“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Shameless Bias By Omission

http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/shameless-bias-omission
By
 L. Brent Bozell III
You’d think the largest legal action in American history in defense of religious liberty would be a major news story. But ABC, CBS, and NBC don’t judge news events by their inherent importance as relates to the future of our freedoms. They deliver the news according to a simple formula: Does it, or doesn’t it, advance the re-election of Barack Obama?

If it doesn’t, it isn’t news.
 On May 21, 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations sued the Obama administration over its ridiculously narrow idea of how a “religious institution” can be defined under their ObamaCare law. Never has the Catholic Church – or any order, for that matter – undertaken something of this magnitude. It’s truly jaw-dropping that ABC and NBC completely ignored this action on their evening newscasts, while “CBS Evening News” devoted just 19 seconds to this historic event.

No, let’s be blunt: They spiked the news.

This is the worst example of shameless bias by omission I have seen in the quarter-century history of the Media Research Center. We recall the Chinese communists withholding from its citizenry for 20 years the news that the U.S. had landed on the moon, because it reflected poorly on their government. Never, never would the U.S. “news” media behave thusly.

They just did.
 This is not an honest mistake. It was not an editorial oversight by the broadcast networks. It did not occur too late for the evening deadline. This was a deliberate and insidious withholding of national news to protect the “Chosen One” who ABC, CBS and NBC have worked so hard to elect and for whom they are now abusing their journalistic influence. Even when CBS mentioned  the suit ever-so-briefly, like so many others, they deliberately distorted the issue by framing it as a contraception lawsuit when it is much broader, a religious freedom issue – and they know it.

 This should be seen as a very dark cloud on Obama’s political horizon. The Catholic Church, with 60 million Americans describing themselves as Catholic, has unleashed legal Armageddon on the administration, promising “we will not comply” with a health law that strips Catholics of their religious liberty. If this isn't “news,” then there's no such thing as news.

 This should be leading newscasts and the subject of special, in-depth reports. So what trumped this story? ABC led their evening broadcast and devoted an incredible three minutes and 30 seconds to the sentencing of the Rutgers student who spied on his gay roommate with a web camera. NBC aired an entire story on a lunar eclipse. Both CBS and NBC devoted their first three and a half minutes to prostate-cancer screening.

 Catholic taxpayers who help fund National Public Radio were also ignored on the evening newscast with that sad joke of a title – “All Things Considered.”
If only some deceased priest had been accused of sexual improprieties in 1953…then Catholics would be seen as newsworthy. These “news” operations can’t argue these are more important stories than the loss of religious freedom in America.

The print press isn't much better. For the Washington Post, there was a little one-column story buried on page A6. That fishwrap known as USA Today had a really tiny headline and 128-word item at the very bottom of A2. The New York Times had a perfunctory 419-word dispatch on page A17.

 Two pages later, the Times defined as “news” what it prefers to report on Catholics: “2 Philadelphia Priests Punished in Sexual Abuse Cases.” The paper noted one priest has been suspended from ministry for two years and the other had been placed on leave in December based on abuse that occurred about 40 years ago. This wasn’t really “news” as a current matter, but this is always and everywhere the bigoted narrative the Times prefers to perpetuate.

 Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops used the word “horror” to describe what Team Obama is mandating. On the only broadcast show to give Catholics some coverage, CBS This Morning anchor Charlie Rose asked Dolan if the White House misled him on this issue. Dolan began by saying he hesitated to question the president’s sincerity – even though anyone who heard Obama’s 2009 commencement speech at Notre Dame about “honoring the conscience” of his opponents on abortion has proven he is completely insincere.

The cardinal said “I worry, Charlie, that members of his administration might not particularly understand our horror at the restrictive nature of this exemption that they're giving us, that for the first time that we can remember, a bureau of the federal government seems to be radically intruding into the internal definition of what a church is. We can't seem to get that across.”

He’s not finding much help getting anything across from those supposed “mediators” of the national press corps.

143 comments:

  1. Deuce,
    I have no idea how to make the link thing work in the New Blogger Setup.

    Some script brings my computer to a halt.

    Is there any way to publish with the old system?

    ReplyDelete
  2. What horseshit. If the Catholic Church wants to employ people they have to follow the law of the land in doing so. They're not asking for "freedom;" they're demanding a Theocracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bullshit. No one has to work for the Catholic Church. Go work for Planned Parenthood.

      b

      Delete
    2. If they get away with it, anyone can get away with it. They're just playing to the cheap seats. They're lawsuit has no chance, and they know it.

      Delete
    3. http://www.nativeamericanchurch.com/law.html

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1996a

      You would probably support this religious right, Rufus.

      Native American Church and peyote use.

      But peyote use isn't the law of the land, unless it's radically changed since I last read about it.

      b

      Delete
    4. The Native American Church is hardly trying to demand a theocracy.

      b

      Delete
    5. I think Everyone should have the right to use peyote.

      Delete
    6. .

      If they get away with it, anyone can get away with it. They're just playing to the cheap seats. They're lawsuit has no chance, and they know it.

      More nonsense.

      Let's face it Ruf, the only constitutional issue you are aware of or care about it the second amendment.

      :)


      If the Church is granted standing and their suit is allowed to proceed it will likely end up in the Supreme Court and when it does I expect their position will win.

      It's a basic 1st Amendment issue, IMO.

      .

      Delete
    7. .

      What horseshit. If the Catholic Church wants to employ people they have to follow the law of the land in doing so. They're not asking for "freedom;" they're demanding a Theocracy.

      Theocracy? More nonsense. I have heard this garbage here before.


      Follow the law of the land? Not if the law of the land is struck down as unconstitutional.

      .

      Delete
    8. It IS up to the Supremes. If the law goes down the church is off the hook. If the law stands the church will have to abide.

      Delete
    9. Another DAMN GOOD REASON to vote for ROMNEY.

      Most people have no idea what an Obama majority court could do, the damage it could inflict.

      b

      Delete
  3. NYSE Euronext is seeking to capitalize on Nasdaq OMX Group Inc.'s role in Facebook Inc.'s bungled offering, renewing efforts to lure more stock listings to its exchange and persuade Nasdaq-listed companies to switch to the Big Board.

    A person familiar with the matter said NYSE had sounded out Facebook, exchanging "several emails" with the company, raising the possibility of moving to the Big Board.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/feds-question-rosemond-768095


    Drug suspect questioned about Sharpton, etal.


    Comments


    Todd
    So Not-So-Sharpton gets his money via drug dealers and racial shakedowns of businesses. I'm shocked.

    David
    As I remember, mobster Michael Franzese in his autobiography called Al Sharpton an asset of the Gambino crime family.

    Nicholas
    So THAT's how Al Not Too Sharpton lost all that weight so as to fit into his chair at PMSNBC: Coke is the pause that refreshes, eh Al?

    Darryl
    As the saying goes, you're known by the company you keep, right Rev. Al?

    Steven
    Unless you're Obama. Then, the company you've kept for decades and even keep today is "off limits", even if you actually say in one of your speeches that judging you by the company you've kept makes sense.

    Artie
    Maybe that explains why Rev Al is looking so gaunt these days.

    John
    Aids will do that to you.

    Brian
    Al Sharpton, Diddy, and Wyclef Jean... The murders of Biggie and Tupac... this stuff is deep.

    Kevin
    Knowing things and telling them are 2 vastly differing things. Suppose he does know about shenanigans that Sharpton and Combs are involved in. Does anyone really believe that he would roll on them?

    Tim
    Maybe al "the racist" sharpton could borrow 300k from this drug dealer so he can pay his back taxes.

    How come Jessie Jackson isn't included in this investigation.

    Leonard
    They'll all pull out the race card and lawyer up with hot shot lawyers.

    Larry
    The Game has guns? I never would have expected that. Nobody has guns in America!

    Jan
    Birds of a feather flock together.

    Bill
    Is this suppose to be surprising?

    Evald
    Um, yeah, ok.

    Until they prove all of this, or any of this, I'll take it as hearsay and move along. Tired of people being tried in the court of public opinion before they are completely tried in a court of law. It taints the juries, turns the trial into a circus, a la OJ, and gets nothing done other than a public lynching before the facts are in.

    Just make sure you put the evidence on the table once all is said and done so we, the people, can know justice was done, or a travesty was committed.

    Does that apply to the Trayvon/Zimmerman case. 4 witnesses have changed their stories, coincidence or intimidation? Will we ever know?

    Evald
    Yes it does apply. That fiasco is a delight on the level of a sabertoothed crotch cricket with rabies.

    And I doubt it, too much riding on the outcome for the racebaiters. They need a race war to justify themselves, or else all the blather about white versus black turns their power & ego trips into empty vessels with no one willing to fill them and follow them.

    Bill
    Well said Eval


    Who would have believed a Reverend could get involved in stuff like this!

    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who would ever believe Al Sharpton was a "reverand?"

      Delete
    2. There is another guy I know in the rental business here that I communicate with frequently. All of a sudden we noticed he was now Dr. Guy M.....


      This change occurred after he had gotten out of jail for growing dope in his home, in front of his children, an enhanced charge.

      We wrote a letter to the court saying what a good neighbor and honest business man he was. Might have done some good too, as he was only in four months. Getting out just in time to do the snow plowing.

      We have wanted to ask him about the change, then decided it wasn't any of our business. Drives a Corvette.

      b

      Delete
  5. Kill your TV, go to talk radio.

    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RedEye Radio will do.

      b

      Delete
  6. I'm taking my redeye to bed. Curious to see what Nat Gas does tomorrow. later.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry on phone at moment but go read Dowd's editorial at NYTimes.com re headline post!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tried but the Times demands I subscribe and I'm not doing it.

      Can you post it so us rubes can read it here?

      b

      Delete
    2. All Ash has to do is put down some key words from her piece, you plug them into Google, and Voila!

      You get free access to the piece via that link.

      You'll notice outside links from Drudge and others still work also.

      Cool trick I learned over a year ago.

      Shoulda told you guys.

      Delete
  8. “I say the problem is not that we don’t get along,” Coburn said last week. “We get along too well.

    Government is twice the size it was 10 years ago. The president can’t spend the money if we don’t appropriate it.

    ...

    Coburn’s right. And when we look to the promise of 2013, that’s what has us worried.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The dessert course for Germany will be a commitment to boost its own domestic demand, by cutting taxes and boosting public spending. And this needs to be combined with an extended period of higher inflation in the largest eurozone economy.

    Without this, Germany's weaker neighbours will never be able to increase their exports, pay down debt and make their labour markets competitive within the eurozone.

    And if Europe's leaders are not prepared to swallow that? Well, in that case they should really ask the waiter for the bill – for the break-up of the single currency.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Perhaps the Catholic Church, which often seems to back economic "fairness" rather than market freedom, will be more sensitive to the intrusions of the state in economic choice. This episode exhibits how economic freedom is intricately tied to all other liberties.

    When the state creates virtual monopolies through regulatory regimes, it also gets to decide what is moral and necessary and compels everyone to act accordingly.

    And though I'm not interested in having the Catholic Church dictate the moral contours of my life, I am equally uninterested in having the Obama administration do it. And the dogmatism of the left -- though not driven by God and though, culturally speaking, I may occasionally agree with it -- is no less intrusive, whatever you might make of contraception.


    Contraception

    ReplyDelete
  11. .

    This article gets to the heart of the matter, Sam; whereas, the Dowd article referenced above merely offers up expediancy and special pleading, red herrings and straw men. Dowd is an ex-Catholic and her animus for the Church is well known and she has good reason in many cases. However, even if every charge she levels were true, they would still be irrelevent with regard to the lawsuit.

    Dowd bemoans the sex abuse scandals in the Church and it's sexist approach to women. True but irrelevent. She goes into detail on how many if not most U.S. Catholics ignore the Church's teachings on a number of issues including contraception. True (U.S. Catholic's are one of the more liberal Christian groups) but it is still irrelevent.

    Dowd asserts that the lawsuits are an assault on contraception. This is the propaganda line being pushed by the left. As pointed out, in the Reason article linked here, most people are only about 10 minutes away from being able to buy all the contraceptives they want. No one is denied access. Cost prohibitive? Bullshit. What does it cost for birth control per month? Less than $10 I would imagine.

    Don't tell me insurance not paying for contraceptives is a major factor. Nearly 100% of Americans have cell phones. Over 50% have smart phones. About 20% of kids 5-6 have cell phones. Around 33% of kids 10-11 have them. Of those with phones, most of the younger people have smart phones. Do you know have much it costs for these services each month? Ten dollars for contraceptives? Give me a break.

    No, the issue is not about contraceptives it's about religious freedom. Under Obamacare, contraception and 'other reproductive services' including abortion have gone from being a guaranteed choice to being a 'right' that must be paid for by private, even religious, organizations.

    The Reason link references the following quote from a left-wing think tank

    "Missouri Legislature Approves Bill Allowing Employers To Deny Access To Birth Control."

    The author then points out the headline should have read,

    "Missouri Legislature Approves Bill That Doesn't Allow Employees To Force Employers To Give Them Birth Control -- Not To Mention Sterilization Drugs and Abortifacients.")

    No the issue is about religious freedom as guaranteed under the Constitution and though the Catholic Church is immediately effected because it operates about 1/6 of the healthcare facilities in the US, as well as, numerous charities and educational institutions, the issue goes way beyond 'reproductive services'; it opens the door to government encroachment of all areas of religious freedom, and that is why the Church is getting support from other Christion denominations, Jews Muslims, etc. These groups realize that this is just the beginning.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said before,

      Quirk is Da Kine !

      Delete
    2. Heartless Bastid doesn't want to pay for a 30 year old Student going to Megabuck U's Rubbers, IUD's, Abortifacients, Pills, and etc.

      Good Old Reefer Know it's the responsibility of all good citizens of the United Socialist States of Amerika!

      Sig Heil !

      Delete
  12. On Tuesday, a senior Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. executive told customers that the exchange would have put the brakes on Facebook's IPO had it known the extent of the technical problems that plagued its systems that day.

    ...

    A Fidelity spokesman said the company is working with regulators and Nasdaq on behalf of customers who experienced problems.

    A senior Nasdaq executive told brokers Tuesday that Nasdaq executives "regret sincerely what happened on Friday," and said that Nasdaq can't assess individual retail customers' losses but is working with brokers that are seeking compensation for those retail clients.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Are you sick and tired of these moralizing moralizers imposing their morality on the rest of us? I know I am.

    Though it's commonly said that social conservatives would force us to live under theocratic rule if they could, these days the group most successful in imposing its worldview on others happens to be called the Democratic Party.

    Just ask more than 40 Catholic organizations -- the Catholic University of America, the University of Notre Dame, the archdioceses of New York and Washington, etc. -- that filed suit against Obamacare's contraception mandate. Churches and other private institutions are impelled by government to break conscience in the name of state.

    Religious freedom is, of course, limited to the interests of public health, but because contraception is relatively cheap, available in five minutes wherever you happen to be standing at this moment and covered by nearly every insurance plan, the only reason the administration mandates contraception is to coerce everyone to abide by left-wing orthodoxy.

    At some point, contraception was transformed from a -- and I hope my Catholic friends will excuse the wording -- godsend to those wanting to avoid unwanted pregnancy to a "public health" concern to a moral societal imperative that must be mandated, lest we abandon our daughters, science, decency, "choice" and freedom.
    "

    ---

    Rufus will no doubt have some Ironclad argument to this such as:

    "Bullshit!"

    Case Closed.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Church of the Holy Contraception

    Contraception has evolved from an optional luxury to a moral societal imperative that must be mandated."

    ---

    Perfect!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gen. Colin Powell said Wednesday on CNN's "The Situation Room" that he supports legal same-sex marriage, either at the state or federal level.

    "I have no problem with it," he said in the interview, which will air at 5 p.m. ET. "In terms of the legal matter of creating a contract between two people that's called marriage, and allowing them to live together with the protection of law, it seems to me is the way we should be moving in this country. And so I support the president's decision.”


    He supports Barack. Of course he does. All 97% of him.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Catholic Church employs many poor, single moms at the minimum wage, or barely above minimum wage. And, Contraception can be more expensive than you think. Hint: all women can't take the "pill."

    It's a losing argument, boyos; designed to lose votes.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What if one of my grandsons turns out to be gay? Do I want him to live a life of fear, and loathing, afraid that he will be "found out," and discriminated against, in this wonderful country that I've fought for, and worked to help build?

    No, I want him to live a good life in this great country that straights, and gays alike, have fought and died for. The only way to guarantee this is to guarantee that ALL Americans are treated equally under the law.

    It's not "Social Do-Gooderism;" It's pure self-interest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      We've gone though the whole gay 'discrimination' issue on another thread. Bringing it up here is merely a red herring.

      If you missed the point I made with the cell phones, let me spell it out for you. What is a more life altering decision, buying a cell phone and paying the monthly fees or having an unwanted pregnancy. The affordability of the two is a matter of choice, of priorities, one or the other although the author points out other examples in the Reason link. But that's not reasonable to Rufus.

      In Rufusworld, there doesn't have to be any choices, no responsibility, the concept of 'equality of outcome' is taken to its logical, absurd, and inevitible end. Why decide between buying an i-phone and birth control, an i-pad and dinner, when you can have them both. Everyone can have it all.

      Why make that choice when the state can mandate individuals, businesses, and religious organization to buy it all for you. The fact that it is against 2000 years of church teaching? Irrelevant in Rufusworld. The Constitution? Irrelevant. In Rufusworld, it is the state that decides what is a 'right' and who will have to support and pay for that 'right'.

      It's all about equality.

      Until its not. Until the time the government decides to create a 'right' Ruf doesn't like, until it takes away one he does.

      .

      Delete
    2. Reefer has more rights than I, perhaps. He could possibly get away with joining the Native American Church, and have the right to do peyote.

      I however, with my skin color, hair, and eyes, wouldn't have a prayer.

      Sob, tain't fair.

      I want to join Don Juan, Carlos Castaneda, and Reefer in the sweat lodge.

      But can't.

      b

      Delete
    3. Whether someone, or other, owns a cellphone has absolutely zero to do with whether the Catholic Church has to abide by the law.

      And, you're right, 2000 years of Catholic Church "teaching" is Totally irrelevant.

      Delete
    4. .

      Once again, Rufus, I repeat, not if the law is unconstitutional.

      You just don't get it.

      As for Catholic teaching, the fact that you think it is irrelevant is also irrelevant.

      .

      Delete
    5. No, Q; you don't get it. Obamacare IS the law. It will be unless, and until, the Supremes say it isn't.

      As for "Catholic Teaching:" It's THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES that says it's "irrelevant." (See 1st Amendment)

      Delete
    6. .

      Good point Rufus.

      Enjoy it while you can.

      .

      Delete
  18. Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years. Think about that.”

    Obama was referring to an analysis released this week by Rex Nutting, a reporter for CBS MarketWatch who is also affiliated with the Wall Street Journal. Nutting concluded that Obama has presided over the slowest growth in federal spending in decades.

    “Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4 percent annualized pace – slower than at any time in nearly 60 years,” Nutting wrote, citing data from the Congressional Budget Office, Office of Management and Budget and an independent financial firm.

    “The big surge in federal spending happened in fiscal 2009, before Obama took office. Since then, spending growth has been relatively flat,” he wrote. “Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4 percent. There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.”



    Facts is Facts


    kinda ruins the narrative don't it chilluns?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Facts is Facts?

      Only to those who don't question the numbers or the assumptions behind the numbers. Nutter's numbers offer up the same bull we get from right and left. If you don't like the numbers in a series, merely change the starting or end points of the series.

      Near the end of the linked article an are in Politifact is referenced which disputes the Nutter numbers. Or for a clearer understanding of the issue, see this critique from over at Powerline.

      Barack Obama, Skinflint?

      .

      Delete
    2. The politifact article deals with "debt," Q, not Spending. Of course the debt is escalating; the republicans put us into a horrific recession, an inch away from global depression, after cutting taxes on the top earners to the point that we couldn't possibly balance the budget during hard times.

      The fact remains, "Spending" is growing slower under this President than in any administration in 60 years.

      Delete
    3. .

      Did you read the Powerline article I put up?

      Barack Obama, Skinflint? [LINK]

      .

      Delete
    4. Yes, the Republican, Romneyite Rag is Wrong. Nutting did it ezzackly right. The 2009 Budget WAS Bush's. Just like the Recession was Bush's. Nothing complicated about it. It's just the way it is.

      Delete
    5. .

      Good lord, Rufus, you are hopeless.

      Fact are facts as long as they confirm to your pre-conceived ideas. Otherwise they are wrong. You lack the critical thinking ability.

      Reminds me of that $1.09 per gallon that ethonol has saved us on a gallon of gas meme.

      It would be humerous except for the sad fact of watching a sharp mind go rapidly south as you enter your dotage.

      :)

      .

      Delete
    6. It was a "peer-reviewed" study, Q.

      Delete
    7. .

      Yea, so were all those studies by the climategate crowd.

      The original claim was what initially caught my attention, $1.09 per gallon, that's big. The second thing that caught my attention was it was a "peer-reviewed" study.

      The study itself was merely an extention with additional data for studies put out in 2008 and 2010 as I recall. So I had to go back to the previous studies in order to get the original assumptions. When I went to google and called it up, the third thing that struck me was that the first three pages of references were all by evironmental or biofuel groups, farm groups, or Midwestern University agriculture departments. Some of these, like the University of Michigan, were using the study to argue that sure there are other costs to biofuels but that they were insignificant when you consider that huge $1.09 savings.

      Oh, and then there was a copy of the report put out by the U.S. Agriculture Dept. Of course, it had a statement attached that said they hadn't vetted the paper and couldn't be held responsible as to it's content or veracity.

      Surprisingly, given the magnitude of the study results, there were few stories on it by the WaPo, NYT, USA Today, or even the Huffington Post. In fact there weren't any, at least not in the first few google pages I went through. Passing strange.

      Then I notice in the report it mentions the study was funded by the RCA.

      That was enough to make me actually review the study and compare it to data I pulled from the EIA.

      If you would like, we can discuss the study in detail though it may take the rest of the day.

      .

      Delete
  19. That is if you think someone can "turn out" gay.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Obama is an Amateur, even Bill Clinton, the first real black president thinks so. The lab experiment is almost over. It failed miserably. Time for some more hope and change in the oval office.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Or, if you have a hard time believing any boy would "choose" to date Brad Pitt instead of Angelina Jolie.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yep, time for the Republicans to take us back to Global Depression, Middleeast Wars, and $4.11 gasoline.

    I mean, what the hell, we have to protect Romney's 14% effective tax rate, right? right?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well, let's see....when Obummer got elected gas was a buck something.
    ...

    The old rapist returns to his rooted way of life.

    Bill Clinton
    SURROUNDED BY
    PORN STARS
    Exclusive
    0523_bill_clinton_avn_stars_2Bill Clinton just out-Clinton'd himself -- posing with two famous porn stars in Monaco moments ago ... and one of them's a real up-and-comer.

    Clinton's in a Monte Carlo casino right now for a special "Nights in Monaco" gala event -- and several celebrities are in attendance ... including Diane Kruger, Joshua Jackson ... and a BUNCH OF PORN STARS.

    The two porn stars on Bill's arms are Tasha Reign (left) and Brooklyn Lee -- AVN's "Best New Starlet" in porn.

    Brooklyn -- who just posted the pic on her Twitter account -- also just won the award for "Best Sex Scene" in "Mission Asspossible." As for Tasha's film credits ... those include "Baby Got Boobs 8" and "Farm Girls Gone Bad."

    Our guess -- Bill did not have sexual relations with these women.

    What it IS Bill ...


    One must admit though that "Farm Gils Gone Bad" may possibly contain some real merit.

    Doesn't Bill look happy?

    http://www.tmz.com/2012/05/23/bill-clinton-porn-stars/

    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That of course should read "Farm Girls Gone Bad".

      My uncoffeed mind got messed up misremembering an old story about the Swedish farmer Gilson who went bad, ewe know.

      b

      Delete
    2. .

      "...ewe knew..."

      Drink that coffee.

      .

      Delete
  24. We had plunged into a Cataclysmic Recession a few months before Obama took office.

    The All-Time High for Gasoline Prices was 9 months earlier under Bush ($4.11/Gal.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mere detail.

      b

      Delete
    2. .

      Rufus, your inconsistency boggles the mind.

      How can the $4.11 be Bush's fault when you have been telling us for years that high gas prices are strictly the result of 'peak oil'.

      .

      Delete
    3. I didn't bring it up, Q. If you'll look upthread it was someone else that referenced the low gas price when Obama took office. Getting a little flustered, are we? :)

      Delete
    4. In fact, it was Bob, at 10:11. And, I quote, "Well, let's see....when Obummer got elected gas was a buck something."

      Delete
  25. Damn the shameless Republicans -

    NY Republicans propose ‘clearly unconstitutional’ ban on anonymous online comments
    Published: 4:24 PM 05/23/2012


    Nearly half of the Republicans serving in the New York State Assembly have proposed legislation that would ban anonymous online comments.

    If enacted, the legislation would require websites — including social networks and online newspapers — to remove all anonymous comments that are brought to the attention of administrators.

    An anonymous comment could remain if the author “agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”

    UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told The Daily Caller that the bill is “clearly unconstitutional.”

    “The Supreme Court has held for 50 years that anonymous speech is protected,” explained Volokh, pointing to the 1960 case Talley v. California. “This kind of breach of anonymity on demand is just not constitutional.”

    “I would love to hear from these legislators… Presumably at least one of them should be able to speak to the constitutional objections to the statute,” Volokh added.


    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/ny-republicans-propose-unconstitutional-ban-on-anonymous-online-comments/#ixzz1vnUFC5TE

    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I however seem to be already complying with the proposed law, when I attach my "b" to my anonymous posts.

      b

      Delete
  26. All over "plantation-land" the Republicans are trying to beat back the slaves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty good, Rufus! You are wanted on Obama's propaganda team. No hyperbolic rhetoric in that comment!
      ....

      Has anyone noticed Obama and friends let out the name of the Pakistani doctor who helped them locate bin Laden? Guy is now going to be doing 30 years in prison.

      Shameless, is the word.

      b

      Delete
    2. Obama and the democrats are slowly, intensely, compassionately loosening the Republican's inhuman iron grip over the slave plantations and the exploited peasants.

      b

      Delete
  27. Rufus, you sound like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. You really have swallowed the pill haven't you?

    I bet you crawfish in NOV and vote GOP. Come on, you know you will! :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He did last time. Good habits, like bad, are hard to break.

      b

      Delete
  28. I doubt it, Gag. I'm pretty cross-ways with the Repubs right now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And, the fact is, I honestly "like" Romney more than Obama.

      But, the pub policies are just wrong for the times. Just like they were in the thirties.

      Delete
    2. Not that it matters, Romney will carry Mississip by 20%.

      Delete
  29. If you really, literally, put a gun to my head, and Made me make a prediction, I'd say Romney loses the popular vote, but wins the Electoral Vote (and things get really exciting in most, if not all, of America's cities for a few days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The natives will be very restless. Much drum beating, and gnashing of tooffies

      Delete
    2. Add in a Zimmerman not guilty verdict about the same time, and you've got trouble even in River City.

      b

      Delete
    3. I don't think they'll take that political hot potato to trial until after the election if they can possibly help it.

      Delete
  30. HP cuts 27000 jobs. What? No bailout? Of course not, they aren't union Obama supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  31. A community college just outside New Jersey’s state capitol recently announced it is building the largest distributed solar installation of any college campus in the United States. This announcement is the latest in a long line of renewable projects at American colleges and universities.

    When completed late this year, 33,500 American-made solar photovoltaic panels will stretch across 45 acres of the Mercer County Community College (MCCC) campus in West Windsor, NJ. The 8-megawatt (MW) array is being built at MCCC as part of an innovative 15-year lease-purchase between the school, county government, and solar installer SunLight General Capital.

    Through the agreement, MCCC will pay SunLight General for electricity generated from the array at a discounted rate of 3 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), compared to the 14-cent kWh rate it currently pays to incumbent utility PSE&G. The Mercer County Improvement Authority (MCIA) helped finance the project and will maintain the project title.

    Once operational, the array will offset 70 percent of the school’s annual electricity demand, saving MCCC an estimated $750,000 in utility costs and preventing 7,500 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. Electricity generated on-site will first meet MCCC demand, and then be provided back to the grid through a net metering arrangement with PSE&G.


    Another Sleepless Night for a Republican, Somewhere

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a disaster, that big array. Where will the students sit around, walk around, study in the sunshine, make love, when the array takes up all of the campus space?

      :)

      Looks like a good project.

      b

      Delete
  32. .

    When the Supercommittee couldn't reach a compromise on debt reduction, mandatory spending cuts were mandated to take place by January, 2013. The $1.2 trillion in cuts were pretty much split between domestic programs and the military. Now the GOP is trying to shift some of those military cuts over to the domestic programs, Medicare and such.

    There rationale? The Pentagon is already running lean and mean and needs budget increases not decreases to assure American security.

    Then we hear stories like this.

    Investigators Demand Explanation for Reported $750 Million Overcharge in Afghanistan

    The Pentagon, true stewards of American tax dollars.

    Discrepancies in the Subsistence Prime Vendor contract, one of the largest in Afghanistan, were first revealed in a Defense Department Inspector General’s audit in March 2011. It cited bloated billing and profit margins and determined that key company documents were missing, saying the DLA “did not provide sufficient oversight of contract costs and performance.”

    That audit, and a subsequent one by the DLA, explained that an initial 2005 contract to provide fresh food imported by air and road rapidly expanded as the U.S. presence grew, from 68 forward operating bases to more than 250. But the contract itself was never renegotiated as Supreme Foodservice set its own prices for food, transport and fuel to increasingly far-flung outposts.

    At a subcommittee hearing in December, Pentagon Inspector General Gordon Heddell called the Pentagon’s contract management failures and lost funds “an example of just about as bad as it can get.”



    .

    ReplyDelete
  33. Quirk.

    Your "contraception is cheap" arguement is a red herring and doesn't address the issue.

    I think the issue hinges on whether churches can claim constitutional protection from being compelled to act according to the law passed by the government. I can't see how a church can 'opt out' simply because it is a church. Are you prepared to give Muslim Mosques the same right to 'opt out'? Can the Catholic church, say, not hire women doctors because they are women because they are a 'religion' and 'religions are free as per the consitution'?

    I think you are misreading the constitutional rights of churches - just 'cause they are a 'religion' doesn't mean they can violate the law.

    You are certainly free to argue that contraception is not something that should be mandatorily covered under health care insurance but that is not a constitutional issue other than in the sense of any mandatory insurance coverage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are trying hard to make a point about the muzzies, Ash, but it mostly fails, as when they are asserting their 'rights' such assertion most often involves trampling on the rights of some else, or, doing stuff like, say, over throwing the Constitution, which is not a suicide pact, of messing around with a woman's body, clothing, clit, etc., engaging in local terrorism, threatening Christians, Jew, and maintaining armed training camps.

      If they all want to get ass up to the sun early in the morning no one is complaining, but there are noise ordinances that should preclude everyone else from listening to the blaring of the call to prayer, five times a day.

      Ash, what the fuck is wrong with you?

      b

      Delete
    2. According to Quirk's reasoning the muzzies would be protected as well bobbo for they are a 'religion' like Catholic is a 'religion'.

      Delete
    3. Then Quirk needs to rethink that part, though I'm sure that is not exactly what he is affirming. Rather, I think he'd affirm the right of a woman not to be forced into a clitorectomy, or be beaten, or suffer an honor killing, etc. or condone the over throwing of the Constitution.

      b

      Delete
    4. Maybe Quirk can clarify things. I'm reading him as saying that the first amendment allows religions to be free from government.

      Delete
    5. We shall await Quirk's reply.

      b

      Delete
    6. .

      Ash if you were around here enough, you might be able to keep up.

      My comments regarding the costs associated with contraceptives was in response to comments Rufus made a few days ago saying that if they weren't covered by insurance there would be people who couldn't afford them. I contend the availability and costs associated with birth control is such that it comes down to a decision between buying birth control or much more expensive discretionary items like cell phone services.

      But of course, the main issue is the first amendment. And the churches have to obey the law, IF THE LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL. The current lawsuits brought by the Church argues that the law isn't constitutional on 1st Amendment grounds, and I agree.

      With regard to your comment on the Church opting out, of course they can. They have done it. For instances, recent examples include Washington D.C. and the State of Illinois where the state demanded that all organizations offering adoption services handle adoptions to gay individuals and couples. Catholic Social Services, a major player in this function refused. They ended up closing down their operations. The state had won but, especially in Illinois, they lost because there was already a shortage of people providing those services.

      However, there is a limit to what the state can demand of a religious organization. SCOTUS recently addressed the discrimination issue as applied to churches and in a unanimous 9-0 decision defined the "ministerial exception" principle. USA Today describes the decision.

      Hosanna-Tabor Decision [LINK}

      From the article,

      Some will complain that the court's ruling and the ministerial exception somehow put religious institutions "above the law" or rest on the mistaken assumption that churches always act as they should. They do not. As we are all too aware, religious institutions and leaders sometimes behave very badly. And, when they violate applicable criminal and civil laws, they may and should be held accountable. However, the Hosanna-Tabor case does not put churches "above" the law, it simply reminds us that the law's reach is limited, that there are some matters and relationships to which it does not apply, that there are, in a free society, some things that are not Caesar's.

      With regard to Muslims, of course the same principles apply when it comes to matters of faith and morals that does not also involve criminal violations such as honor killings or forced marriage. All the news is centered on Catholics since they brought the lawsuit but if the government prevails, all religions will effected since the principle will be established and the state can mandate pretty much anything it wants in matters of faith and morals. That is why evangelicals, various Protestant groups, Jews, and, yes, even Muslims are supporting the Church's position. If you read more than Maureen Dowd and Huffington Post, you might realize that.

      You are certainly free to argue that contraception is not something that should be mandatorily covered under health care insurance but that is not a constitutional issue other than in the sense of any mandatory insurance coverage.

      Ash, you lack the subtelty of mind for this discussion. You fail to see the difference between prohibiting an unlawful action, i.e. honor killing, and demanding that someone 'do something' or 'pay for something' that their religion states is immoral. Prohibiting a crime vs mandating a person or group do something 180 degrees opposite the teachings of their religion. Likewise, the two issues, the Obamacare Mandate and the Employer Mandate, are effected by two different sections of the Constitution, the Commerce Clause on the former and the 1st Amendment on the latter.

      .

      Delete
    7. Also from that article Quirk:

      "Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Roberts insisted, clearly and directly, that the "authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful is the church's alone." If an antidiscrimination lawsuit attempts to interfere with such matters, the First Amendment does not permit it to proceed."

      Which makes the decision very narrow as it specifically addresses the churches ability to decide who will minister to the faithful. The case of the hospitals if very different for it is not a matter of who is ministering to the faithful but rather the rights of workers who are employed there, many who are not of the faith.

      You have a tendancy to lapse into ad hominem attacks Quirk in particular when your opinion is challenged. In this case I think it is you who lacks subtlety of mind for a discussion of this kind.

      Delete
    8. .

      You bring out the best in me Ash.

      While the decision is narrow, I see the importance of it in actually defining a 'ministerial exception' on 1st Amendment grounds. The fact that the decision was unanimous gives me some optimism that the court will recognize the arguments of the Church in the Employee Mandate lawsuits.

      ...a matter of who is ministering to the faithful but rather the rights of workers who are employed there, many who are not of the faith.

      It always amuses me to see the PC prone fabricate "rights" out of thin air. When did granting someone 'reproductive services' become a right? Where are reproductive rights mentioned in the Constitution? Why would the government demand that private groups pay for them? If the government wants everyone to have these services why don't they tax everyone and offer free clinics? Could it be that they know they would never get the legislation passed and this is the easy way around that problem?

      Obama has been gutting the Constitution since he took office, the Obamacare Mandate, the War Powers Act, habeas corpus, and now this. I'm still looking for a reason to vote for Romney, but I surely won't vote for this guy.

      .

      Delete
    9. The Healthcare Reform Act requires that health insurance provide certain minimum coverage, Q. Birth Control is one of those proscribed coverages. It is the law. A Majority of the House of Representatives voted for it, as did a Super-Majority of Senators (60.)

      Delete
    10. .

      You have pointed that out before Rufus and it is true.

      But the law has been challenged on constitutional grounds. It is only a valid law if it is upheld by the courts despite what Congress might pass.

      Given that lawsuits have been started, we will see what the courts have to say.

      .

      Delete
    11. Quirk wrote:

      "It always amuses me to see the PC prone fabricate "rights" out of thin air. "

      Lordy, you can be awfully dense Quirk. Let me lay it out nice and logically for you and maybe it will penetrate your wingnut tinfoil hat:

      If law X states that people should be treated as Y yet person A is treated as Y and person B is treated as ~Y then you have a breach of the constitutional right to "equal protection under the law"

      Delete
    12. Quirk wrote:

      "But the law has been challenged on constitutional grounds. It is only a valid law if it is upheld by the courts despite what Congress might pass."

      No, the law is valid unless it gets struck down by the courts.

      Delete
    13. .

      "But the law has been challenged on constitutional grounds. It is only a valid law if it is upheld by the courts despite what Congress might pass."

      I did mispeak on this one. How it should have read was,

      But the law has been challenged on constitutional grounds. It remains a valid law if it is upheld by the courts despite what Congress might have passed.

      .

      Delete
    14. Often, I believe, if a lower court strikes down a law it does not immediately become invalid as the judgement is stayed until appeals are finished.

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    16. .

      In the comment I just pulled I started discussing the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment, however, it started getting a little complicated since the three-tier scrutiny applied by the courts in evaluating different classifications under this clause typicall appliy to state laws not individuals or federal laws. In evaluating the 1st Amendment arguments in the Employee Mandate, I am not sure the 'equal protection clause' would be considered by the court; however, if it was I would assume they would give weight to the Church's arguments since included in the court's strictest scrutiny are basic classifications such as race, national origin, and religion, and other basic rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

      I'm not a constitutional lawyer but I suspect the Church's 1st Amendment rights will trump the due process clause.

      Likewise, I do not consider 'reproductive services' to be a "right" just as I do not consider insurance to be a "right". I consider them to be benefits granted under Obamacare by a particular Congress, benefits that can just as easily be taken away by a subsequent Congress. Under your definition of a right, social security and Medicare are rights.

      However, under your definition of a "right", there isn't much that can't be considered a right. Bring on the i-Pads. Some poor, black gay kid in Kalamazoo doesn't have one.


      .

      Delete
  34. May 24, 2012
    Astrologers predict outcome of presidential race
    Stacey Plaisance

    President Barack Obama will likely be re-elected for a second term, the world will not end on Dec. 21, and the economy will look rosier by 2015 _ at least that's according to a group of the world's leading astrologers who are gathering in New Orleans.

    Roughly 1,500 astrologers from more than 30 countries have converged at a Canal Street hotel bordering the French Quarter for the United Astrology Conference, where they will discuss planetary alignments and the role the solar system has in such matters as the economy and upcoming U.S. presidential race.

    One prediction: Because Mercury, the planet of communication, tabulation and transportation, goes retrograde on Nov. 6 _ election day _ chaos similar to the 2000 election and notorious "hanging chads" can be expected.


    But do Quirk and Melody agree?

    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      I will need to consult with my muse (the only one left of the original three I might add).


      .

      Delete
    2. You might be better off if you consulted with Dick Morris.

      b

      Delete
  35. .

    Obama to star in new movie, Dr. Kool Kicks Ass and Takes Names and OBL Takes The Big Sleep


    The filmmakers were shown a classified facility, whose name was redacted in the released documents, and toured CIA vaults. They were also shown the CIA's replica of Bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

    Peter King, the Republican chairman of the Congressional Homeland Security committee, said on Wednesday the documents told a "damning story of extremely close, unprecedented, and potentially dangerous collaboration" with filmmakers.

    King asked: "If this facility is so secret that the name cannot even be seen by the public, then why in the world would the Obama administration allow filmmakers to tour it?"

    The documents will fuel Republican accusations that Obama is using the raid for partisan political gain in the presidential election. It may also anger those upset at the administration's hard line against government whistleblowers...



    As Richard Nixon Said: Well, when the President does it, that means it's not illegal...



    Note:

    The film was originally set for release just before November's presidential election but has been pushed back to December.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  36. Fast out of the blocks, Australian bookmaker tomwaterhouse.com is offering odds of 5:1 that Facebook will end 2012 worth $38 or higher.

    ...

    Tomwaterhouse.com’s odds on Facebook’s closing price on Monday, Dec. 31 are as follows. Let us know where you think the stock will end the year.

    Odds Year-end price

    10:1 lower than US$19

    6:1 US$19-US$24.99

    4 : 1 US$25-US$29.99

    3 : 1 US$30-US$34.99

    6.50 : 1 US$35-US$37.99

    5 : 1 US$38 or higher

    ReplyDelete
  37. The release might appear to suggest the opposite, since it's titled "Tom Cotton and His Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Agenda," and consists of much fulmination about "Washington insider" Tom Cotton, his endorsement of "massive cuts to Medicare," and the like.

    ...

    That difference in biography, which reveals a deep difference in character, as well as the difference in their political views, says a lot, of course, and suggests the superiority of the Man from Yell (yes, that's Cotton's home county, which he carried 951 to 50 in the primary) to the Man from Hope. But the parallelism of their political careers, and of their political success, could still hold.

    ...

    Fortunately, he has some time before he has to make that difficult decision. Meanwhile, House Republicans should get a first-rate addition to their ranks next January--and Arkansans can look forward to a time when their state will be remembered for the talented and admirable Tom Cotton instead of the talented but disreputable Bill Clinton.


    - Bill Kristol

    ReplyDelete
  38. Britain's double-dip recession is deeper than previously thought, after revised estimates showed a sharper decline in the economy in the first three months of 2012.

    ...

    The services sector, which accounts for some three-quarters of the economy, saw unrevised growth of 0.1%, after a decline of 0.1% between October and December last year.

    The industrial production sector declined at an unrevised 0.4%, with manufacturing flat after a 0.7% decline in the previous quarter.

    ReplyDelete
  39. But the former Constitutional Law professor seems to forget the Founders consciously, and conscientiously, avoided a single mention of a deity in the Constitution, not even a tip-of-the-hat to the amorphous "Creator" who endowed unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence.

    With the religious right's influence waning, perhaps liberals will be restored to secular sanity and stop trying to emulate what they scorned for several decades.

    As for Jesus and what he'd do about that budget bill? Well, if there were a Number One Son, I hope he would advise politicians to treat others like they want to be treated, since empathy is the basis of all ethics; that he’d tell them to stop seeking forgiveness and just behave themselves; and, for God's sake, stop asking Him to bless every damned thing they do!

    ReplyDelete
  40. On this day in 1883, the Brooklyn Bridge was opened for traffic after 14 years of construction. The bridge connects Brooklyn and Manhattan.

    ReplyDelete
  41. A girl asks her boyfriend to come over Friday night to meet, and have a dinner with her parents.


    Since this is such a big event, the girl announces to her boyfriend that after dinner, she would like to go out and make love for the first time.

    The boy is ecstatic, but he has never had sex before, so he takes a trip to the pharmacist to get some condoms.. He tells the pharmacist it's his first time and the pharmacist helps the boy for about an hour. He tells the boy everything there is to know about condoms and sex.


    At the register, the pharmacist asks the boy how many condoms he'd like to buy, a 3-pack, 10-pack, or family pack..
    The boy insists on the family pack because he thinks he will be rather busy, it being his first time and all.

    That night, the boy shows up at the girl's parents house and meets his girlfriend at the door.

    "Oh, I'm so excited for you to meet my parents, come on in!"

    The boy goes inside and is taken to the dinner table where the girl's parents are seated.
    The boy quickly offers to say grace and bows his head. A minute passes, and the boy is still deep in prayer, with his head down.


    10 minutes pass, and still no movement from the boy.

    Finally, after 20 minutes with his head down, the girlfriend leans over and whispers to the boyfriend, 'I had no idea you were this religious.'


    The boy turns, and whispers back,

    'I had no idea your father was a pharmacist..'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Christian Scientists, under Catholic legal logic, will not have to supply any medical insurance coverage to their employees?
      Their prayers will not need to be supplemented by medical insurances.

      Delete
    2. That's a pretty good question.

      b

      Delete
    3. .

      Well, look at the bright side. Obama won't have to grant a waiver like everyone else has, McDonald's, Walmart, the unions...

      .

      Delete
  42. "Through the agreement, MCCC will pay SunLight General for electricity generated from the array at a discounted rate of 3 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), compared to the 14-cent kWh rate it currently pays to incumbent utility PSE&G. The Mercer County Improvement Authority (MCIA) helped finance the project and will maintain the project title."

    ---

    Great way to rationally allocate electricity use.

    Rufus and his fellow Green Socialist Nazis always show such great respect for free markets.

    But, of course, in their la la land, if it's "Green", it's the same as Free, so who gives a fuck?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Great Pharmacist joke, Bobo.

    I only stole drugs from my Dad, not rubbers.

    Says a lot about my lifestyle/religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Twas Sam's joke, but thanks.

      b

      Delete
  44. Sky diving without a parachute -

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7409496n

    human flying squirrel

    b

    ReplyDelete
  45. Shoulda known it was Sam.

    Master of the Joke Universe.

    ReplyDelete
  46. (Dad's not around to steal Dexies from, I get a little Drowsy now and then.)

    ReplyDelete
  47. Muslim employers as well as the Catholics not having to provide insurance to cover the costs of circumcision?

    Coverage of HIV/AID can be avoided as well?
    That malady being the modern equivilent of the "Mark of Cain".

    ReplyDelete
  48. Muslim employers should have to provide honor killing insurance, clit insurance, beating insurance, acid in the face insurance, insurrection insurance, and stoning insurance, and, if the employee is gay, hanging from the crane insurance, sure as I'm hanging around here.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  49. Rufus,

    Here's the question:

    Why do you think it is a good idea for us all, from minimum salary employees, to billionairs, pay for the rubbers for a 30 year old professional "student" going to Megabuck U?

    ...and tell me ANY of this is remotely actuarially sound w/o resorting to your BANKRUPT Argument that entitlements are not legal obligations that don't need to be accounted for.

    (but our offspring will have to deal with, including all the societal chaos they entail)

    ReplyDelete
  50. If you give a shit, insure a clit.

    ReplyDelete
  51. actuarially sound:

    A 30 year old dead weight on Society that will never pay for her own sorry ass debts to society being treated like a helpless little girl.

    ...maybe we SHOULD pay her for a free Clitectomy.

    Couldn't hurt.

    Much.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Maj. Anthony Graham, a mentor to Afghan air force personnel, said heightened security concerns had forced the Afghans to reshuffle personnel, delaying some parts of the training program.

    At the Kabul headquarters, U.S. Air Force trainers now wear body armor and carry rifles as they make the rounds with their Afghan trainees. A security guard keeps watch while advisers do their work.

    On a recent flight ferrying Afghan student pilots and air force officers from Kabul to Shindand, a young Army specialist occupied one of the seats closest to the cockpit. Pointing his thumb to the U.S. pilots, he said his job was to "keep them safe" during the flight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bring back Robert Strange McNamara and Westie!

      Delete
    2. I want the best and the brightest, and will settle for nothing less!

      b

      Delete
  53. "Because it's the law."

    :-) !!!

    Case closed.

    Sig Heil !

    Our MSM Oracle has spoken.

    ReplyDelete
  54. It's actuarially sound "because its the law."

    Brilliant !

    ReplyDelete
  55. Security of the person is a basic entitlement guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948. It is also a human right explicitly mentioned and protected by the Constitution of Canada, the Constitution of South Africa and other laws around the world.

    ...

    The right to security of the person was recognized in Canada in the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960. Section 1(a) of this law recognized "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law." However, the Bill of Rights was a statute and not part of the Constitution.

    In 1982, a right to security of the person was added to the Constitution. It was included in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which stipulates that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." Security of the person in section 7 consists of rights to privacy of the body and its health[3] and of the right protecting the "psychological integrity" of an individual. That is, the right protects against significant government-inflicted harm (stress) to the mental state of the individual. (Blencoe v. B.C. (Human Rights Commission), 2000)

    LINK

    Security of person has been defined as a civil right (albeit not in USA.) At worst this civil right overlaps with the self-defined venue of specific religions. At best, it is a clear cut case of personal choice.

    ReplyDelete
  56. .

    Security of person has been defined as a civil right (albeit not in USA.) At worst this civil right overlaps with the self-defined venue of specific religions. At best, it is a clear cut case of personal choice.


    A clear cut case of personal choice about what?

    .



    .

    ReplyDelete
  57. Accepting the civil formulation vs the religious formulation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Did you actually read the link you put up?

      .

      Delete
  58. Have you been smoking BC Bud, Quebec Gold, or 420?

    b

    ReplyDelete
  59. “There have been complaints that Ron Paul’s followers have somehow illegitimately hijacked the process, but that’s simply not the case,” says Ed Morrissey, a blogger at the influential website HotAir.com, a longtime Republican activist in Minnesota, and no Paul supporter. “They have done this the right way.

    They have followed the rules. They organized.

    They showed up. They followed through.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Hi there, all іѕ going well here and ofсourse eveгу one іs
    sharing infоrmatiоn, that's really fine, keep up writing.
    Also visit my site ... how to stop snoring

    ReplyDelete
  61. Every ωеekend i useԁ to pay a visit this web page, as i wish
    for еnjoуment, since thіѕ thiѕ site conations іn fаct nice funny mаterіal tοo.
    Also visit my homepage - 1 month loan

    ReplyDelete
  62. Ηi, i think that i saω you visіted my
    websitе ѕo і саme
    to “return the favοr”.I'm trying to find things to enhance my site!I suppose its ok to use some of your ideas!!

    Also visit my web-site ... short term loan
    Here is my blog post ; short term loan

    ReplyDelete
  63. Ιt's an remarkable piece of writing for all the web visitors; they will take advantage from it I am sure.

    Also visit my blog post: diet

    ReplyDelete
  64. Hello, I would like to subscribe for thiѕ wеbsite to taκe lateѕt upԁatеs, so wheгe can i
    do іt please help out.

    Mу ωeblog ... payday loans

    ReplyDelete
  65. I'll right away grab your rss feed as I can not in finding your e-mail subscription link or e-newsletter service. Do you've any?
    Kindly let me recognize in order that I could
    subscribe. Thanks.

    Feel free to visit my web-site - übersetzung englisch deutsch online

    ReplyDelete