, of course." COME ON! And what did Andrea Mitchell say?
.....Cricket Chirping Sounds.............
After months of Republican apologies for the mess that they created in
this administration and he wants to say that Cheney's distortion of the
Geneva Convention and our Constitional laws about cruel and unusual
punishment are not good for the security of our country? He was only
in office for eight years. We survived with the Constitition for well over a hundred years and the Geneva Conventions were signed in 1949. Why
didn't she challenge him on this obvious attempt to shill for a man desperately
trying to prevent his rightful war crimes arrest? And who the HECK said that
it was a DEBATE? A debate involves two persons or teams facing each other with one or more judges to determine who has the most plausible facts on their
side of the arguement.
Last of all.....who the HECK told Cheney that we are compelled to adhere to
the policies that HE set up under the Bush administration? It's not like Bush
didn't chose to ignore arrangements made by the Clinton administration. He
is no longer in office. THANK GOD. He apparently didn't catch on to the limitations for the office of VP when he was one and now he apparently thinks
that this allows him to dictate to whoever occupies the Oval office, which makes you wonder how much he ordered Bush around, possibly. The VP is the tiebreaker of Senate votes and they are the person who attends the funerals of dignitaries. They are NOT elected to run ramshod over others. Somebody needs to explain term limits to Cheney and they need to remind Andrea Mitchell that she is obliged to at least pretend to be objective and interested in considering the truth instead of politicizing the news. Come on....you can do better than this Andrea!
She asked a guest, this blogger missed the name of....sorry....my erro....about
who is winning the "debate about Gitmo....FORMER VP Dick Cheney or CURRENT President Barack Obama"? The guest said....."Why Dick Cheney, of course." COME ON! And what did Andrea Mitchell say?
.....
After months of Republican apologies for the mess that they created in
this administration and he wants to say that Cheney's distortion of the
Geneva Convention and our Constitional laws about cruel and unusual
punishment are not good for the security of our country? He was only
in office for eight years. We survived with the Constitition for well over a hundred years and the Geneva Conventions were signed in 1949. Why
didn't she challenge him on this obvious attempt to shill for a man desperately
trying to prevent his rightful war crimes arrest? And who the HECK said that
it was a DEBATE? A debate involves two persons or teams facing each other with one or more judges to determine who has the most plausible facts on their
side of the arguement.
Last of all.....who the HECK told Cheney that we are compelled to adhere to
the policies that HE set up under the Bush administration? It's not like Bush
didn't chose to ignore arrangements made by the Clinton administration. He
is no longer in office. THANK GOD. He apparently didn't catch on to the limitations for the office of VP when he was one and now he apparently thinks
that this allows him to dictate to whoever occupies the Oval office, which makes you wonder how much he ordered Bush around, possibly. The VP is the tiebreaker of Senate votes and they are the person who attends the funerals of dignitaries. They are NOT elected to run ramshod over others. Somebody needs to explain term limits to Cheney and they need to remind Andrea Mitchell that she is obliged to at least pretend to be objective and interested in considering the truth instead of politicizing the news. Come on....you can do better than this Andrea!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Legislating from the bench?
Early on, the "conservatives" led most publically by Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl. Judge fired the first salvo. They were OUTRAGED......they just KNEW that any appointment by this President would be "empathetically and emotionally led"! They did this for days without a single name being touted. Sonia Sotomayor was only nominated by President Obama today but the complaints
preceeded her before they even knew who would be nominated!
It will be interesting to see the arguements about her given the fact that her current appointment to the Federal bench was done by the administration of GHW Bush. I guess they learned that nominations by THAT Bush aren't a "slam dunk" for the far right. She would be replacing a Supreme Court justice David Souter seated at the reccomendation of that same President Bush. They didn't like any more than they liked Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor. This same contingency was convinced that Souter would suit their agenda and now
they are convinced that she would ignore it based on the appointing President.
Interesting.....you don't think that these observations are being inspired by.....an AGENDA or EMOTIONS, do you?
It's interesting to note that they have actually stated that their fears are that Sotomayor would vote base on "empathy". They speak of fear that she would
attempt to "legislate from the bench". I don't recall this same hesitation when
Chief Justice John Roberts was appointed or Vincent Scalia either. The same
fearful legislators did not express outrage when Scalia chose to take a hunting
trip funded by then Vice President Dick Cheney while his court was in the middle of the case in which Cheney was being sued to make public the records of the energy panel that established our energy policies. They didn't complain
when he refused to recuse himself from that case even though the defendant
PAID for the trip and when the case was later ruled in his favor these same doubting would be Thomas's (with apologies to Clarence) didn't express any special interest claims either.
You have to also question how serious that they are about their fears of
"legislating from the bench" given the fact that many of these SAME legislators
had no umbridge expressed when CONGRESS chose to legislate the COURTS.
Let us not forget that George W Bush was only so happy to come back from one of his many Crawford ranch vacations and Congress was equally anxious to burn the midnight oils to force the court's hand in the matter of Terri Shaivo. They speak elloquently about the rights of the individual and family values but they certainly had no problem inserting their Congressional seals into a family grief and they were adamant about their Congressional imperative to RULE on the rulings of the COURTS! So much for the system of checks in place.
They talk a lot about this imbalance of our system of checks and balances but they thought that it was no big deal when nine Federal prosecutors were fired. To this day, we have not been allowed to see all the evidence in that matter because people like Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales were allowed to thumb their noses at Congressional supenas to appear to clear up this matter. It would appear that these firings happened in retribution to rulings made that did not suit the needs to play politics by those with a specified agenda. The hypocracy of this protest is amazing. As Shakespeare once stated...."Me thinks thou doth protest too much". INDEED!
preceeded her before they even knew who would be nominated!
It will be interesting to see the arguements about her given the fact that her current appointment to the Federal bench was done by the administration of GHW Bush. I guess they learned that nominations by THAT Bush aren't a "slam dunk" for the far right. She would be replacing a Supreme Court justice David Souter seated at the reccomendation of that same President Bush. They didn't like any more than they liked Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor. This same contingency was convinced that Souter would suit their agenda and now
they are convinced that she would ignore it based on the appointing President.
Interesting.....you don't think that these observations are being inspired by.....an AGENDA or EMOTIONS, do you?
It's interesting to note that they have actually stated that their fears are that Sotomayor would vote base on "empathy". They speak of fear that she would
attempt to "legislate from the bench". I don't recall this same hesitation when
Chief Justice John Roberts was appointed or Vincent Scalia either. The same
fearful legislators did not express outrage when Scalia chose to take a hunting
trip funded by then Vice President Dick Cheney while his court was in the middle of the case in which Cheney was being sued to make public the records of the energy panel that established our energy policies. They didn't complain
when he refused to recuse himself from that case even though the defendant
PAID for the trip and when the case was later ruled in his favor these same doubting would be Thomas's (with apologies to Clarence) didn't express any special interest claims either.
You have to also question how serious that they are about their fears of
"legislating from the bench" given the fact that many of these SAME legislators
had no umbridge expressed when CONGRESS chose to legislate the COURTS.
Let us not forget that George W Bush was only so happy to come back from one of his many Crawford ranch vacations and Congress was equally anxious to burn the midnight oils to force the court's hand in the matter of Terri Shaivo. They speak elloquently about the rights of the individual and family values but they certainly had no problem inserting their Congressional seals into a family grief and they were adamant about their Congressional imperative to RULE on the rulings of the COURTS! So much for the system of checks in place.
They talk a lot about this imbalance of our system of checks and balances but they thought that it was no big deal when nine Federal prosecutors were fired. To this day, we have not been allowed to see all the evidence in that matter because people like Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales were allowed to thumb their noses at Congressional supenas to appear to clear up this matter. It would appear that these firings happened in retribution to rulings made that did not suit the needs to play politics by those with a specified agenda. The hypocracy of this protest is amazing. As Shakespeare once stated...."Me thinks thou doth protest too much". INDEED!
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Newt Gingrch VS Dick Durbin on Meet the Press
David Gregory had both Gingrich and Durbin on today's Meet The Press to debate the issues of Gitmo and Nancy Pelosi. The questions not asked were there front and center. It's amazing how many times that Newt followed the popular path of hammering home the thought of how scared we were after the September 11 attacks. You would think that the towers only contained GOP party members to hear Gingrich,Cheney et al. That this was even mentioned in the setting of discussing Guantanmo Bay prisoner camp is prime example of how our human losses seem to be used as a means of inciting our fears anger and desire for vengence. When is this independant "Fourth Estate" going to get
a backbone and ASK the question......what does holding hundreds of prisioners have to do with an attack on our soil?
Gingrich stated that there is a danger of the prisoners being released and told about their desire to blow up our cities to attack and kill us. He spoke of Cheney being terrified for his children and grandchildren. I would love to ask why an attorney....which is what Gingrich is......patently calls these people "terrrorists" and lays out their motives and desires but he states not a single bit of evidence
to support these statements?
Gingrich also was particularly unhappy with Nancy Pelosi whom he came very close to saying that she had "approved" of water boarding. He was never asked
how one member of Congress having been told about this (assuming that she was) would have made this practice LEGAL without a full Congressional vote and Presidental signiture? Our laws still demand that a person be FOUND guilty not DECLARED guilty in a court of law. Using the techniques of "beating it out of them" is still illegal no matter how awful a crimminal is. We do not approve of torture. You can call it "enhanced interrogation" techiques or "tango lessions" it is still TORTURE.
It was also intrigueing how Cheney AND Gingrich continue to complain about
how the CIA is getting falsely blamed for lying about Nancy Pelosi's knowlege
of waterboarding. This is hysterical that they are NOW getting concerned about
the CIA being at risk. Where was their concern when the twenty year career of Iranian WEAPONS expert for the CIA, of Valerie Plame was destroyed? Ronald Reagan ( whose name was incanted in the usual reverence by Gingrich) signed a bill in 1986 making the outing of a CIA agent a FELONY. Bush promised that
anybody from his administration found to be a part of this would no longer be working in that administration. Bush basically gave Libby a pass and he has never done any form of jail time. Plame's career is destroyed and the valuable work she was doing is set back. NOW would be a great time to know if Iran is building nukes. Explain how your aid doing THAT kept us safe Dick Cheney?
IF we are to believe that the previous administration was so concerned about
national security and protecting our CIA so that they can do their jobs, why
did they release the name of a CIA agent who worked without diplomatic immunity tracking WMDs in Iran? Her being outed not only affected HER ability to do her job in a field that has a lot to do with knowing how close Iran is to having dangerous weapons. By outing her he also outed everybody who could be identified as working with her in Iran as well.
David Gregory gets a barely passing grade. We need our media to ask the tough questions. This debate and questioning was phoned in without any sign that
research was done to validate the easy half truths and embelishments. Try again next Sunday. Tim Russert would want you to do better than this.
a backbone and ASK the question......what does holding hundreds of prisioners have to do with an attack on our soil?
Gingrich stated that there is a danger of the prisoners being released and told about their desire to blow up our cities to attack and kill us. He spoke of Cheney being terrified for his children and grandchildren. I would love to ask why an attorney....which is what Gingrich is......patently calls these people "terrrorists" and lays out their motives and desires but he states not a single bit of evidence
to support these statements?
Gingrich also was particularly unhappy with Nancy Pelosi whom he came very close to saying that she had "approved" of water boarding. He was never asked
how one member of Congress having been told about this (assuming that she was) would have made this practice LEGAL without a full Congressional vote and Presidental signiture? Our laws still demand that a person be FOUND guilty not DECLARED guilty in a court of law. Using the techniques of "beating it out of them" is still illegal no matter how awful a crimminal is. We do not approve of torture. You can call it "enhanced interrogation" techiques or "tango lessions" it is still TORTURE.
It was also intrigueing how Cheney AND Gingrich continue to complain about
how the CIA is getting falsely blamed for lying about Nancy Pelosi's knowlege
of waterboarding. This is hysterical that they are NOW getting concerned about
the CIA being at risk. Where was their concern when the twenty year career of Iranian WEAPONS expert for the CIA, of Valerie Plame was destroyed? Ronald Reagan ( whose name was incanted in the usual reverence by Gingrich) signed a bill in 1986 making the outing of a CIA agent a FELONY. Bush promised that
anybody from his administration found to be a part of this would no longer be working in that administration. Bush basically gave Libby a pass and he has never done any form of jail time. Plame's career is destroyed and the valuable work she was doing is set back. NOW would be a great time to know if Iran is building nukes. Explain how your aid doing THAT kept us safe Dick Cheney?
IF we are to believe that the previous administration was so concerned about
national security and protecting our CIA so that they can do their jobs, why
did they release the name of a CIA agent who worked without diplomatic immunity tracking WMDs in Iran? Her being outed not only affected HER ability to do her job in a field that has a lot to do with knowing how close Iran is to having dangerous weapons. By outing her he also outed everybody who could be identified as working with her in Iran as well.
David Gregory gets a barely passing grade. We need our media to ask the tough questions. This debate and questioning was phoned in without any sign that
research was done to validate the easy half truths and embelishments. Try again next Sunday. Tim Russert would want you to do better than this.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
When did they change the terms of law ?
When in the hell is somebody going to ask Dick Cheney to shut up? He makes us look like unprincipaled and basically like a country that has lost it's sense of juris prudence. For the longest time, we were told that "we do not torture" people, the we were told that waterboarding isn't torture but not to worry because we only did it to three "terrorists" and that it was done to protect us from being attacked. Isn't this sort of a macabre twist on the Constitution? I take it that Cheney forgets that little 'ole thing. Apparently after having done it TWICE he forgot completely what he swore, on a Bible no less.
On Face The Nation, recently he looked right in the camera when asked about this whole mess about torture and said..."On January 20,2001, I swore to protect the people against all enemies foreign and domestic". Missed it by that much, Dick. Since 1933, the Vice President has taken the same oath as the President on the same day that chief executive assumes their oath. What he REALLY swore was "To uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION against all enemies foreign and domestic". BIG DIFFERENCE. Since we began this country, we have depended on this document for our ultimate protection.
This goes a long way toward understanding why Cheney doesn't get this thing about "cruel and unusual punishment" that we are prohited from doing as a sacred part of our values. It's ludicrous to state that it's perfectly OK to terrorize a person based on the presumption (without the benefit of a jury and judge) that they are truly guilty of something. If this sort of liberty can be taken to protect us, what guarantee will we have that any of us will be able to depend on juris prudence in the future? Presumption of innocent till proven guilty is PARAMOUNT. Without it NOBODY is safe here.
It's scary that people have taken this as if it's no big deal. It is HUGE. We truly are the people we were warned about if we lose this sense of humanity that we can accept terrorizing others for the benefit of a sense of security. We now know why Ben Franklin said at the Historical Review of Pennsylvania of 1759......"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Please note, this was pre-1776. There are no short cuts in protecting our rights and values. We must obey the laws or none of us will ever be safe again. We won't need to wait to be attacked by enemies foreign if we allow domestic enemies to destroy all we hold dear from within.....allegedly for our benefit. Go save somebody else Dick. We know all about the "enemies domestic". You are the worst of them.
On Face The Nation, recently he looked right in the camera when asked about this whole mess about torture and said..."On January 20,2001, I swore to protect the people against all enemies foreign and domestic". Missed it by that much, Dick. Since 1933, the Vice President has taken the same oath as the President on the same day that chief executive assumes their oath. What he REALLY swore was "To uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION against all enemies foreign and domestic". BIG DIFFERENCE. Since we began this country, we have depended on this document for our ultimate protection.
This goes a long way toward understanding why Cheney doesn't get this thing about "cruel and unusual punishment" that we are prohited from doing as a sacred part of our values. It's ludicrous to state that it's perfectly OK to terrorize a person based on the presumption (without the benefit of a jury and judge) that they are truly guilty of something. If this sort of liberty can be taken to protect us, what guarantee will we have that any of us will be able to depend on juris prudence in the future? Presumption of innocent till proven guilty is PARAMOUNT. Without it NOBODY is safe here.
It's scary that people have taken this as if it's no big deal. It is HUGE. We truly are the people we were warned about if we lose this sense of humanity that we can accept terrorizing others for the benefit of a sense of security. We now know why Ben Franklin said at the Historical Review of Pennsylvania of 1759......"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Please note, this was pre-1776. There are no short cuts in protecting our rights and values. We must obey the laws or none of us will ever be safe again. We won't need to wait to be attacked by enemies foreign if we allow domestic enemies to destroy all we hold dear from within.....allegedly for our benefit. Go save somebody else Dick. We know all about the "enemies domestic". You are the worst of them.
Friday, May 22, 2009
The Fourth Estate Report Card
The Press has been referred to as the Fourth Estate. Irish Statesman and political analyst Edmund Burke was reported to have looked up at the Press Gallery of the British House of Commons, said, 'Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all.'" This blog is a created with the aspiration of being a report card of The modern "Fourth Estate".
Unfortunately in a day and age of corporate owned media sources, the rights of the public to have critical current events presented to them is becoming scarce. Too frequently we see the truth altered to suit the needs of the advertisers. Thus was have seen the advent of a modern day "Press Gallery" far more interested in pandering to perspectives of the politicians and the advertisers, than truly speaking"Truth to Power". Thanks to the media consolidation movement begun in the administration of Bill Clinton, we now see a larger share of the media controlled by fewer persons.
This blog is created with the intent to ask the questions that are far too frequently not asked. Too often the answers are not forthcoming that we the people have the right to know because the inconvenient questions are either not asked or they are not fully addressed with probative inquiry.
Unfortunately in a day and age of corporate owned media sources, the rights of the public to have critical current events presented to them is becoming scarce. Too frequently we see the truth altered to suit the needs of the advertisers. Thus was have seen the advent of a modern day "Press Gallery" far more interested in pandering to perspectives of the politicians and the advertisers, than truly speaking"Truth to Power". Thanks to the media consolidation movement begun in the administration of Bill Clinton, we now see a larger share of the media controlled by fewer persons.
This blog is created with the intent to ask the questions that are far too frequently not asked. Too often the answers are not forthcoming that we the people have the right to know because the inconvenient questions are either not asked or they are not fully addressed with probative inquiry.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)