Friday, September 19, 2008

Two Lives, One Thought

A black lady, about my age but with the gray dyed out. She was dressed for an office job, going to work in the morning, same as me. She sat across the aisle from me on the Metro, and when we stood up at the same time our bags got tangled together. The backpack I was carrying was crammed fat with papers and books and devices that I would need during the day, and her handbag was overstuffed, too, with papers sticking out the top.

We apologized to each other for the collision and disentangled. I said, "I used to travel light."

She said, "I keep telling myself I'm going to get back to it, but I never do."

She left through the middle door, I walked to the end of the car and merged into the river of people flowing toward the Union Station escalator.

46 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry to post off topic Jim, but it's been about 10 days since the Court of Appeals ruling. Does anyone know what the CRG did with those extra signatures yet?

Cynthia

P.S. I couldn't think of anything on the topic of "Ionic Japanese Showerheads" either.

September 19, 2008 9:40 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Cynthia, I expect people to keep the discussion on the topic of collisions with strangers in the Metro, please!

I don't know what the CRW is going to do with those extra signatures, if they got any, and I haven't heard any more about that. There really isn't anything they can do, the bill has passed into law, the appeals court has ruled that there will be no referendum, it's a done deal.

And as far as staying on topic, all anybody wants to talk about is the election campaigns anyway, so I figured I'd just create an open thread with this one.

JimK

September 19, 2008 9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Jim.

There may not be a whole lot the CRG *CAN* do, but that won't stop them from trying... it's sort of like the robotic skeletal remains of Arnold S. at the end of "Terminator." I know they will do SOMETHING with those signatures, even if it's just to claim (in future propaganda) that they collected "ENOUGH" signatures while conveniently omitting the fact that they didn't meet the deadline.

Peace,

Cynthia

September 19, 2008 10:09 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Cynthia, I went out there and watched them, and they weren't even pretending those petitions had anything to do with the content of the bill. They were literally stopping people and saying, "Do you want to sign a petition to keep men out of ladies bathrooms?"

Personally, I think the point is just to stand in front of Giant and create a negative association between transgender people and creepy sexual predators. I don't know how the new law affects their ability to do that, now that it's in effect. I would think Giant, at least, would be concerned about liability and bad publicity.

JimK

September 19, 2008 10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting facts about Palin's political career are starting to come out.

I wonder if Mayor Palin rode the Metro when she was here soliciting millions of taxpayer dollars in earmarks for Wasilla, even though Alaska state budgets run huge surpluses, surpluses Palin made even bigger when she raised taxes. More on that later. Now we learn:

Records reveal Palin's push for earmarks
By Jim Popkin, NBC News Senior Investigative Producer

As a vice presidential candidate, Gov. Sarah Palin has railed against federal earmarks, or congressional funding for pork-barrel projects. "In our state, we reformed the abuses of earmarks," Palin recently boasted to a rally in Lancaster, Pa. "We championed earmark reform up there," she said, "to stop Congress from wasting public money on things that didn't serve the public interest."

But musty records culled from the archives of the Wasilla, Alaska, city government reveal that Palin was directly involved in soliciting millions of dollars in earmarks for Wasilla when she was mayor. And she got help from a well-connected Washington lobbyist.

In a monthly status report to the city on March 7, 2000, newly hired "City Lobbyist" Steve Silver describes how the Palin administration had requested $6.6 million in federal earmarks for water and sewer improvements for Wasilla, and another $1 million for police equipment. Mayor Palin reviewed and signed the lobbyist's report, dated April 5, 2000.

Those earmark requests have not previously been disclosed, said Keith Ashdown, chief investigator for the non-profit Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. Ashdown said the lobbyist's report offers a rare window into a normally closed-door process. "The document you've found is a peek behind the curtain of how earmarks get approved in Washington," he said.

Steve Silver, the Wasilla lobbyist, is a former top staffer for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who now is under federal indictment for allegedly failing to disclose thousands of dollars in services he received from a company that helped renovate his Alaska home. He has pleaded not guilty. Under Palin, the city paid Silver about $40,000 a year to lobby on behalf of Wasilla (the contract began years before Stevens was indicted.)...

In the lobbying documents, Silver also encourages Palin and other city officials to visit Washington, D.C., to meet with Sen. Stevens and the rest of the Alaska political delegation. "It is always a good idea for representatives of the City to meet personally with them during the process on their turf, so to speak," he writes.

As the Alaska papers have reported, Palin took him up on the invitation and began making regular D.C. trips...

September 19, 2008 10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's another piece of Palin's record in politics and this one's very interesing. It seems Palin thinnks windfall profit taxes are good for the state of Alaska to raise in order to give each resident a $1200 check to help pay for expensive fuel costs, but she's against Obama's idea for the United States to do the same thing and provide some fuel cost help for every US citizen.



Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil

While Congress and the presidential candidates debate the wisdom of a windfall tax on oil companies, Alaska has already imposed one, hauling in billions of dollars in new revenue for the state treasury.

By Ángel González and Hal Bernton
Seattle Times staff reporters

Republicans in Congress this June united to defeat a proposed windfall tax on oil companies, deriding it as a bad idea that would discourage investment in U.S. oil exploration.

Things worked out far differently in the GOP stronghold of Alaska, a state whose economic fate is closely tied to the oil industry.

Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.

At a time when Americans are feeling the pinch at the gasoline pump and oil companies are racking up record profits, Alaska's choice foreshadows one of the sharpest debates in the upcoming presidential election.

Democrat Barack Obama supports a national windfall-profits tax, while Republican John McCain opposes it.

Alaska collected an estimated $6 billion from the new tax during the fiscal year that ended June 30, according to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. That helped push the state's total oil revenue — from new and existing taxes, as well as royalties — to more than $10 billion, double the amount received last year.

While many other states are confronting big budget deficits because of the troubled economy, Alaska officials are in the enviable position of exploring new ways to spend the state's multibillion-dollar budget surplus.

Some of that new cash will end up in the wallets of Alaska's residents.

Palin's administration last week gained legislative approval for a special $1,200 payment to every Alaskan to help cope with gas prices, which are among the highest in the country.

That check will come on top of the annual dividend of about $2,000 that each resident could receive this year from an oil-wealth savings account.

...The oil industry has long fought windfall-profits taxes.

...The industry's arguments held sway in the U.S. Senate in June, where Republicans defeated a Democratic proposal for a windfall-profits tax that would have raised an estimated $10 billion to $12 billion.

The debate has spilled into the presidential campaign.

Obama supports a federal windfall-profits tax, with the proceeds used to provide rebates of $500 or $1,000 to taxpayers. "Increased domestic oil exploration certainly has its place," Obama said last Monday in Michigan. "But it's not the solution" to America's energy problems, he added.

McCain has blasted the idea, saying it would "increase our dependence on foreign oil and hinder exactly the same kind of domestic exploration and production we need."

In Alaska, the willingness of Republicans to tax the oil industry reflects unusual political developments.

Last year, as part of a major federal corruption investigation, an oil-services executive — former VECO Chairman Bill Allen — pleaded guilty to bribing some state legislators as he sought to limit the size of an oil-tax increase approved in 2006.

In the fall primary of 2006, Palin upset Republican incumbent Gov. Frank Murkowski, whom she criticized for giving
too much of a break to the oil industry.

Then last year, Palin introduced a graduated tax pegged to increased oil prices. The state Legislature modified her proposal to increase the state's take even further....

The Alaska tax is imposed on the net profit earned on each barrel of oil pumped from state-owned land, after deducting costs for production and transportation, which are currently estimated at just under $25 a barrel.

The tax is set at its highest rate in Prudhoe Bay, where the state takes 25 percent of the net profit of a barrel when its price is at or below $52.

The percentage then escalates as oil prices rise over that benchmark. Alaska gets about $49 of a $120 barrel, not counting other fees.

ConocoPhillips said that in total, once royalty payments and other taxes are added in, the state captures about 75 percent of the value of a barrel.

An accounting benefit eases the sting for oil companies. They get a huge deduction on their state taxes when calculating their federal taxes.


How do you spell G R E E D Y? It seems to me that if windfall profits on the Big Oil are good for the citizens of Alaska, they are good for the rest of us.

September 19, 2008 11:05 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

What they will probably do with the signatures is add the contact info to a database of right wing extremists to be called upon the next time they go on the attack.

September 19, 2008 9:55 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I'm sure Jim will blog about this, but more good news for Theresa and Ruth -- A Federal District Court judge in DC ruled today that discrimination against trans women is sex discrimination, plain and simple. Trans women now have a solid federal court decision to claim protection along with all other women under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

September 19, 2008 9:57 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

A quote from Diane:

"It is especially gratifying that the court has ruled that discriminating against someone for transitioning is illegal," said Diane Schroer, the plaintiff in the case. "I knew all along that the 25 years of experience I gained defending our country didn't disappear when I transitioned, so it was hard to understand why I was being turned down for a job doing what I do best just because I'm transgender. It is tremendously gratifying to have your faith in this country, and what is fundamentally right and fair, be reaffirmed."

From the decision:
After hearing the evidence presented at trial, I conclude that Schroer was discriminated against because of sex in violation of Title VII. The reasons for that conclusion are set forth below, in two parts. First, I explain why, as a factual matter, several of the Library's stated reasons for refusing to hire Schroer were not its "true reasons, but were pretext[s] for discrimination," Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Second, I explain why the Library's conduct, whether viewed as sex stereotyping or as discrimination literally "because of . . . sex," violated Title VII.

...None of the five assertedly legitimate reasons that the Library has given for refusing to hire Schroer withstands scrutiny.

And:
Conclusion

In refusing to hire Diane Schroer because her appearance and background did not comport with the decisionmaker's sex stereotypes about how men and women should act and appear, and in response to Schroer's decision to transition, legally, culturally, and physically, from male to female, the Library of Congress violated Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination.

The Clerk is directed to set a conference to discuss and schedule the remedial phase of this case.

I can't wait for the ADF -- which discriminates against Jews, btw -- appeals this decision. Maybe they will just cut and paste from their Maryland amicus brief which was all about me, and just change my name to Diane, since they feel they can blithely change people's names and pronouns at will anyway.

September 19, 2008 10:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Interesting facts about Palin's political career are starting to come out."

No one gives a whit, Bea.

We don't support Palin for some idiotic meaningless budget crap.

Simply, she defends the life of children conceived but unborn.

Democrats are part of a evil system which kills these children because their presence is inconvenient to our hedonistic society.

"but more good news for Theresa and Ruth -- A Federal District Court judge in DC ruled today that discrimination against trans women is sex discrimination"

That is, indeed, good news. We're getting these issues closer to a pro-family Supreme Court.

Very good news.

September 19, 2008 10:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Republicans demonstrate their superior skills in managing the economy:

"NEW YORK (Sept. 19) - One of the most tumultuous weeks in the 216-year history of Wall Street closed with a dramatic two-day rally as investors celebrated an unprecedented government plan to cleanse banks of the bad mortgages that touched off a crisis in world finance.

President Bush, speaking from the White House Rose Garden, said: "America's economy is facing unprecedented challenges. We're responding with unprecedented measures."

The Dow Jones industrials shot up about 370 points, giving them a two-day gain of about 780.
You would never have known it from the anxiety that gripped Wall Street and Washington, not to mention dinner tables across the nation, but stocks ended the week virtually unchanged."

September 19, 2008 10:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FYI, AnonBigot, nobody says, "Nobody gives a whit". I lived in the UK for almost 7 years.

Get with the times!

September 19, 2008 11:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former Army commander who underwent a sex change operation was discriminated against by the U.S. government, a federal judge ruled Friday in an important victory for transgenders claiming bias in the workplace.

Diane Schroer won her federal lawsuit against the Library of Congress after officials backed out of a 2005 job offer when told of her intention to become a transsexual. At the time of the job interview for a position as a senior terrorism research analyst, David Schroer was a male. He had been a onetime Army Special Forces commander.

U.S. District Court Judge James Robinson said Schroer's civil rights were violated.

"The evidence established that the Library was enthusiastic about hiring David Schroer -- until she disclosed her transsexuality," Robinson wrote. "The Library revoked the offer when it learned that a man named David intended to become, legally, culturally and physically, a woman named Diane. This was discrimination 'because of ... sex.' "

The judge will later rule on what financial damages Schroer is due.

"It is especially gratifying that the court has ruled that discriminating against someone for transitioning is illegal," said Schroer in a statement from the ACLU, which represented her in court.

"I knew all along that the 25 years of experience I gained defending our country didn't disappear when I transitioned, so it was hard to understand why I was being turned down for a job doing what I do best just because I'm transgender. It is tremendously gratifying to have your faith in this country, and what is fundamentally right and fair, be reaffirmed."

After Schroer had retired from the military, she applied for a job at the Library of Congress. Court records show that Schroer, then a male, took her future boss to lunch to outline her transition to a female, as she planned to present herself as a female on her first day of the job.

Schroer testified that on the day after the lunch, the job offer was rescinded, and she was told she wasn't a "good fit" for the library.

The ACLU said the ruling sends a "loud and clear" message to employers against firing or refusing to hire someone for changing their gender.

There was no immediate reaction from the library, which had claimed at trial that transgender people are not covered under federal anti-discrimination laws.

The case is Schroer v. Billington (Cv-05-1090).

(www.cnn.com)

September 19, 2008 11:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look!!! The bigots have a facebook page...

http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7189622962

Here is one for TTF and Montgomery County for Eqaulity. Be sure to join:

http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?sid=7592870cac6553002c50e1a28d299439&refurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.new.facebook.com%2Fs.php%3Fq%3DMontgomery%2BCounty%252C%2BMaryland%252C%2Bfor%2BEQUALITY%252C%2BTRUTH%2BAND%2BFAIRNESS%26init%3Dq%26sid%3D7592870cac6553002c50e1a28d299439&gid=10344896961

September 20, 2008 12:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sir B.O. has been lying about Mac the Hero's record on financial regulation. The notorious Bea of TTF has been drinking these lies like a magic elixir and vomiting them onto her blog posts.

The Washington Post editorial board sets the story straight this morning about what it calls "misleading spin" from America's head celebrity, Barack Obama:

"TO LISTEN to Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain is a Johnny-come-lately to the cause of regulating financial markets. "He has consistently opposed the sorts of common-sense regulations that might have lessened the current crisis," Mr. Obama said in New Mexico yesterday. "When I was warning about the danger ahead on Wall Street months ago because of the lack of oversight, Senator McCain was telling the Wall Street Journal -- and I quote -- 'I'm always for less regulation.' "

But the full quotation from Mr. McCain's March interview with the Journal's editorial board belies Mr. Obama's one-sided rendition. The Republican candidate went on to say, "But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight. I think we found this in the subprime lending crisis -- that there are people that game the system and if not outright broke the law, they certainly engaged in unethical conduct which made this problem worse. So I do believe that there is role for oversight."

When it comes to regulating financial institutions and corporate misconduct, Mr. McCain's record is more in keeping with his current rhetoric. In the aftermath of the Enron collapse and other accounting scandals, he was a leader, with Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), in pushing to require that companies treat stock options granted to employees as expenses on their balance sheets. "I have long opposed unnecessary regulation of business activity, mindful that the heavy hand of government can discourage innovation," he wrote in a July 2002 op-ed in the New York Times. "But in the current climate only a restoration of the system of checks and balances that once protected the American investor -- and that has seriously deteriorated over the past 10 years -- can restore the confidence that makes financial markets work."

Mr. McCain was an early voice calling for the resignation of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt, charging that he "seems to prefer industry self-policing to necessary lawmaking. Government's demands for corporate accountability are only credible if government executives are held accountable as well."

In 2006, he pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- while Mr. Obama was notably silent. "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole," Mr. McCain warned at the time.

One element of the Obama campaign's brief against Mr. McCain is that he supported repeal of the law separating commercial banks from investment banks. "He's spent decades in Washington supporting financial institutions instead of their customers," Mr. Obama said yesterday. "Phil Gramm, one of the architects of the deregulation in Washington that led directly to this mess on Wall Street, is also the architect of John McCain's economic plan." Would it be churlish to point out that another author of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley law is former congressman Jim Leach, a founder of Republicans for Obama? Or that Obama advisers Lawrence H. Summers and Robert E. Rubin supported the repeal -- which was signed by President Bill Clinton?

It's a reasonable question which candidate has been more attentive to the brewing problems on Wall Street and which has a better prescription for them. But Mr. Obama's attack does not give a fair reading of the McCain record."

In other words, the notorious Bea and her band of donkey-supporters are planning to vote for a liar.

September 20, 2008 12:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This part bears repeating because it shows what a shameless liar has been this week, trying to exploit a bad situation for political gain.

This will be brought up in the debates. How when things looked dark early this week, Obama's gallant message to the country was "told you so".

No, you didn't, Barack."

"In 2006, he pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- while Mr. Obama was notably silent. "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole," Mr. McCain warned at the time."

September 20, 2008 12:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow!

In 2006, McCain warned that changes were necessary to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while Obama said nothing.

Of course, why would he?

Fannie Mac was being pursued for campaign contributions and eventually became one of Obama's biggest contributors.

Oh, the sleaze of Obama!

September 20, 2008 12:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whatever, Fred Bloem/AnonBigot.

Whoever you are, it is interesting that you are friends with high school students on your facebook profile (Fred Bloem is the creator of the bigot CRG page on Facebook.com).

Sick in deed!!

September 20, 2008 12:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is Fred Bloem's facebook direct link:

http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=600925467

September 20, 2008 12:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NEW YORK (AP) - Proposed bans on same-sex marriage are on the ballot in three important states this fall.

In California, the stakes are particularly high - it's the first time a ban-gay-marriage amendment goes before voters in a state where same-sex couples already have the right to wed. Similar amendments are on the ballots in Florida, a battleground in the presidential race, and Arizona, McCain's home state.

Both presidential candidates say they oppose same-sex marriage.

McCain, while asserting it's an issue for states to decide, has endorsed the proposed bans on this year's ballots and has not advocated for federal recognition of the various same-sex partnerships now legal in 10 states.

In the past, McCain has voted against a federal ban on same-sex marriages, but in this campaign he's signaled he would back such a ban if federal judges sought to impose them on states that didn't want them.

The spotlight on same-sex marriage will be brightest in California, where Proposition 8 would amend the state constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman. If approved, it would overturn a California Supreme Court ruling that made the state only the second, after Massachusetts, to legalize same-sex marriage.

Some conservatives see the possibility of a demographic trend in Florida, with churchgoing African-Americans turning out in huge numbers for Obama while casting votes for the ban-gay-marriage measure.

"We're expecting black support," said John Stemberger, who heads the campaign for the Florida amendment.

Gay-rights activists insist that same-sex marriage and other "culture war" issues will be less effective for Republican candidates than in November 2004, when marriage amendments won approval in 11 states.

Solmonese said there is broad support for Obama among gays despite his hesitancy on same-sex marriage.

John Marble of Stonewall Democrats, which represents the party's gays and lesbians, said activists were encouraged by Obama.

"We're not in total agreement with him, but at least he's engaging in conversation," Marble said.

Marble and Solmonese said McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as running mate reinforced his message to the religious right, which views her as a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage."

September 20, 2008 12:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Some conservatives see the possibility of a demographic trend in Florida, with churchgoing African-Americans turning out in huge numbers for Obama while casting votes for the ban-gay-marriage measure."

That's just great!

September 20, 2008 9:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has produced a television ad criticizing Sen. John McCain’s position on equal pay for women and pointing out that women in America are paid only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, Obama pays his own female Senate staffers, on average, only 78 percent of what he pays male staffers.

Women on McCain’s staff, meanwhile, earn 24 percent more on average than women on Obama’s Senate staff. McCain also pays his female Senate staff members a higher average salary than his male Senate staff members.

Women occupy seven of the top 10 highest-paid positions on McCain’s staff, and five of the top 10 highest-paid positions on Obama’s staff.

The numbers come from the most recent Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which includes the salaries of every member of each U.S. senator’s staff during the period of Oct. 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008.

September 20, 2008 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In 2006, McCain warned that changes were necessary to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

That's right, McCain co-sponsored Chuck Hagel's Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, and what did the GOP controlled 109th Congress at the time do with this bill?

This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress....

Last Action: Jul 28, 2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.


The lead sponsor was Senator Chuck Hagel and the bill got precisely as far in the Senate as Obama's Stop Fraud Act, about which you complained:

[Aunt Bea said] "Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act to increase penalties for mortgage fraud"

[AH replied] Yes, and it never was brought up for vote.

Why?

Democrats controlled Congress and he was already considered one of the major contenders for the President.

Could it be that it was so flawed that it embarassed his comrades?

Could it be that he doesn't know how to get things done?

If he can't get a bill even voted on when he's in Congress, how's he going to get anything passed when he's in the White House?

His best break will be if he loses the election and gets to go back to the Senate where he can get educated and then come back and try again in ten years.

That way he won't embarass himself in the Oval Office.

September 18, 2008 9:34 PM


You really should try getting your facts straight. Obama's Stop Fraud Act was introduced to the GOP controlled 109th Congress and was swallowed by the very same Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs chaired by GOP Senator Richard Shelby that swallowed Chuck Hagel's bill.

Got that AH? It was the GOP controlled 109th Congress that sat on it's hands while attempts were made to head off this crisis and Obama was lead sponsor of his bill while McShame was only a co-sponsor

[Repugnican] controlled Congress and he was already considered one of the major contenders for the President.

Could it be that it was so flawed that it embarassed his comrades?

Could it be that he doesn't know how to get things done?

If he can't get a bill even voted on when he's in Congress, how's he going to get anything passed when he's in the White House?

His best break will be if he loses the election and gets to go back to the Senate where he can get educated and then come back and try again in ten years. [Well, for McOldGuy, maybe not.]

That way he won't embarass himself in the Oval Office.


Obama is the leadership and change we need.

September 20, 2008 9:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama is a sexist creep.

First, he didn't pick Hillary despite her superior claim compared to Bidin'.

Then, he called Palin a pig.

Now, his campaign discriminates their payrates on a sexist basis.

Americans believe in equal work for equal pay.

Obama is a slick sleazeball.

September 20, 2008 9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Repaired link to Obama's Stop Fraud Act

September 20, 2008 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh brother AH.

Palin supports altering the constitution so rapists, even incestuous rapists can force their victims to bear their evil fruit.

September 20, 2008 9:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

he called Palin a pig.

No he didn't. You are repeating a McCain campaign Rovian lie, working to spin a fact out of fiction. FactCheck.org, which is quoted by both the Obama and McCain campaigns reports:

Let’s start with what the ad gets right. It does seem to be true that Republican v.p. candidate Sarah Palin wears lipstick. And it’s true that she mentioned this particular cosmetic choice at the convention, when she joked that lipstick is the only difference between a hockey mom and pit bull, as the ad shows before it goes completely off the rails. If this were a CoverGirl commercial, we’d be all set.
But it’s not; it’s a political ad. And it goes on to imply that Obama made a personal dig at Palin, calling her a “pig,” and that commentators decried his sexism for derailing the campaign. This is bunk. Let’s look at what Obama actually said at a campaign rally in Virginia:

Obama, Sept. 9: John McCain says he’s about change too. And so I guess his whole angle is, watch out, George Bush — except for economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics, we’re really going to shake things up in Washington. That’s not change. That’s just calling some, the same thing something different. You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

Here’s what the McCain campaign heard, according to ABC News’ Jake Tapper:

Tapper, Sept. 10: Asked why she was so confident Obama was “comparing” Palin to a pig, [former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift, on behalf of the McCain campaign,] said Palin was the only one of the four candidates on both parties’ tickets who wears lipstick.

“She is the only one of the four candidates for president or the only vice presidential candidate who wears lipstick,” Swift said. “I mean it seemed to me a very gendered comment.”

But, Swift added, if “as part of his apology Senator Obama wants to say no he was calling Senator McCain — who is a true hero in our country a pig — then I suppose we could wait en masse for an apology to that as well.”

For starters, Swift is ignoring the fact that “putting lipstick on a pig” is a hoary old expression of the same caliber as “building a better mousetrap” or “letting the cat out of the bag.” We did a quick Nexis search on uses of the expression before Tuesday, and found 2,290 instances dating back to 1985 (which is as far back as most Nexis news goes). Its meaning is precisely what Obama was talking about in his speech: calling the same thing something different. Context for the phrase in the last two decades ranged from health care to taxes to fashion to business to, uh, pig racing. It has tumbled from the lips of sports commissioners, librarians and company spokesmen, but it’s particularly popular with politicians. (Congressional newspaper The Hill even featured the phrase in its “Congress Speak” column.) It’s been spotted as far away as New Zealand. It’s even the title of a book by former McCain press aide Torie Clarke.

As several people (including Tapper, Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic, Ben Smith at Politico, the Obama campaign and some of our readers) have pointed out, John McCain employed the phrase in 2007, in talking about Hillary Clinton’s health care plan: “I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” Oh, and he also said it about Iraq war strategy – if it’s really a personal smear, it’s not clear who’s wearing the lipstick in that example. Obama has used the expression before, too (also in referring to Iraq strategy). But before either McCain or Obama speculated on porcine cosmetics, members of Congress from Rick Santorum to Ted Kennedy had been talking pig lips for years.

If the McCain campaign wants to get literal, ignoring the expression’s long political pedigree, they could go whole hog (as it were) and look at what Obama actually said. He is talking about John McCain’s policies, not about his running mate. “Barack Obama on Sarah Palin”? Not at all.

And “Katie Couric on this election”? Well, it depends on what your definition of “this” is. Couric was referring to the Hillary Clinton campaign, long before Palin was tapped for v.p. Hey, remember when McCain called Clinton’s health plan “lipstick on a pig”?


Shame on you and the McShame campaign. Stick to the facts and quit trying to manufacture facts from fiction.

September 20, 2008 10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holy cow! Look what McDumbya has proposed for our health insurance market:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

What is he thinking? He can't be thinking; he can't want our health insurance market to end up foreclosed like our financial markets (another bank Ameribank, Inc., Northfork, WV closed yesterday), can he AH? This must be dementia talking.

September 20, 2008 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Palin supports altering the constitution so rapists, even incestuous rapists can force their victims to bear their evil fruit."

When you start to call a life "evil fruit", you begun to go past the point of no return.

How about if you found out that your conception was the result of a rape, would you then consider yourself to be "evil fruit" and kill yourself?

If not, why do you propose killing other people based on the actions of one of their parents?

Those who believe in right support Palin. The arc of the moral universe bends toward justice and away from craven creeps like you.

September 20, 2008 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama is a sexist creep.

First, he didn't pick Hillary despite her superior claim compared to Bidin'.

Then, he called Palin a pig.

Now, his campaign discriminates their payrates on a sexist basis."

I put up three examples of Obama's sexism, which is a fact, and Aunt Bea posts a long comment raving about one.

That would lead any sane and rational conclusion:

there is no defense for the other two

September 20, 2008 11:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, I figured that Jack Daniels would have worn off by now. You didn't start drinking again this morning, did you?

September 20, 2008 11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bea

Earlier this week you said McCain wholeheartedly supported deregulation while Obama was long warning of this week's problems.

Now, confronted with evidence you were wrong, you're accusing McCain of incompetence.

Yet, we're supposed to believe everything you said on face value.

Obama worked with a friendly majority Democratic Congress and couldn't get anything done.

McCain has always bucked the conventional wisdom, which is why he wouldn't have been elected by the Senate but had to go to the people and it is there his powere lies.

The Washington Post is generally agreed to be a paper whose editorial board leans leftward. Here's their assessment of the situation of the record of Mccain and Obama on this issue:

"In 2006, he (McCain) pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- while Mr. Obama was notably silent. "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole," Mr. McCain warned at the time."

That was two years ago, while Obama was silent, McCain tried to fix things.

McCain and Palin will change Washington forever.

September 20, 2008 11:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, I figured that Jack Daniels would have worn off by now. You didn't start drinking again this morning, did you?"

Facts are facts and here's TTF demonstrating that there aren't any they'd care to use.

September 20, 2008 11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I put up three examples of Obama's sexism, which is a fact, and Aunt Bea posts a long comment raving about one.

That would lead any sane and rational conclusion:

there is no defense for the other two


Oh sure, AH. If silence means agreement, then by the same token, I guess all the arguments I've made, or Emproph, Andrea, Robert, Priya, Tish, etc. have made that you didn't counter must be arguments you find there is no defense for

AH, Obama didn't pick Edwards or Richardson or any of the other male Democratic Presidential running mates. Does that make him a male sexist?

As to the spin on right wing blogs about the supposed pay rate discrepancies between the genders in the two campaigns, here's what LegiStorm, the organization that collected the data about pay rates, reports:

Obama's alleged pay gap
Posted by LegiStorm on Sunday, September 14, 2008
Over the last few days, a tempest has been brewing over an allegation made by Scripps Howard columnist Deroy Murdock that Sen. Barrack Obama (D-Ill.) pays less to women than he does to men in his Senate office. All the stories have accurately cited LegiStorm as the source for the raw data.

Naturally, the allegation has lit up the conservative blogosphere and made its way onto television, including ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopolous".

But along the way, a few commentators have taken liberty with the facts about LegiStorm's role so we wanted to clear that up. We carry the data and are happy to be the source for anyone, liberal or conservative, who wants to do analysis of that data. That's what it's there for - to provide openess in government and spark debate.

We were not, however, the source for the analysis that led to conclusion about equal pay. That analysis was solely done by Murdock. We do not take a position either for or against Murdock's analysis. We will simply note that there has been some debate about the validity of his claims because he did not include consideration of whether the men and women were doing equal work. Whether this criticism was valid is also something we do not take a position on.

We welcome hearing more about this issue in the future and hope that our data can serve as a useful source for both sides as they try to discover the truth.


And who is "columnist Deroy Murdock?" Wikipedia reports he is:

Deroy Murdock is an American conservative syndicated columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service and a contributing editor with National Review Online...writes for the [Moonie paper] The Washington Times...a veteran of the 1980 and 1984 Reagan for President campaigns and was a communications consultant with Forbes 2000...[and he wrote] an article titled "Three Cheers for Waterboarding", in which he called waterboarding "something of which every American should be proud."

So the guy who manipulated the data is part of the right wing spin machine. Why am I not surprised?

LOL Anon at 11:24. Maybe AH is using the **traditional** hair-of-the-dog treatment this morning.

September 20, 2008 11:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama worked with a friendly majority Democratic Congress and couldn't get anything done.

You need to reread the facts I disclosed this morning. Both McCain's and Obama's bills were presented to the GOP-controlled 109th Congress, which did nothing with either of them. The criticism you threw at one applies to both men. McSame's been on the hill since 1982 with the GOP in charge many of those years and managed to do next to nothing to reign in his beloved "free markets" and in fact, touted himself as a "deregulator" of the banking industry right up until last week. Obama's only been on the hill since 2004 and has long touted regulations to protect consumers. While still an Illinois State Senator, Obama supported Republican Governor Ryan's payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures. He followed this up by being the lead sponsor of similar protection in his Stop Fraud Act, which the GOP-controlled Senate tabled in 2004.

I actually feel sorry for you AH, all you have are smoke, mirrors, and spin.

September 20, 2008 12:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yet, we're supposed to believe everything you said on face value.

On the contrary, I provided links to the sources of many of my comments. Feel free to click on them so you can read and analyze them for yourself.

You, on the other hand, pull your comments out of your, AHem, mind, and provide few if any sources for them (I'm being generous here). It's as if you make them up out of thin air, but you don't. You pick them up reading right wing garbage and report it here as if it is fact rather than commentary.

I take the time to research and follow ideas and reports back to their sources and report what I find for all do see. You should try it sometime. What you'll learn might even change your narrow little mind to support the leadership and change we need, Obama/Biden.

September 20, 2008 12:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In 2006, he (McCain) pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- while Mr. Obama was notably silent. "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole," Mr. McCain warned at the time."

And what else did the Washington Post commentary, "Always for Less Regulation?" say?

It's fair to say that Mr. McCain has dramatically ramped up the regulatory rhetoric in the wake of the meltdown on Wall Street. Mr. Obama made the argument about the need for increased oversight much earlier. And Mr. McCain has generally taken an anti-regulatory stance, although not in all cases -- his support for federal regulation of tobacco and boxing being prominent counter-examples. Mr. McCain backed a moratorium on all new federal regulation in 1995, saying that excessive regulations were "destroying the American family, the American dream." On the campaign trail in 2000, he touted his record of voting "for smaller government, for less regulation."

So McCain hasn't always been for less regulation, he's just mostly been for it.

September 20, 2008 1:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I provided links to the sources of many of my comments."

Yes, you've linked to Obama's campaign website many times.

I've linked to left-leaning media sources who concede Obama was clueless while McCain tried to take action.

As far as getting things through Congress, McCain fought against the Republican hierarcnhy, Obama has kissed up to the Democratic corrupt leadership. The Democratic Congress has lower approval ratings than the the President- and that's saying something!

Obama showed where his sympathies lie by picking Joe Biden the epitome of the Democratic Congress.

And, Bea, your defense of the sexism displayed by Obama is so lame and pallid. You're exactly a credit to your gender.

Hillary Clinton had shown enormous appeal to the American voter and had virtually identical policy views to Obama. You can't say that about any of the men you cited. Certainly not Biden.

Obama simply didn't want a bossy woman in the West Wing with him.

And your defense of the unequal pay for women in Obama's campaign is that they weren't doing equal work? If so, the complaint shifts from discrimination in pay to discrimination in hiring.

Why did McCain find so many higher level roles for women than Obama?

Because he's not a sexist and Obama is.

September 20, 2008 1:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And, Bea, your defense of the sexism displayed by Obama is so lame and pallid. You're exactly a credit to your gender.

Well, now we see who the sexist is.

September 20, 2008 1:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that would be Obama

the case is closed

September 20, 2008 1:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You should try the lipstick, it could only be an improvement.

September 20, 2008 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look at the poll published in today's Time magazine.

After leading among women voters in August by 15 points, Obama is now tied with McCain.

Over the last month, Obama has flown his true colors up the flagpole and the reality that he is sexist has become clear to women all over America!

They're going to vote against the Barack "I'm trying to be James Bond" Obama ticket.

September 20, 2008 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Jim that CRG's street campaign is intended to increase prejudice against trans people.

rrjr

September 21, 2008 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look at the poll published in today's Time magazine.

That was interesting. You read this commentary in this week's Time Magazine:

Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2008
John McCain and the Lying Game
By Joe Klein

Politics has always been lousy with blather and chicanery. But there are rules and traditions too. In the early weeks of the general-election campaign, a consensus has grown in the political community — a consensus that ranges from practitioners like Karl Rove to commentators like, well, me — that John McCain has allowed his campaign to slip the normal bounds of political propriety. The situation has gotten so intense that we in the media have slipped our normal rules as well. Usually when a candidate tells something less than the truth, we mince words. We use euphemisms like mendacity and inaccuracy ... or, as the Associated Press put it, "McCain's claims skirt facts." But increasing numbers of otherwise sober observers, even such august institutions as the New York Times editorial board, are calling John McCain a liar. You might well ask, What has McCain done to deserve this? What unwritten rules did he break? Are his transgressions of degree or of kind?

Almost every politician stretches the truth. We journalists try to point out the exaggerations and criticize them, then let the voters decide. When McCain says, for example, that Barack Obama favors a government-run health-care system, he's not telling the truth — Obama wants a market-based system subsidized by the government — but McCain's untruth illuminates a general policy direction, which is sketchy but sort of within the bounds. (Obama's plan would increase government regulation of the drug and insurance industries.) Obama has done this sort of thing too. In July, he accused McCain of supporting the foreign buyout of an American company that could lead to the loss of about 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio. McCain did support the deal, but the job loss comes many years later and was not anticipated at the time. That, however, is where the moral equivalency between these two campaigns ends.

McCain's lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent's character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth. Even after 38 million Americans heard Obama say in his speech at the Democratic National Convention that he was open to offshore oil-drilling and building new nuclear-power plants, McCain flatly said in his acceptance speech that Obama opposed both. Normal political practice would be for McCain to say, "Obama says he's 'open to' offshore drilling, but he's always opposed it. How can we believe him?" This persistence in repeating demonstrably false charges is something new in presidential politics.

Worse than the lies have been the smears. McCain ran a television ad claiming that Obama favored "comprehensive" sex education for kindergartners. (Obama favored a bill that would have warned kindergartners about sexual predators and improper touching.) The accusation that Obama was referring to Sarah Palin when he said McCain's effort to remarket his economic policies was putting "lipstick on a pig" was another clearly misleading attack — an obnoxious attempt to divert attention from Palin's lack of fitness for the job and the recklessness with which McCain chose her. McCain's assault on the "élite media" for spreading rumors about Palin's personal life — actually, the culprits were a few bloggers and the tabloid press — was more of the same. And that gets us close to the real problem here. The McCain camp has decided that its candidate can't win honorably, on the issues, so it has resorted to transparent and phony diversions.

This new strategy emerged during the first week of Obama's overseas trip in late July. McCain had been intending to contrast his alleged foreign policy expertise and toughness with Obama's inexperience and alleged weakness. McCain wanted to "win" the Iraq war and face down the Iranians. But those issues became moot when the Iraqis said they favored Obama's withdrawal plan and the Bush Administration started talking to the Iranians. At that point, McCain committed his original sin — out of pique, I believe — questioning Obama's patriotism, saying the Democrat would rather lose a war than lose an election. Ever since, McCain's campaign has been a series of snide and demeaning ads accompanied by the daily gush of untruths that have now been widely documented and exposed. The strategy is an obvious attempt to camouflage the current unpopularity of his Republican brand, the insubstantiality of his vice-presidential choice, and his agreement on most issues — especially economic matters — with an exceedingly unpopular President.

The good news is that the vile times may be ending. The coming debates will decide this race, and it isn't easy to tell lies when your opponent is standing right next to you. The Wall Street collapse demands a more sober campaign as well. But these dreadful weeks should not be forgotten. John McCain has raised serious questions about whether he has the character to lead the nation. He has defaced his beloved military code of honor. He has run a dirty campaign.

September 22, 2008 12:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to Ruth Marcus in the Post, Obama is just as bad:

"The symmetry of sin is suddenly looking more equal. Last week, I flayed John McCain for dishonesty -- flagrant and repeated dishonesty -- about Barack Obama's proposals. Obama was by no means blameless, I argued, but his lapses were nowhere near as egregious as his opponent's. I stand by everything I wrote.

But a series of new Obama attacks requires a rebalancing of the scales: Obama has descended to similarly scurrilous tactics on the stump and on the air. On immigration, Obama is running a Spanish-language ad that unfairly lumps McCain together with Rush Limbaugh -- and quotes Limbaugh out of context. On health care, Obama misleadingly accuses McCain of wanting to impose a $3.6 trillion tax hike on employer-provided insurance.

Obama has been furthest out of line, however, on Social Security, stooping to the kind of scare tactics he once derided.

"If my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would have had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week," Obama said Saturday as he campaigned in that retiree-heavy state. "Millions of families would've been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves."

This is simply false -- even leaving aside the incendiary language about "privatizing" Social Security. As the invaluable FactCheck.org noted, the private account plan suggested by President Bush and backed by McCain would not have applied to anyone born before 1950. It would not have changed benefits by a single penny for current retirees like the nice Florida folks that Obama was trying to rile up. The sensible notion was that workers at or near retirement age should be able to rely on promised benefits and should not be subject to the vicissitudes of short-term market fluctuations.

There is a fair argument to be had about the wisdom of having workers invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. This year's plunge buttresses the contention that such accounts are too risky to comprise even part of what was conceived, after all, to serve as a safety net.

But Obama's cartoon version of private accounts is not what Bush suggested, and it certainly is not something being peddled by McCain now. Under Bush's plan, workers would have been able to invest less than a third of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. Unless they specifically chose a riskier course, workers, beginning at age 47, would have had their investments put in "life-cycle portfolios" that shifted from high-growth funds to more secure bonds as retirement approached.


Obama's ads on Social Security are equally misleading. "Cutting benefits in half, risking Social Security on the stock market," it warns. "The Bush-McCain privatization plan. Can you really afford more of the same?"

Cutting benefits in half? As FactCheck notes, "this is a rank misrepresentation." No one at or near retirement age would have been affected. Those retiring in the future would not have received benefits as big as what they have been promised under current law -- but those promises cannot be paid for under the current system or even through the payroll tax increase on the wealthy that Obama has proposed.

The Bush plan would have limited benefits for some workers to growing at the rate of inflation rather than at the generally faster pace of wages. In other words, these workers would be getting benefits equal in real dollar value to those received by current retirees. But under the "progressive price indexing" approach endorsed by the president, lower-income workers would continue to receive all their promised benefits; medium-income workers would have their benefits reduced somewhat; and high-income workers would take the biggest hit.

The Obama campaign stretches the truth beyond recognition when it says that this would cut benefits in half. Under progressive price indexing, the average-earning worker would see a 28 percent cut in promised benefits -- in 2075. In other words, trims of that magnitude would affect workers not yet born. Today's average-earning 25-year-old would experience much smaller reductions in promised benefits upon reaching retirement age -- more like 16 percent.

And the only way the Obama campaign can inflate the supposed benefit cut to "half" is by assuming that the change in calculating benefit growth would be applied to all workers, not just the top tier. In that case, workers not yet born would get 49 percent of the benefits not yet promised to them by 2075. Doubt these numbers? They come from Jason Furman, now the Obama campaign's chief economic adviser.

To Democrats who worry about whether their nominee is willing to do whatever it takes to win: You can calm down."

September 22, 2008 3:41 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

On October 5, 2008, the CW Network premiered a new TV show from the creators of The Sopranos. The new show is called Easy Money. The show is about a family that owns and operates a “high-interest loan” business called Prestige Payday Loans. It’s pretty typical to see shows being unrealistic when it comes to what actually happens in real life. After watching one of the trailers for Easy Money, as well as a few of the episode synopses, I can tell that the premise for the show is based solely on vicious media stereotypes. Think about the last time you saw a news story either online or on television news talking about the payday loan industry. Chances are, the story spun tales of “real” people’s troubles getting stuck in an “endless cycle of debt.” According to such “articles,” these cycles of debt all started when these people needed to borrow money to pay for a surprise expense. Stories like this are further proof that most news networks sensationalize controversial issues for the sake of winning the ratings wars. It seems like the CW is doing the same in an effort to recover viewers lost during the Writer’s Strike. One preview opens with the tag line, “for this family of loan sharks, money is easy.” It will be interesting to see how the show’s creators misconstrue the payday loan industry throughout the upcoming episodes.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

October 10, 2008 3:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home