Why (some) women don't scrub up as well as men
By Jeremy Laurance
The Independent
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
A fifth of women in the study carried faecal bacteria on their hands
In matters of personal hygiene, it is men who are viewed as the grimy sex while women strive to keep them scrubbed. But a survey has revealed that female cleanliness is a myth. Women were up to three times more likely to have dirty hands than men.
The difference between the sexes was starkest in London, where 21 per cent of women were carrying faecal bacteria on their hands, compared with 6 per cent of men. Women in Birmingham and Cardiff also outranked men for bacterial contamination, but in the north – Newcastle and Liverpool – stereotypes reasserted themselves and men had the filthiest hands.
The Dirty Hands study was conducted to highlight poor hygiene habits as part of the first Global Handwashing Day today. Commuters' at five train stations were swab-tested for bacteria. The results, analysed by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical medicine, also revealed a north-south divide. Commuters in Newcastle were up to three times more likely than those in London to have the bacteria on their hands – 44 per cent versus 13 per cent. More than a third in Liverpool were contaminated, compared to less than a quarter in Birmingham and Cardiff.
The bacteria were all from the gut and do not necessarily cause disease, although they indicate that hands have not been washed properly.
Val Curtis, director of the Hygiene Centre at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: "We were flabbergasted so many people had faecal bugs on their hands. If these people had been suffering from a diarrhoeal disease, the potential for it to be passed round would be greatly increased by their failure to wash their hands after going to the toilet."
Geez, I know of at least one on this blog who has three times that coming out of her mouth.
ReplyDeleteSo I read the financials first..headline on one columnists' piece reads,
ReplyDeleteCorporate insiders remain bullish ...
It's like listening to Baghdad Bob when we invaded Baghdad.
Where Obama? get their money
ReplyDeleteWOODS FOUNDATIONS
Who? Here:
The Woods Fund of Chicago is an outgrowth of the Woods Charitable Fund (WCF), which was established in 1941 by Frank Woods and his wife, Nelle Cochrane Woods. Frank Woods was an attorney and a nationally prominent telephone company executive. He and his wife incorporated WCF with their three sons, two of whom remained in Lincoln, and one of whom (Frank Woods, Jr.) worked in Chicago after finishing college and eventually became the head of the Sahara Coal Company.
Frank Woods headed WCF in the 1950s, during which time he gave money to groups advocating equal rights for minorities. He was also instrumental in developing the Council on Foundations. His grandson Thomas C. Woods, Jr. was President of WCF from 1968 until 1990, at which point Lucia Woods Lindley (Frank Woods, Jr.'s daughter) took over that position. In the early 1990s, George Kelm became WCF President and, with the assistance of Staff Director Jean Rudd, moved the Fund politically to the left. Kelm and Rudd then created a separate entity, which they named the Woods Fund of Chicago; Kelm, who was active in the Council on Foundations, became the Woods Fund's first President.
This new Fund focused on welfare reform, affordable housing, the quality of public schools, race and class disparities in the juvenile justice system, and tax policy as a tool in reducing poverty. The Fund supported the concept of an expanding welfare state allocating ever-increasing amounts of money to the public school system, and the redistribution of wealth via taxes.
The Woods Fund of Chicago's current President is Deborah Harrington, who served on former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar's Taskforce on Human Services Reform.
A notable Woods board member is William Ayers, who in the 1960s was a member of the terrorist group Weatherman, and was a wanted fugitive for over a decade as a result of the group's bombing campaign; today Ayers is a Professor of Education at the University of Illinois. In 2002 the Woods Fund made a grant to Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center, where Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn, was employed. Barack Obama was one of Ayers' fellow Woods Fund board members at that time.
A former President of the Woods Fund was Maria G. Valdez, a member of the Regional Council of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the most influential Hispanic advocacy group in the United States.
The Woods Fund's philanthropic agendas are focused in three program areas:
1) The Community Organizing program finances the formation of grassroots organizations, staffed mostly by volunteers, that attempt to shape public policy through activism.
2) The Arts and Culture program supports those who combine artistic pursuits with leftwing activism in the form of community organizing.
3) The Public Policy program supports "policy and constituency-building work that helps low-income individuals and families to attain higher standards of living," and aims to address "issues of poverty among low-wage workers as well as unskilled potential workers."
Woods Fund philanthropy is founded on the axiom that there are "structural barriers to job opportunities, job retention and job advancement" that harm the "working poor." The Fund also condemns what it considers discrimination directed against those "having prison records or felony convictions that make it difficult for them to enter the workforce."
The Woods Fund has given sizable grants to the Midwest Academy; the Tides Foundation; the Tides Center; the Nature Conservancy; AGAPE Youth Development; the Arab American Action Network; the Center for Community Change; Trinity United Church of Christ (where Barack Obama was a congregant); the Chicago Interfaith Committee on Worker Issues; the Community Justice Initiative; the Center for Law and Human Services; the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability; Grassroots Collaborative (for American Friends Service Committee); Latin United Community Housing Association; the Center for Economic Progress; the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless; the Chicago Rehabilitation Network; the Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights; the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; the Juvenile Justice Initiative of Illinois; Latinos United; the Lawyers Committee for Better Housing; the National Center on Poverty, Inc.; Protestants for the Common Good; the Public Action Foundation; the Community Justice for Youth Initiative; the Safer Foundation; the Woodstock Institute; Work, Welfare and Families; the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN); the About Face Theater Collective; Day Laborer Collaboration; Business and Professional People for the Public Interest; the Coalition of African Service Providers; the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; the Funders' Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities; Urban Outreach; and the Proteus Fund.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat not washing hands can do to you.
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/4fk6au
BONUS SECTION ON TIDES PROPLE:
The Tides Center's Board Chairman is Wade Rathke, who is also a member of the Tides Foundation Board. Rathke, a protege of the late George A. Wiley, serves as President of the New Orleans-based Local 100 of the Service Employees International Union, and is the founder and chief organizer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
Many women at the TIDES FOUNDATION have abandon all hygiend
ReplyDeleteTIDES
Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the donees. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, "launder" the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a "paper trail." Such contributions are called "donor-advised," or donor-directed, funds.
Through this legal loophole, nonprofit entities can also create for-profit organizations and then funnel money to them through Tides -- thereby circumventing the laws that bar nonprofits from directly funding their own for-profit enterprises. Pew Charitable Trusts, for instance, set up three for-profit media companies and then proceeded to fund them via donor-advised contributions to Tides, which (for an 8 percent management fee) in turn sent the money to the media companies.
If a donor wishes to give money to a particular cause but finds that there is no organization in existence dedicated specifically to that issue, the Tides Foundation will, for a fee, create a group to meet that perceived need.
In 1996 the Tides Foundation created, with a $9 million seed grant, a separate but closely related entity called the Tides Center, also headed by Drummond Pike. The Tides Center functions as a legal firewall insulating the Tides Foundation from potential lawsuits filed by people whose livelihoods or well-being may be harmed by Foundation-funded projects. (These could be, for instance, farmers or loggers who are put out of business by Tides-backed environmentalist groups.) In theory the Foundation's activities are restricted to fundraising and grant-making, while the Center focuses on managing projects and organizations; in practice, however, both entities do essentially the same thing.
But HA, what do they do/
They just don't bathe, period.
No Imean the TIDES.
OH
Here's morer since you asked. Wait I'll turn it over to oue hygiene expert.
Thanks HA..
ReplyDeleteChip Berlet sits on the Board of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, a Tides Center project formed in 2005 to combat "the growing power of the religious right" and to "fight for the separation of church and state." Berlet is a senior analyst for Political Research Associates, and has had affiliations with the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Friends Service Committee, the Christic Institute, the Socialist Workers Party, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The Tides Foundation promotes a multitude of leftist agendas, as evidenced by its assertion: "We strengthen community-based organizations and the progressive movement by providing an innovative and cost-effective framework for your philanthropy." Among the crusades to which Tides contributes are: radical environmentalism; the "exclusion of humans from public and private wildlands"; the anti-war movement; anti-free trade campaigns; the banning of firearms ownership; abolition of the death penalty; access to government-funded abortion-on-demand; and radical gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender advocacy. The Foundation is also a member organization of the International Human Rights Funders Group, a network of more than six-dozen grantmakers dedicated to finaning leftwing groups and causes.
Immediately after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Tides formed a "9/11 Fund" to advocate a "peaceful national response." Tides later replaced the 9/11 Fund with the "Democratic Justice Fund," which was financed in large measure by the Open Society Institute of George Soros, who has donated more than $7 million to Tides over the years. Reciprocally, the Tides Foundation is a major funder of the Shadow Party, a George Soros-conceived nationwide network of several dozen unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left, and which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats.
Obama's 1st Supreme Court Justice
ReplyDelete- Bill Ayers: The Day I Bombed The Pentagon | Sweetness & Light
Obama no clue
ReplyDeleteClueless on Economics
by George Landrith (more by this author)
Posted 10/15/2008 ET
This summer, when oil prices were at all-time highs at more than $140 a barrel, Sen. Barack Obama bitterly complained about big oil, oil speculators, and windfall profits and demanded new taxes on energy. Obama denied the economic principles of supply and demand had driven prices higher. Obama blamed high prices on the greed of big corporations and speculators, and he told America that he alone could fix the problem with new energy taxes and "windfall profits" taxes.
Now oil prices have fallen below $80 a barrel. Experts expect that prices will continue to fall to below $60 a barrel within the next week or two. If it was greed that caused high prices, is it altruism and generosity that have caused prices to drop? Of course not! Market forces of supply and demand drove prices up this summer and more recently those same market forces have driven oil prices down.
Obama got it all wrong. It wasn't greed. It wasn't big oil. It wasn't speculators. There was no need for more energy taxes or a new "windfall profits tax" which would only be paid by consumers at the pump and further shackle the economy. Obama could not have been more simplistic in his analysis or more wrong in his policy pronouncements.
Market forces -- supply and demand -- drove oil prices up this summer. The supply of oil was tight compared to the relatively high demand. Thus, prices rose. As prices rose, market forces encouraged more oil production (more supply) and less demand for oil. Now, with these new market forces in play, oil prices began to drop and have continued to drop. Why is that Obama, with all his high brow Ivy League education, doesn't understand basic concepts taught in any high school economics class?
Make no mistake: Barack Obama has proven over and over again that he just doesn't get it when it comes to the economy. During the summer, his energy plan was to adamantly oppose domestic drilling and -- instead -- to hand out tire gauges to make sure everyone had their tires inflated to the right level.
Here are Obama's own words. “There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy,” Obama said. “Making sure your tires are properly inflated -- simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling -- if everybody was just inflating their tires. And getting regular tune-ups. You'd actually save just as much!” That stands as one of the most stunningly stupid presidential policy pronouncements in modern history.
Obama's energy plan is superficial and naive. He proposes a "windfall profit tax" but fails to define what such a profit is. How does one distinguish an ordinary profit from a "windfall profit"? Even at their record highs, oil company profits are in line with other industrial profit rates -- roughly 9 percent.
So does Obama believe that a 9 percent profit is an "outrageous windfall profit"? If so, should every company that is successful and earns 9 percent or more have the government confiscate those profits as a "windfall profit"? In 2007, the chemical industry earned an average profit of 12.7 percent. The electronics and appliances industry earned 14.5 percent in profits. The computer industry earned profits of 13.7 percent. Are these "windfall profits" that Obama will confiscate? Apparently so.
Berkshire Hathaway, the investment firm founded and run by Warren Buffett, grew its profits by 29 percent from 2006 to 2007. Is that bad? Is that greed?
I wish a few of the Wall Street outfits and banks that are now failing had more profits for 2007. We wouldn't have our current economic problems if these banks and investment firms were as profitable as the energy or electronics or computer industries. If failing banks were as successful as Warren Buffet's gaudy 29 percent profits, we'd all be happy with a record strong economy.
But not Barack Obama. He would be carping about big chemicals, big electronics, big computers, or big Buffet. He would be demanding that government confiscate those profits because, in his own words, profits in excess of 9 percent are "outrageous."
The past month has shown that we should be pulling for banks, investment firms and every company to have what Obama calls "outrageous" profits. Such profits would mean a strong economy, more jobs, and income growth. That is not greed. And it is not bad. It would be welcome good news.
Barack Obama doesn't understand basic economics. And because he doesn't understand the economy, he cannot be trusted to "fix" it. You can't fix something you do not remotely understand. He misunderstood the problem so he prescribed the wrong medicine. Imagine going to a phony doctor who knows nothing about medicine. Would you take the prescriptions he gave? It is no less foolish to trust Obama's economic prescriptions.
Clueless on Economics
ReplyDeleteThis summer, when oil prices were at all-time highs at more than $140 a barrel, Sen. Barack Obama bitterly complained about big oil, oil speculators, and windfall profits and demanded new taxes on energy. Obama denied the economic principles of supply and demand had driven prices higher. Obama blamed high prices on the greed of big corporations and speculators, and he told America that he alone could fix the problem with new energy taxes and "windfall profits" taxes.
Now oil prices have fallen below $80 a barrel. Experts expect that prices will continue to fall to below $60 a barrel within the next week or two. If it was greed that caused high prices, is it altruism and generosity that have caused prices to drop? Of course not! Market forces of supply and demand drove prices up this summer and more recently those same market forces have driven oil prices down.
Obama could not have been more simplistic in his analysis or more wrong in his policy pronouncements.
Market forces -- supply and demand -- drove oil prices up this summer. The supply of oil was tight compared to the relatively high demand. Thus, prices rose. As prices rose, market forces encouraged more oil production (more supply) and less demand for oil. Now, with these new market forces in play, oil prices began to drop and have continued to drop. Ivy League education and no economics, doesn't understand basic concepts taught in any high school economics class?
Adamantly opposes domestic drilling and -- instead -- to hand out tire gauges to make sure everyone had their tires inflated to the right level.
Obama's energy plan is superficial and naive. He proposes a "windfall profit tax" but fails to define what such a profit is. How does one distinguish an ordinary profit from a "windfall profit"? Even at their record highs, oil company profits are in line with other industrial profit rates -- roughly 9 percent.
So does Obama believe that a 9 percent profit is an "outrageous windfall profit"? If so, should every company that is successful and earns 9 percent or more have the government confiscate those profits as a "windfall profit"? In 2007, the chemical industry earned an average profit of 12.7 percent. The electronics and appliances industry earned 14.5 percent in profits. The computer industry earned profits of 13.7 percent. Are these "windfall profits" that Obama will confiscate? Apparently so.
Berkshire Hathaway, the investment firm founded and run by Warren Buffett, grew its profits by 29 percent from 2006 to 2007. Is that bad? Is that greed?
He's carping about big chemicals, big electronics, big computers, or big whatever. He would be demanding that government confiscate those profits because, in his own words, profits in excess of 9 percent are "outrageous."
The past month has shown that we should be pulling for banks, investment firms and every company to have what Obama calls "outrageous" profits. Such profits would mean a strong economy, more jobs, and income growth. That is not greed. And it is not bad. It would be welcome good news.
Barack Obama doesn't understand basic economics. And because he doesn't understand the economy, he cannot be trusted to "fix" it. You can't fix something you do not remotely understand. He misunderstood the problem so he prescribed the wrong medicine. Imagine going to a phony doctor who knows nothing about medicine. Would you take the prescriptions he gave? It is no less foolish to trust Obama's economic prescriptions.
what sonny? more on TIDES, OK
ReplyDeleteTIDES
Tides also set up a Peace Strategies Fund and an Iraq Peace Fund, the latter of which has granted money to such groups as MoveOn.org, the National Council of Churches, the Arab-American Action Network, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the pro-Castro groups United for Peace and Justice and Center for Constitutional Rights. In addition, Tides funds "A Better Way Project," which coordinates the activities of United for Peace and Justice and the Win Without War Coalition/Keep America Safe Campaign.
Tides and the organizations it supports interact closely with one another on a regular basis. For example, Drummond Pike sits on the Board of the Environmental Working Group along with David Fenton, founder of Fenton Communications.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStill all about Obama.
ReplyDeleteFixated upon the leader
Without a good thing to say, to promote the fellow that is falling ever further behind.
Giving up on that game, before the clock has run out.
Since the start of the year, it has been all about Obama, and Obama is still in the lead. Fancy that.
While you all should have been writing the good stuff about the fellow you support, that'd have stood a chance, to turn the tide.
But wait, no one supported the policies of Maverick McCain, just his mythic story.
Now wi"o", amongst many others, are left hoping the latent racism in the US electorate will raise its' head and save Sidney.
But the election does not even appear as if it is going to be a squeaker.
We'll just wash our hands of the whole mess.
ReplyDeleteVote Barr '08
2164th wrote:
ReplyDelete"Ash, try and get your facts straight. The Florida objection was about the Democrats protesting that they lost because they knew they had the dice loaded and thought it was impossible for them to lose in certain precincts. They did not account for the fact that so many of their supporters were too stupid or illiterate to figure out the ballot or the machine."
That's primarily why I put "well two" in parenthesis. Trish hit on the Moonbat gripe, Diebold, in the last POTUS election. Anyway, Rufus said it best when he noted that Obama is running away with it an you're worried about very marginal vote numbers. At least in the last election a little bit of Diebold manipulation would be enough to change the outcome. Not this go around - you'd need an Mugabe style vote to get the change you desire. Mind you, the risk for Obama is that everyone assumes he will win so his supporters don't bother wandering to the polls. There are a lot of Obamaniacs though.
Tony Blankley describes the current state of the Maverick campaign.
ReplyDeleteBut remember, you read it here, first, before there was any chance of confirmation, just based upon 26 years of experience, with John Sidney McCain.
A few days ago, a senior McCain campaign aide was reported to have said that
McCain would rather lose with dignity than win by questionable means.
I hope that isn't Sen. McCain's view because the aide has it exactly backward. If the polls are reasonably accurate, three weeks of John McCain's campaigning is the only thing standing in the way of the American public making the most uninformed presidential decision since the invention of the telegraph.
Chamber, Hells's Angel,Poug slow down and feed smaller parts. Ants can't consume this much in a year..slow down
ReplyDeleteThe hand washing question is important in that the corn lickka won'y get to pig if you don't
use clean parts. Example. We just upgraded to all semi new Ford Truck radiators.
still want more on TIDES, OK.
ReplyDeleteRecent recipients of Tides Foundation grants include: the American Civil Liberties Union; the ACORN Institute; the Agape Foundation; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Amnesty International; the Border Action Network; the Brennan Center for Justice; the Council on American-Islamic Relations Democracy Now!; Earth Day Network; Earth Island Institute; Earthjustice; Environmental Defense; Environmental Media Services; the Environmental Working Group; the Feminist Majority Foundation; Free Press; Funding Exchange; Global Exchange; Grantmakers Without Borders; Grassroots International; Greenpeace; Human Rights First; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Institute for America's Future; Institute for Policy Studies; Institute for Public Accuracy; the Israel Policy Forum; the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy; the Jane Addams Peace Association; the League of Conservation Voters; the League of United Latin American Citizens; the Liberty Hill Foundation; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Mexico Solidarity Network; the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty; the National Lawyers Guild; the National Organization for Women Foundation; the New World Foundation; Nonviolent Peaceforce; the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Oxfam America; the Pacifica Foundation; Peace Action; the Peace Development Fund; People for the American Way; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; Planned Parenthood; the Ploughshares Fund; Population Connection; the Progress Unity Fund; Project Vote; the Proteus Fund; the Public Citizen Foundation; the Rainforest Action Network; the Rainforest Alliance; the Rockefeller Family Fund;
still want more on TIDES, OK.
ReplyDeleteRecent recipients of Tides Foundation grants include: the American Civil Liberties Union the ACORN Institute ; the Agape Foundation; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Amnesty International; the Border Action Network; the Brennan Center for Justice; the Council on American-Islamic Relations Democracy Now!; Earth Day Network; Earth Island Institute; Earthjustice; Environmental Defense; Environmental Media Services; the Environmental Working Group; the Feminist Majority Foundation; Free Press; Funding Exchange; Global Exchange; Greenpeace ; Human Rights First; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Institute for America's Future; Institute for Policy Studies; Institute for Public Accuracy; the Israel Policy Forum; the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy; the Jane Addams Peace Association; the League of Conservation Voters; the League of United Latin American Citizens; the Liberty Hill Foundation; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Mexico Solidarity Network; the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty; the National Lawyers Guild; the National Organization for Women Foundation; the New World Foundation; Nonviolent Peaceforce; the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Oxfam America; the Pacifica Foundation ; Peace Action; the Peace Development Fund; People for the American Way; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; Planned Parenthood; the Ploughshares Fund; Proteus Fund ; the Public Citizen Foundation; the Rainforest Action Network ; the Rainforest Alliance; the Rockefeller Family Fund;
Wed Oct 15, 09:53:00 AM EDT
To bad there are not enough "conservatives", that make money, that then care enough about their own posterity to promote the causes they hold near and dear.
ReplyDeleteNo one wants to finance hand washing clinics, in Philidelphia.
Those that care, share.
A community organizer,
someone that has nothing
and wants to share.
ALL OF THESE ARE HARD LEFT AND ARE POR OBAMA
ReplyDeleteEven the arid left in this blog has to make up stuff but thats what people in the publishing business do..like car dealers and stockbrokers.
ReplyDeleteThat Rockefeller Family, hard core GOP, back in the day.
ReplyDeleteWhy Nelson was even a Republican VP.
That is now considered HARD LEFT.
My, how both perceptions and families change, with time.
OK, Rat, I'll bite.
ReplyDeleteMcCain is not a Muslim.
McCain has not mentored under a race baiter.
McCain doesnt belong to a hate church.
McCain will protect Israel.
McCain will not redistribute wealth.
McCain is not a Marxist.
I like McCain's wife.
I like McCain's running mate.
McCain has character.
Desert Rat dispises him.
McCain is a U.S. citizen.
McCain is a Republican.
McCain doesnt like Basketball.
Above are some of the reason's I and others are voting for McCain. Please notice the half Arab Muslim marxist with hateful wife was not mentioned.
It's too bad the Democratic Party is totally dominated by Socialists and Communists, not to mention their working with foreign governments to bring down the USA. Thats documented. I know you remember "Dear Commandante" And
ReplyDeleteTed "brain scoop" Kennedy working with the KGB:
One of the documents, a KGB report to bosses in the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee, revealed that "In 1978, American Sen. Edward Kennedy requested the assistance of the KGB to establish a relationship" between the Soviet apparatus and a firm owned by former Sen. John Tunney (D.-Calif.). KGB recommended that they be permitted to do this because Tunney's firm was already connected with a KGB agent in France named David Karr. This document was found by the knowledgeable Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats and published in Moscow's Izvestia in June 1992.
Another KGB report to their bosses revealed that on March 5, 1980, John Tunney met with the KGB in Moscow on behalf of Sen. Kennedy. Tunney expressed Kennedy's opinion that "nonsense about 'the Soviet military threat' and Soviet ambitions for military expansion in the Persian Gulf . . . was being fueled by [President Jimmy] Carter, [National Security Advisor Zbigniew] Brzezinski, the Pentagon and the military industrial complex."
A good deal moe on that . just Google Kennedy+Tunney+KGB
The DEms have been working closely with international communists for sixty year: more on KGB and T Kennedy.
ReplyDelete"In May 1983, the KGB again reported to their bosses on a discussion in Moscow with former Sen. John Tunney. Kennedy had instructed Tunney, according to the KGB, to carry a message to Yuri Andropov, the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, expressing Kennedy's concern about the anti-Soviet activities of President Ronald Reagan. The KGB reported "in Kennedy's opinion the opposition to Reagan remains weak. Speeches of the President's opponents are not well-coordinated and not effective enough, and Reagan has the chance to use successful counterpropaganda." Kennedy offered to "undertake some additional steps to counter the militaristic, policy of Reagan and his campaign of psychological pressure on the American population." Kennedy asked for a meeting with Andropov for the purpose of "arming himself with the Soviet leader's explanations of arms control policy so he can use them later for more convincing speeches in the U.S." He also offered to help get Soviet views on the major U.S. networks and suggested inviting "Elton Rule, ABC chairman of the board, or observers Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters to Moscow."
Tunney also told the KGB that Kennedy was planning to run for President in the 1988 elections. "At that time, he will be 56 years old, and personal problems that have weakened his position will have been resolved [Kennedy quietly settled a divorce suit and soon plans to remarry]." Of course the Russians understood his problem with Chappaquiddick. While Kennedy did not intend to run in 1984, he did not exclude the possibility that the Democratic Party would draft him because "not a single one of the current Democratic hopefuls has a real chance of beating Reagan."
This document was first discovered in the Soviet archives by London Times reporter Tim Sebastian and a report on it was published in that newspaper in February 1992.
Sen. Kennedy played a major role during the 1970s in Grafting the restrictions that made it so difficult for the FBI and CIA to do the job of protecting the American people. One of the most pernicious restrictions was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) passed in 1978. President Franklin Roosevelt, in 1940, had ordered the FBI to wiretap Nazis and Communists because they were operating in the United States on behalf of hostile foreign powers. Every President after him used the inherent power of the President to order wiretapping for national security purposes.
Kennedy told the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1976 that "For the last five years, I and others in the Senate have labored unsuccessfully to place some meaningful statutory restrictions on the so-called inherent power of the Executive to engage in surveillance." When Congress discussed legislation to require a court warrant to wiretap enemy agents and terrorists, Kennedy and the ACLU began a campaign to raise the barriers as high as possible. Kennedy introduced the concept in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Bill that required evidence that someone was providing classified information to a foreign intelligence service. Someone who "only" had a clandestine relationship with a foreign intelligence officer and carried out covert influence operations for a foreign power could not be wiretapped. When we see the KGB reports we can understand why Kennedy would want this provision in the law. Kennedy was not a KGB agent. He also was not "a useful idiot" who was used by the KGB without understanding what he was doing. Kennedy was a collaborationist. He aided the KGB for his own political purposes.
Good for you, gag.
ReplyDeleteIt is not worth going down the points one by one, as your mind is made up.
Not one policy is mentioned, you are a true beleiver in the McCain campaign tactical strategy.
It is all about personalties for you.
No mention of Immigration, Global Warming, Carbon Cap & Trade, Campaign Finance, NATO Expansion into the Caucuses, Pakistan, or the Nationalization of the Financial sector of the economy.
Fair enough.
Kennedy offered to "undertake some additional steps to counter the militaristic, policy of Reagan and his campaign of psychological pressure on the American population." Kennedy asked for a meeting with Andropov for the purpose of "arming himself with the Soviet leader's explanations of arms control policy so he can use them later for more convincing speeches in the U.S." He also offered to help get Soviet views on the major U.S. networks and suggested inviting "Elton Rule, ABC chairman of the board, or observers Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters to Moscow."
ReplyDeleteYeah it's too much trouble to have to make up stuff to defend simple points one can just make up, you know lie about like Obama
ReplyDeletePersonalities are a factor. You have your commie type and your pro American type.
ReplyDeleteRight comrade?
workout time
ReplyDelete"Biceps for Freedom"
and to snap heads,
make 'em crackle like dry tender.
Most excellent for you enemies if they get that close.
Some go in the way back machine to the 1980s & 90s to make the Democrats appear to be in bed with the Soviets.
ReplyDeleteWhich they certainly were.
While the trip back, to put Maverick McCain's main man into the KGB sphere of influence, does not need to travel nearly as far.
Just back to 2006, in fact.
Aide Helped Controversial Russian Meet McCain
Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska has been suspected of having ties to organized crime.
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 25, 2008; Page A01
A top political adviser in Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign helped arrange an introduction in 2006 between McCain and a Russian billionaire whose suspected links to anti-democratic and organized-crime figures are so controversial that the U.S. government revoked his visa.
Rick Davis, who is now McCain's campaign manager, helped set up the encounter between McCain and Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska in Switzerland during an international economic conference. At the time, Davis was working for a lobbying firm and seeking to do business with the billionaire.
...
The work of Davis's firm put him on the opposite side of Eastern European politics from McCain, who has spoken out vigorously against what he sees as Putin's attempts to subvert elections in former Soviet republics such as Ukraine.
Davis's firm provided political advice to a pro-Russian party in Ukraine during the parliamentary elections of 2006. McCain, on the other hand, backed President Viktor Yushchenko, a Western-oriented reformer who led 2004's Orange Revolution, which overturned what he and his allies considered an election stolen by the party helped by Davis's firm. McCain visited Ukraine to boost Yushchenko after he won a new election and even nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Deripaska, 40, a former metals trader, is No. 40 on Forbes's billionaires list as owner of two-thirds of the world's largest aluminum producer. He has been accused of shady business practices in lawsuits in the United States and Britain, and his multiple-entry U.S. visa was yanked by the State Department in the summer of 2006.
We all remember how democratic means were used, by the "Pro-Russia" faction, do we not?
Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko first claimed that he had been poisoned in September, when he was admitted to a clinic suffering from stomach pains.
It was only slowly that his face began to change, a mask of lesions and blisters disfiguring the 50-year-old's previously youthful looks.
The Austrian doctors who treated him initially said they could not confirm the cause of the illness.
Food poisoning was the first diagnosis made by Ukrainian doctors on 6 September.
Mr Yushchenko's political opponents suggested he had eaten bad sushi, washed down with too much cognac.
One rival presidential candidate said he always stuck to more patriotic food, such as pork fat and vodka.
And a top aide to President Leonid Kuchma suggested that other members of Mr Yushchenko's team should test his food.
Vote for a clean slate
ReplyDeleteVote for Librarians
Gonna lose, regardless.
DR, your comments are laughable.
ReplyDeleteEveryone on this blog knows you have a deranged, unhealthy attitude towards McCain, which I have said previously, seems personal. Why don't you tell us what he has done to you personally so we can all understand why you hate him so much?
Please refrain from that same ole tired stuff you have been putting out on him for the last several months.
You also seem to think there is something wrong with voting against someone...why is that?
Barr? why don't you right in Alfred E. Neuman??
write in
ReplyDeleteKemmedy, the KGB, and Obama
ReplyDeletePaul Kengor, the author of the New York Times extended-list bestseller God and Ronald Reagan as well as God and George W. Bush and The Crusader
FP: Paul Kengor, welcome back.
Kengor: Always great to be back
FP: We’re here today to revisit Ted Kennedy’s reaching out to the KGB during the Reagan period. Refresh our readers’ memories a bit.
Kengor: The episode is based on a document produced 25 years ago this week. I discussed it with you in our earlier interview back in November 2006. In my book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, I presented a rather eye-opening May 14, 1983 KGB document on Ted Kennedy. The entire document, unedited, unabridged, is printed in the book, as well as all the documentation affirming its authenticity. Even with that, today, almost 25 years later, it seems to have largely remained a secret.
FP: Tell us about this document.
Kengor: It was a May 14, 1983 letter from the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, to the head of the USSR, the odious Yuri Andropov, with the highest level of classification. Chebrikov relayed to Andropov an offer from Senator Ted Kennedy, presented by Kennedy’s old friend and law-school buddy, John Tunney, a former Democratic senator from California, to reach out to the Soviet leadership at the height of a very hot time in the Cold War. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president---Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, “very impressed” with Andropov.
The thrust of the letter is that Reagan had to be stopped, meaning his alleged aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid, needed to be stopped. It was Ronald Reagan who was the hindrance to peace. That view of Reagan is consistent with things that Kennedy said and wrote at the time, including articles in sources like Rolling Stone (March 1984) and in a speeches like his March 24, 1983 remarks on the Senate floor the day after Reagan’s SDI speech, which he lambasted as “misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes.”
Even more interesting than Kennedy’s diagnosis was the prescription: According to Chebrikov, Kennedy suggested a number of PR moves to help the Soviets in terms of their public image with the American public. He reportedly believed that the Soviet problem was a communication problem, resulting from an inability to counter Reagan’s (not the USSR’s) “propaganda.” If only Americans could get through Reagan’s smokescreen and hear the Soviets’ peaceful intentions.
So, there was a plan, or at least a suggested plan, to hook up Andropov and other senior apparatchiks with the American media, where they could better present their message and make their case. Specifically, the names of Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters are mentioned in the document. Also, Kennedy himself would travel to Moscow to meet with the dictator.
Time was of the essence, since Reagan, as the document privately acknowledged, was flying high en route to easy re-election in 1984.
Did you have the document vetted?
Kengor: Of course. It comes from the Central Committee archives of the former USSR. Once Boris Yeltsin took over Russia in 1991, he immediately began opening the Soviet archives, which led to a rush on the archives by Western researchers. One of them, Tim Sebastian of the London Times and BBC, found the Kennedy document and reported it in the February 2, 1992 edition of the Times, in an article titled, “Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file.”
But this electrifying revelation stopped there; it went no further. Never made it across the Atlantic. Not a single American news organization, from what I can tell, picked up the story. Apparently, it just wasn’t interesting enough, nor newsworthy.
Western scholars, however, had more integrity, and responded: they went to the archives to procure their own copy. So, several copies have circulated for a decade and a half.
I got my copy when a reader of Frontpage Magazine, named Marko Suprun, whose father survived Stalin’s 1930s genocide in the Ukraine, alerted me to the document. He apparently had spent years trying to get the American media to take a look at the document, but, again, our journalists simply weren’t intrigued. He knew I was researching Reagan and the Cold War. He sent me a copy. I first authenticated it through Herb Romerstein, the Venona researcher and widely respected expert who knows more about the Communist Party and archival research beyond the former Iron Curtain than anyone. I also had a number of scholars read the original and the translation, including Harvard’s Richard Pipes.
Of course, all of those steps were extra, extra, extra precautions, since the reporter for the London Times had done all that work in the first place. He went into the archive, pulled it off the shelf, and the Times ran with the story. This wasn’t rocket science. I simply wanted to be extra careful, especially since our media did not cover it at all. I now understand that that blackout by the American media was the result of liberal bias. At first I didn’t think our media could be that bad, even though I knew from studies and anecdotal experience that our press is largely liberal, but now I’ve learned firsthand that the bias is truly breathtaking.
So what shockwaves did your exposure of this document set off in the media?
Kengor: Well, I thought it would be a bombshell, which it was, but only within the conservative media.
I prepared myself to be pilloried by the liberal mainstream media, figuring I’d be badgered with all kinds of hostile questions from defenders of Ted Kennedy. I still, at this very moment, carry photocopies and the documentation with me in my briefcase, ready for access at a moment’s notice. I’ve done that for two years now. The pages may soon begin to yellow.
I need not have bothered with any of this prep, since the media entirely ignored the revelation. In fact, the major reviewers didn’t even review the book. It was the most remarkable case of media bias I’ve ever personally experienced.
I couldn’t get a single major news source to do a story on it. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC. Not one covered it.
The only cable source was FoxNews, Brit Hume’s “Grapevine,” and even then it was only a snippet in the round-up. In fact, I was frustrated by the occasional conservative who didn’t run with it. I did a taping with Hannity & Colmes but they never used it, apparently because they were so focused on the mid-term elections, to the exclusion of almost any other story or issue. The Hannity & Colmes thing was a major blow; it could’ve propelled this onto the national scene, forcing the larger media to take note. That was the single greatest disappointment. I think Sean Hannity might have felt that I wasn’t hard enough on Senator Kennedy during the interview. He asked me, for instance, if what Kennedy did could be classified as treason. I told him honestly, as a scholar, that I really couldn’t answer that question. I honestly don’t know the answer to that; I’m not a constitutional scholar. I don’t have the legal background to accuse someone of being a traitor. I was trying to be as fair as possible.
If I may vent just a little more on the mainstream press. There’s a bias there that really is incredibly troubling. Over and over again, I’ve written and submitted the most careful op-eds, trying to remove any partisan edge, on issues like Reagan and Gorbachev privately debating the removal of the Berlin Wall (I have de-classified documents on this in The Crusader as well), on Reagan’s fascinating relationship with RFK, on various aspects of the Cold War that are completely new, based on entirely new evidence from interviews and archives. When I submit these op-ed to the major newspapers, they almost always turn them down. The first conservative source that I send them to always jump at them. The liberals, however, are very close-minded. Nothing is allowed to alter the template. You can construct the most fair, iron-tight case, and they turn it down. This is not true for everything I write on the Cold War era, but no doubt for most of it. And certainly for the case of Senator Kennedy and this KGB document.
How about trying to place some op-eds on the Kennedy document?
Kengor: Here again, all the mainstream sources turned me down. I had no alternative but to place the op-eds in the conservative outlets. Liberal editors blacklisted the piece. I began by sending a piece to the New York Times, where the editor is David Shipley, who’s extremely fair, and in fact has published me before, including a defense I wrote on the faith of George W. Bush. This one, however, he turned down. He liked it. It certainly had his intention. But he said he wouldn’t be able to get it into the page.
I sent it to the Boston Globe, three or four times, actually. I got no response or even the courtesy of an acknowledgment. It was as if the piece was dispatched to the howling wilderness of Siberia—right into the gulag—airbrushed from history.
The most interesting response I got was from the editorial page editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, another very fair liberal, a great guy, who since then has retired. He published me several times. We went back and forth on this one. Finally, he said something to the effect, “I just can’t believe that Ted Kennedy would do something this stupid.” My reply was, “Well, he apparently did.” I told the editor that if he was that incredulous, then he or someone on his staff should simply call Kennedy’s office and get a response. Hey, let’s do journalism and make news! It never happened.
For the record, one news source, a regional cable outlet in the Philadelphia area, called CN8, took the time to call Kennedy’s office. The official response from his office was not to deny the document but to argue with the interpretation. Which interpretation? Mine or Chebrikov’s? Kennedy’s office wasn’t clear on that. My interpretation was not an interpretation. I simply tried to report what Chebrikov reported to Andropov. So, I guess Kennedy’s office was disputing Chebrikov’s interpretation, which is quite convenient, since Chebrikov is dead, as is Andropov. Alas, the perfect defense—made more perfect by an American media that will not ask the senator from Massachusetts a single question (hard or soft) on this remarkable incident.
So, Kennedy’s office/staff did not deny the document?
Kengor: That’s correct. They have not denied it. That’s important. Because if none of this had ever happened, and if the document was a fraud, Kennedy’s office would simply say so, and that would be the end of it.
FP: Tell us about the success the book has had in the recent past and the coverage it has received outside of the U.S.
Kengor: The paperback rights were picked up by the prestigious HarperPerennial in 2007, which I’m touting not to pat myself on the back but to affirm my point on why our mainstream press should take the book and the document seriously. The book has also been or is in the process of being translated into several foreign-language editions, including Poland, where it was released last November. It is literally true that more Polish journalists have paid attention to the Kennedy revelation than American journalists. I’ve probably sold about 20 times more copies of the book in Poland, where they understand communism and moral equivalency, than in Massachusetts.
FP: One can just imagine finding a document like this on an American Republican senator having made a similar offer to the Nazis. Kennedy has gotten away with this. What do you think this says about our culture, the parameters of debate and who controls the boundaries of discourse?
Kengor: History is determined by those who write it. There are the gatekeepers: editors, journalists, publishers. The left’s ideologues are guarding the gate, swords brandished, crusaders, not open to other points of view. The result is a total distortion of “history,” as the faithful and the chosen trumpet their belief in tolerance and diversity, awarding prizes to one another, disdainful and dismissive of the unwashed barbarians outside the gate.
You can produce a 550-page manuscript with 150-pages of single-space, 9-point footnotes, and it won’t matter. They could care less.
So, this historical revelation is not a revelation?
Kengor: That’s right, because it is not impacting history—because gatekeepers are ignoring it.
Another reason why the mainstream media may be ignoring this: as I make clear in the book, this KGB document could be the tip of the iceberg, not just with Kennedy but other Democrats. John Tunney himself alluded to this in an interview with the London Times reporter. That article reported that Tunney had made many such trips to Moscow, with additional overtures, and on behalf of yet more Democratic senators. Given that reality, I suppose we should expect liberal journalists to flee this story like the plague—at least those too biased to do their jobs
For the record, I’ve been hard on liberal journalists in this article, and rightly so. But there are many good liberal journalists who do real research and real reporting. And it’s those that need to follow up on this. I’m a conservative, and so I’m not allowed into the club. Someone from inside the boys’ club needs to step up to the plate.
Kengor: Obviously, as you know and suggest, this does not apply to all Democrats, needless to say. But there are many liberal Democrats who were dupes during the Cold War and now are assuming that role once again in the War on Terror. President Carter comes to mind, as does John Kerry, as does Ted Kennedy, to name only a few. When I read President Carter’s recent thoughts on Hamas, it transported me back to 1977 and his stunning statements on the Iranian revolution, or to 1979 and his remarks on the Soviets and Afghanistan. Many of these liberals and their supporters on the left literally see the conservative Republican in the Oval Office as a greater threat to the world than the insane dictators overseas that the likes of Reagan and George W. Bush were/are trying to stop. That’s not an exaggeration. Just ask them.
History is repeating itself, which can happen easily when those tasked to report and record it fail to do so because of their political biases.
Thank you for joining us.
Thank you
DR,
ReplyDeletePlease defend Kennedy's cooperation with the KGB. He's one of your leaders...defend him, go ahead.
Called DR out huh? Yeah but he won't, he can't. Who could.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, one news source, a regional cable outlet in the Philadelphia area, called CN8, took the time to call Kennedy’s office. The official response from his office was not to deny the document but to argue with the interpretation. Which interpretation? Mine or Chebrikov’s? Kennedy’s office wasn’t clear on that. My interpretation was not an interpretation. I simply tried to report what Chebrikov reported to Andropov. So, I guess Kennedy’s office was disputing Chebrikov’s interpretation, which is quite convenient, since Chebrikov is dead, as is Andropov. Alas, the perfect defense—made more perfect by an American media that will not ask the senator from Massachusetts a single question (hard or soft) on this remarkable incident.
ReplyDeleteSo, Kennedy’s office/staff did not deny the document?
Kengor: That’s correct. They have not denied it. That’s important. Because if none of this had ever happened, and if the document was a fraud, Kennedy’s office would simply say so, and that would be the end of it.
McCain is a Federal Socialist.
ReplyDeleteThat is all it takes, that and he does it in my name.
The straw that broke the camels back
This is a charity the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, which Col. Happersett and I were raising money for, back in 2003. Maverick McCain sits on the Board.
Despite numerous assurances of support and promises made, Team Maverick could not get a letter of support to the Col Happersett. Guess Ms Cindy was to busy to type it out, for John Sidney.
Then, just this year, in Daytona, Cindy had no prolem getting Dale Earnhardt Jr behind the wheel of a camo painted Budweiser race car.
The value to the charity did not matter to the McCain's, just the political advantage they could derive from their participation.
Now, if you want to do the "right" thing, send your McCain campaign donation to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, they'll use the money, wisely.
For more than 28 years, the Special Operations Warrior Foundation has provided full college scholarship grants, not loans, along with financial aid and educational counseling to surviving children of Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps special operations personnel who were killed in an operational mission or training accident.
For the second year in a row, the Special Operations Warrior Foundation has been awarded a four-star rating from Charity Navigator, the nation's leading charity watchdog group. It's Charity Navigator's highest rating for financial efficiency. The Special Operations is just one of four veterans services and advocacy charities that have earned at least two consecutive four-star rating.
The Special Operations Warrior Foundation is also the recipient of the coveted Best in America Seal through the Combined Federal Campaign. This seal of excellence is awarded to members of the Independent Charities of America and Local Independent Charities of America that have, upon rigorous independent review, been able to certify, document, and demonstrate on an annual basis that they meet the highest standards of public accountability, program effectiveness and cost effectiveness.
As for me, personality trumps policy every time.
ReplyDeleteA mistaken policy can change.
A flawed personality usually, usually, can't.
Not without a strike of lightning, or a revelation.
Lots of interesting stuff there, Habu.
I am no Democrat, habu, nor do I support Teddy.
ReplyDeleteNot at all.
But he is dying, so there is not much more that needs to be said.
Let's see you defend Mr Davis, as he is more germaine to the election than Teddy Kennedy ever was.
Going straight to the heart of McCain's character.
ReplyDeleteThat he looks into Mr Davis's eyes and sees dollar signs
Exactly right, bob.
ReplyDeleteI know who John McCain is.
Even Mrs Palin is still asking about Barack Obama, because she does not know, fer sure.
But then, I'll not vote for Obama, either.
Do not reccomend that anyone does.
ReplyDeleteRat
ReplyDeleteFair enough. If you have posted those facts previously, I missed them. However, those are your issues, not mine. I'm voting against Obama and I will do that by voting for McCain.
What applies to 10-year-olds also applies to presidential candidates
ReplyDelete"Character if fate."
Charater Matters
I have mentioned it before, but I did not expect it to sway your decision.
ReplyDeleteBecause it is perfectly reasonable position to take, the one you do.
I certainly do not hold it against you, gag.
But it will not win the election, in the Electoral College.
So, the question, for me, is how to swing the GOP towards the Ron Paul revolution solution?
ReplyDeleteVoting McCain will not begin that process.
That much I know, fer sure.
Barr? why don't you right in Alfred E. Neuman??
ReplyDeleteHe's not available.
Got a job.
With the power company.
Now a lineman.
Keeps your internet and a/c goin'
Had his mind made up a long time ago. Along with most folks, here and elsewhere.
Obama flunks the test in the policy areas too. Badly. I can't think of anything I agree with on, except that race shouldn't matter. But, that sounds like a slogan, when you've sat with the Rev Wright.
ReplyDeleteThat stuff posted above about "excess oil profits" posted above was good.
But, now we are in the area of "excess altruism" by the oil companies. And an F-150 doesn't look quite so stupid. All thanks to the altruism of the oil companies. Attacking the oil companies is like killing the goose that lays the golden egg, in this day and age. We need them. We need more of them. We need their expertise.
Burma Shave!
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that McCain is more popular in TN, +15.7, than he is in AZ, +11.3.
ReplyDeleteMust be more anti-Obama sentiment, there, than pro-McCain sentiment here.
The Republican Party is going to undergo some changes, after this election, assuming McCain loses. I'm going in the Palin Jindal direction myself. For now.
ReplyDelete"Never shake an arab by the left hand."
old Zoroastrian adage
Exactly right, again, bob.
ReplyDeleteTogether the DC elites will kill the goose, then there'll be far fewer golden eggs.
Voting for the status que just reinforces the Federal Socialists in power, now and tomorrow.
If your hands
ReplyDeleteAre grimy
Your whiskers dirty
Your wife is flirty
Think Burma Shave
But he is dying, so there is not much more that needs to be said.
ReplyDeleteCOP OUT TOTALLY..we've got plenty of already dead people who have affected the world and done great evil.
If you are a Republican you represent one of the queerest branches. As is often said, With Republicans like you .....why aren't you just a Socialist Democrat, you defend them like a mother lioness protects he cubs, but I have RARELY if ever heard you say ONR positive thing about the Republicans. I have serious doubts about the verasity of your philosophical coincidence with Republican values.
I guess we can be thankful you don't run a skydiving business and pack the chutes.
Botom line go ahead and defend Kennedy. You slam every Republican I can recall living or dead, now you're demurring and mincing about a dying Communist/KGB collaborator?
Come on buck-o.
Some would advocate voting for McCain, then going to guns when he loses.
ReplyDeleteSeems defeatist, to me.
While the System can still be gamed.
My vote for "Best Burma Shave Highway" goes to US/State Route 2 out of Spokane to Wenatchee. Miles of it, all gone now.
ReplyDelete"Voting for the status que(sic) just reinforces the Federal Socialists in power, now and tomorrow"
ReplyDelete435 House members are up for reelection and 1/3rd of the US Senate plus the Presidency.
The people have all the choice in the world. Tell me you've never voted for the same candidate twice in a row? so that your big change can come about.
I have no cause to defend a Kennedy, but YOU should have cause to defend Rick Davis, campaign manager for Team Maverick, and his KGB connections.
ReplyDeleteThey are today's news, not yesterdays
When I was critical of GWBush and the War on Terror, he eventually came around, admitted he/we had been on the wrong course, in Iraq. Then he moved in my direction, kinda.
Now there is a withdrawal horizon and Iraq is being policed by Iraqis.
Good news.
The Democrats and the Republicans peas in a pod, habu. Peas in a pod.
Go shuck some more peas, amigo.
Character matters alot. But, a few years of life will show you nobody's perfect, all are flawed.
ReplyDeleteMcCain wins on character, and policy. Rebuild the Republican Party if there is a loss. Stick with it now.
One of scariest things about the Zero is how some fools think they see a halo about the guy. It's amazing. Our college liberal arts divisions must not be worth a shit, these days.
Well, soon, with Obama, we may have 'universal college education' which will mean that nobody will really know anything.
Sure did vote twice for the same fellow, habu
ReplyDeleteJohn Shadegg and GWBush.
Proves my point, I'm sorry to say.
"While the System can still be gamed."
ReplyDeleteCOP OUT
All systems can be gamed. Heck you know perfectly well that Obama is gaming the system with massive help from the MSM and yet you NEVER EVER mention anything remotely anti Obama. Your focus is always to cover his ass and criticize the Republicans.
You know it and everybody who reads you knows it.
To my knowledge you have never even limned a comprehensive political position. Have you? You're simply a termite Republican, while ACTIVELY giving support to the other party.
Too bad we have secret ballots and you can't verify that because it's impossible for a realistic person to believe it. If it proves anything it is that you are the fairest of fair weather supporters...because all you have done is complain about every aspect of G, Bush. Et Tu Brutus? As I said, please don't pack my parachute.
ReplyDeleteLook, I've want to go workout and you've exhausted you crdibility so ..later.
ReplyDeleteI leave the anti Obama stuff to you and duece. It gets more than a fair shake, here.
ReplyDeleteBut pro-Obama, find me the post, amigo, find the post.
Unless being anti-McCain is pro-Obama, but I reject that, out of hand. Being anti-Obama, as so many are at the Bar, does not make a pro-McCain argument.
Just an anti-Obama one.
With which I agree, but do not pile on. So that when McCain loses, we'll all still be US citizens, united.
A position that Maverick McCain himslf supports, telling US all that Obama is fair, decent and qualified.
O Damn! Put Me On A Suicide Watch! Palin Campaigns At The Gallipolis, Ohio Wal-Mart. Hell! That's A Skip And A Jump For My Wife's Place.
ReplyDeleteKnew I should have got my ass back there. Might have met her, told her how much I admire her and her family. How she best not get a halo around her head.
Gallipolis is pronounced more or less like gal-police
Look, I really want to go work out and you'er bereft of any realistic credibility so ..... later
ReplyDeleteHere's the problem as I see it. In six, or twelve months when we start trying to come out of this recession energy prices will rise and push us right back into another one.
ReplyDeleteUnemployment is getting ready to go through the roof.
Even during the recession we're going to be Shipping $700 Million overseas for oil Every Day.
There's something we can do; and we need to get started on it, Right Now.
The little county of 100,000 that I live in has a landfill. We carry about 300 tons of waste out there every day. That will produce about 9 Million gallons of ethanol/yr.
The landfill is surrounded by marginal land. We could plant switchgrass on a 4 mile square area around the landfill and produce another 24 Million Gallons of ethanol Every Year.
The cost of this ethanol will be about $1.50/gal.
Thirty Three Million Gallons, and my little county will no longer be Importing Oil from Anywhre.
We Have this technology. These plants are building now, as we speak. See: bluefire - Range fuels.
3,000 Counties, 3,000 plants
ReplyDeleteProbably 2 Million Jobs in the manufacturing, and construction, and 150,000 jobs in the farm sector.
And, cheap fuel, worldwide.
In the Great Depression we built a "Courthouse" in every county. During this one, we can build a "Moonshine" still.
ReplyDeleteHas a certain "Poetry" to it, doesn't it?
No defense of Mr Davis and those KGB dollar signs,
ReplyDeletewe can see in his eyes, aye.
rufus is right, they are producing ethanol, in India, for under $1.00 per gallon.
We could do it here, if the DC elites were serious and not in the pockets of the Sauds.
Follow the money, to Dubai, do not listen to the rhetoric. Performance counts.
Proven technologies, today.
Not empty promises of technological break throughs, tomorrow.
Distileries could be open in a year, 18 months. The 250 million vehicle fleet will run, just fine, on an E/30 blend.
Cutting imported oil, for fluid fuel, needs by almost a third.
We have landfills here too, of course. But I think there'd be too much local opposition to getting anything done around the universities, where the ability to bitch bitch bitch is high, the ability to do something is low.
ReplyDeleteWhy aren't the waste to ethanol plants up and running now? Does it require top down government planning because its cost makes it unfeasible for private industry to take it on?
ReplyDeleteBrazil turned their fleet to flexfuel on a dime. They simply told the automakers you have 6 months to be making all flexfuels, or we're nationalizing your asses. Made it with time to spare.
ReplyDeleteIt costs about $35.00 for the auto company to make a car "flexfuel."
The Majority of the miles driven are by cars less than 7 years old.
And, this is going to Enrage a few of you; but, we have a better chance of getting something like this done under an Obama Presidency than a McCain one.
ReplyDeleteThere are plants overseas, but it seems that the margins on the product are quite thin, from a manufacturing business model.
ReplyDeleteThen add in the credit squeeze, permiting and approvals. Then competition from Federal subsidized corn ethanol and then the oil companies not having been mandated to sell the blends, as production capacity becomes available.
The US can Nationalize US Banks in a week, but not the oil companies.
At least not this go around,
but maybe next.
The oil companies have done a "Masterful" job of "Miseducation," Ash.
ReplyDeleteThe Last thing you want is Government "Planning;" but the Municipalities/Counties need to know the technology is "there," and the ability to raise money (sell bonds) has to be available.
The Gov can play an important (vital) role in helping organize the farmers by guaranteeing a market.
By the way, ALL the gov programs necessary to a program like this ARE in place, NOW.
ReplyDeleteThe Univ of Ten is doing something similar, as we speak. This WiLL all get done - eventually.
The smart thing would be to Get ahead of the Curve. Instead of using a program like this to claw our way OUT OF a Depression we need to do this to Stay Out Of said Depression.
By the way, virtually ALL cars built in the last 15 years can be made "flexfuel" with a simple "Reflash" of the computer. All the Plumbing is fine.
ReplyDeleteAnd, Rat is right. ALL CARS run fine on E30. It's like running super, super unleaded. You're talking 92, or 94 Octane, depending on the gasoline you started with.
ReplyDeleteThe only difference is most all cars will get a little bump in hp, and most will get slightly better gas mileage. (If you "Keep your Foot in it" you won't.)
Oh, and your engine will last longer. You see, ethanol is what they always called "detergent" in their advertisements.
Good day! I simply wish to give a huge thumbs up for the nice data you have got here on this post.
ReplyDeleteI can be coming again to your blog for extra soon.
Also visit my web-site ... amd sempron 1800 vs intel
Whats up! I simply would like to give an enormous thumbs up for the
ReplyDeletegood data you have got here on this post. I can be coming again
to your blog for extra soon.
My web-site - distance between seoul airports