Friday, April 12, 2013

RIP Jonathan Winters

Now and then one passes and it hits home. Jonathan Winters was a pure stream of cool creativity, splashing right from the source. He has been part of our lives, it seems like, forever.

Look at him on Jack Paar. His prop is a stick.



I played in the band once at a party he attended in Santa Barbara, California. Gigantic mansion, lighted statuary on lawn after lawn, Rollses and Jags and Mercedes out front -- and one rusty Ford station wagon. Yup, that was Jonathan's car. You went in and there were waitresses in their little French maid outfits carrying around trays of stuff. The band set up, and at that whole party only two people came over to talk to us: Larry Hagman and Jonathan Winters. Hagman was having a little trouble standing and talking at the same time, but he seemed like a nice enough guy. Jonathan Winters, on the other hand, may have had a few himself, I don't know, but he chatted with us like he'd known us for years. He got into a story about a guy peeing on an electric fence, as I recall -- this was many years ago -- and he had us rolling on the floor. He was just like he is in this video, he was riding on a wave of pure brilliance.

I thought that Jack Paar video was funny, and then I saw this one, from Dean Martin's show:

 

There are a few people in the world who are, let's say, verbal jazz musicians. They can improvise in the linguistic medium and invoke the full range of emotions with skill and dignity. Jonathan Winters was the best of the best. It is sad to imagine a world without him.

101 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

good story, Jim

he was never my cup of tea but you've given me a new perspective

April 13, 2013 7:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

New Zealand passes gay marriage bill
The new legislation will also allow gay couples to jointly adopt children for the first time

AP

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) — Hundreds of jubilant gay-rights advocates celebrated at New Zealand’s Parliament Wednesday night as the country become the 13th in the world and the first in the Asia-Pacific region to legalize same-sex marriage.

Lawmakers voted 77 to 44 in favor of the gay-marriage bill on its third and final reading.

People watching from the public gallery and some lawmakers immediately broke into song after the result was announced, singing the New Zealand love song “Pokarekare Ana” in the indigenous Maori language.

“For us, we can now feel equal to everyone else,” said Tania Penafiel Bermudez, a bank teller who said she already considers herself married to partner Sonja Fry but now can get a certificate to prove it. “This means we can feel safe and fair and right in calling each other wife and wife.”

In one of several speeches that ended in a standing ovation, bill sponsor Louisa Wall told lawmakers the change was “our road toward healing.”

“In our society, the meaning of marriage is universal — it’s a declaration of love and commitment to a special person,” she said. She added that “nothing could make me more proud to be a New Zealander than passing this bill.”

Lawmakers from most political parties were encouraged by their leaders to vote as their conscience dictated rather than along party lines. Although Wall is from the opposition Labour Party, the bill also was supported by center-right Prime Minister John Key.

“In my view, marriage is a very personal thing between two individuals,” Key said. “And, in the end, this is part of equality in modern-day New Zealand.”

Since 2005, New Zealand has allowed civil unions, which confer many legal rights to gay couples. The new law will allow gay couples to jointly adopt children for the first time and will also allow their marriages to be recognized in other countries. The law will take effect in late August.

“This is really, really huge,” said Jills Angus Burney, a lawyer who drove about 90 minutes to Parliament to watch the vote with her partner, Deborah Hambly, who had flown in from farther afield. “It’s really important to me. It’s just unbelievable.”

Burney, a Presbyterian, said she and Hambly want to celebrate with a big, traditional wedding as soon as possible.

The change in New Zealand could put pressure on some of its neighbors to consider changing their laws. In Australia, there has been little political momentum for a change at a federal level and Prime Minister Julia Gillard has expressed her opposition to same-sex marriage. Some Australian states, however, are considering gay-marriage legislation.

Rodney Croome, the national director for the lobbying group Australian Marriage Equality, said that since Friday, 1,000 people had signed an online survey saying they would travel to New Zealand to wed, though same-sex marriages would not be recognized under current Australian law.

“There’s this really big, pent-up demand for this in Australia,” Croome said. “New Zealand is just a three-hour plane ride away, and many couples are going to go to New Zealand to marry. They are just so sick and tired of waiting for the government to act. I think it’s going to spark this big tourism boom.”

April 17, 2013 9:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Blame the gun lobby. Blame Republicans. Blame a handful of skittish Democrats who gave the GOP cover. Blame the entire band of demagogues who killed the modest attempt to close loopholes in a law requiring background checks for guns.

Blame them, too, for jeopardizing President Obama’s entire legislative agenda. That was the point, anyhow, right?

An amendment aimed at salvaging the background check measure fell six votes short of the 60-vote threshold needed to move ahead in the Senate on Wednesday. It was the last remnant of a gun-regulation package that Obama proposed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter. “I will put everything I’ve got into this,” Obama said at the time.

It wasn’t nearly enough.

The defeat raises questions about Obama’s ability to unify congressional Democrats. The president will need party unity and grassroots muscle to battle the GOP on immigration, federal spending, climate change and other White House interests.

Coming into the week, Obama’s agenda appeared to be at an important juncture—with guns, immigration, and deficit-reduction talks at various stages of progress. Winning an expansion of the background check, even as bolder gun measures failed, would have given Obama momentum to push the other two items.

Conversely, his rivals now feel emboldened to block Obama’s entire agenda. Republican leaders cheer themselves with the fact that a president’s approval rating usually suffers amid gridlock.

Obama’s team took news of the defeat hard Wednesday, with some advisers predicting that gun regulation won’t be revived. It is hard for them to explain the failure of a measure supported by 90 percent of the public without making the president appear weak."

Have a nice day!!

April 17, 2013 11:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What part of "Ninety percent of American want expanded background checks" do the GOP Senators not understand?

Shame on the NRA and their indebted GOP Senators for supporting the rights of Jared Loughner over the rights of gun violence victims.

Thank goodness for heroes like Patricia Maisch

"WASHINGTON -- Patricia Maisch, a hero of the Tucson shooting that left six dead and another 13 wounded, including former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), was escorted by police out of the Capitol Wednesday for telling senators that they should be ashamed of themselves for blocking a provision requiring background checks for gun sales.

Maisch was at Giffords' "Congress On Your Corner" event in January 2011 when Jared Loughner opened fire. He was tackled by bystanders as he tried to reload, and Maisch was able to grab the third clip away from him.

She reacted just as quickly inside the Senate chamber. "Shame on you!" she told senators who'd voted against the amendment, which would require background checks for firearm sales at gun shows and elsewhere.

Outside the Senate chamber Wednesday, Maisch was surrounded by reporters. "When I was told it was done, I decided that I could not stay still any longer, that they need to be ashamed of themselves," she said. "They have no souls. They have no compassion for the experiences that people have lived through ... [having] a child or loved one murdered by a gun. They say that it's not the gun, it's the man. I'm here to tell you ... The man and the gun become intimate and they cannot do the act without each other. So the gun is part of the problem."

Reporters continuing to interview Maisch separated her from Capitol police, who were attempting to remove her from the building. "It was spontaneous, but I was prepared to do that," she said of her admonition, which was gaveled down by Vice President Joe Biden, who was presiding over the chamber. "They are an embarrassment to our country."

Lori Haas, who also told the Senate from the gallery that it should be ashamed of itself for blocking the background checks measure, was escorted out along with Maisch. Her daughter Emily was shot twice at Virginia Tech and survived.

If a background check would have been able to capture Loughner's record of mental instability or drug abuse, he could have been prevented from purchasing the weapon. But a variety of federal laws protected his privilege to do so."

April 18, 2013 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What part of "Ninety percent of American want expanded background checks" do the GOP Senators not understand?"

Democrats also voted against the bill

from your perspective, this a failure to persuade by the President

April 18, 2013 9:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tuscon victim's mother, Roxanna Green, We are not defeated

Bullet 13 or 14 out of Jared Loughner's constitutionally protected gun killed Roxanna's 9 year old daughter. Limiting clips to 10 rounds would have saved her daughter's life and still would have allowed Loughner to own and use his constitutionally protected gun.

Guns have changed, Shouldn't our gun laws?

April 18, 2013 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If a background check would have been able to capture Loughner's record of mental instability or drug abuse, he could have been prevented from purchasing the weapon."

what makes you think that Loughner wouldn't just use Ricin or a pressure cooker nail bomb?

there are lots of ways a nut can kill people

we can't outlaw everything

-and even if we did, we have some resourceful nuts who would manage to get the stuff anyway

what would make sense is to lock mentally unstable people away

but that would bother lunatic fringe gay advocates because a disproportionate share of homosexuals have mental problems

Have a nice day!!!

April 18, 2013 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speak for yourself.

I speak from the perspective of a person who understands death of a loved one by gunfire, and far from failure to persuade, I see my President standing up for victims of gun violence against the money and power of the NRA.

Those of us who came to Congress to lobby for expanded background checks are not merely props. We are citizens seeking redress for our grievances.

There is nothing more American than that.

"what makes you think that Loughner wouldn't just use Ricin or a pressure cooker nail bomb"

Facts make me think that.

Any idiot, even you, can compare stats for US citizen deaths by gun, ricin, and pressure cooker nail bomb to see the truth.

April 18, 2013 10:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Facts make me think that.

Any idiot, even you, can compare stats for US citizen deaths by gun, ricin, and pressure cooker nail bomb to see the truth."

apparently, not every idiot can logically interpret facts

there is no reason to think those who now use guns will not find other ways to kill people if guns are somehow successfully outlawed

what they do now is irrelevant to what they'd do if circumstances changed

some of those other means of terrorizing make guns look humane by contrast, btw

Have a Nice Day!!!

April 18, 2013 10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

many Democrats, including the hypocritical Harry Reid voted against the bill

April 18, 2013 10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Harry Reid voted against the bill

The finer points of the Senate's legislative process are apparently too difficult for you to comprehend.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid voted “no” as a procedural mechanism to be able to reintroduce the amendment at a later time.

April 18, 2013 10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A shameful day for Washington"

April 18, 2013 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid voted “no” as a procedural mechanism to be able to reintroduce the amendment at a later time"

what, did he vote fer it before he voted agin it?

he needs a procedure alright

have a nice day!!!

April 18, 2013 10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The question is: Would it have had any effect on Newtown? If you're going to make all these emotional appeals -- he's saying you're betraying the families -- you've got to show how if this had been law it would've stopped Newtown. It would not have. It’s irrelevant.

It's a kind of emotional blackmail as a way of saying, 'You have to do it for the children.'

Not if there's no logic in this.

And that I think is what’s wrong with the demagoguery that we've heard out of the president on this issue.

And every other issue.

Have a Nice DaaaAAAAaaay-o!!

April 18, 2013 11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid voted “no” as a procedural mechanism to be able to reintroduce the amendment at a later time"

oh, that's why all the other Dems and Repubs voted no too

it's all a big mix-up

people just need to communicate more

HAve a NIce DAy!!!

April 18, 2013 12:04 PM  
Anonymous A message for the cowards in the US Senate said...

"SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.

On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms — a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count.

Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.

I watch TV and read the papers like everyone else. We know what we’re going to hear: vague platitudes like “tough vote” and “complicated issue.” I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending.

Speaking is physically difficult for me. But my feelings are clear: I’m furious. I will not rest until we have righted the wrong these senators have done, and until we have changed our laws so we can look parents in the face and say: We are trying to keep your children safe. We cannot allow the status quo — desperately protected by the gun lobby so that they can make more money by spreading fear and misinformation — to go on.

I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth about the cowardice these senators demonstrated. I am asking for mothers to stop these lawmakers at the grocery store and tell them: You’ve lost my vote. I am asking activists to unsubscribe from these senators’ e-mail lists and to stop giving them money. I’m asking citizens to go to their offices and say: You’ve disappointed me, and there will be consequences.

People have told me that I’m courageous, but I have seen greater courage. Gabe Zimmerman, my friend and staff member in whose honor we dedicated a room in the United States Capitol this week, saw me shot in the head and saw the shooter turn his gunfire on others. Gabe ran toward me as I lay bleeding. Toward gunfire. And then the gunman shot him, and then Gabe died. His body lay on the pavement in front of the Safeway for hours.

I have thought a lot about why Gabe ran toward me when he could have run away. Service was part of his life, but it was also his job. The senators who voted against background checks for online and gun-show sales, and those who voted against checks to screen out would-be gun buyers with mental illness, failed to do their job...."


Read the rest of Gabby's remarks here.

April 18, 2013 1:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.

On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms — a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count."

this type of demagoguery must end if our country is ever to move forward again

Dems need to stop exploiting the death if these children

the shooter would have gotten these weapons whether there were struct background checks or not

he stole them from someone who would pass a background check

his mother

so, Newtown is not relevant to this bill

and the Dems are exploiting tragedy for their agenda

except Harry Reid

have a nice day!!!!

April 18, 2013 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why don't these GOP coward Senators allow law-abiding Americans who come to visit their Senator's DC office to bring their constitutionally protected guns in with them? WTF are they afraid of?

April 18, 2013 4:29 PM  
Anonymous Be ye not afraid said...

New Zealand MP Maurice Williamson made a great speech during the debate on marriage equality there.

Partial transcript:

""I've had a reverend in my local electorate say the 'gay onslaught will start the day this law is passed'. So, we are struggling to know what the gay onslaught will look like. We don't know if it will come down the Pakaranga highway as a series of troops or whether it will be a gas that flows in over the electorate and blocks us all in."

"I also had a Catholic priest tell me that I was supporting an unnatural act. I found that quite interesting coming from someone who has taken an oath of celibacy for his whole life."

"I also had a leader telling me I would burn in the fires of hell for eternity and that was a bad mistake because I've got a degree in physics. I used the thermodynamic laws of physics. I put in my body weight and my humidity and so on. I assumed the furnace to be at 5000 degrees and I will last for just on 2.1 seconds. It's hardly eternity, what do you think?"

“One of the messages I had was that this bill was the cause of our drought. This bill was the cause of our drought. Well if any of you follow my Twitter account, you will see that in the Pakuranga electorate this morning, it was pouring with rain, we had the most enormous big gay rainbow across my electorate. It has to be a sign.""


And here's the photo he posted on his Twitter account that day.

April 18, 2013 4:51 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Dems need to stop exploiting the death if these children.".

Republican politicians need to stop their heinous disregard for the innocent victims of gun violence. They need to stop letting their irrational hatred of Obama result in knee-jerk opposition blinding them to what needs to be done and do what's right and what the American public wants.

April 18, 2013 5:43 PM  
Anonymous NRA loses more support said...

WASHINGTON -- Adolphus Busch IV, heir to the Busch family brewing fortune, resigned his lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association on Thursday, writing in a letter to NRA President David Keene, "I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable."

The resignation, first reported by KSDK, came a day after the Senate rejected a series of amendments to a gun control bill, including a bipartisan deal to expand background checks for gun sales. The NRA had vigorously opposed all those measures.

"The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established," wrote Busch. "Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."

Reached for comment on Busch's resignation, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told The Huffington Post, "We disagree with his characterization, but we wish him all the best."

Busch joined the pro-gun organization in 1975 and has spoken before of his love of hunting. But the NRA has moved in a direction that Busch would not follow. "One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners," he wrote.

Busch told Keene, "It disturbs me greatly to see this rigid new direction of the NRA." He singled out the gun lobby's reversal of its 1999 position in favor of universal background checks, as well as its opposition to an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines. "I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision," he wrote.

"Was it not the NRA position to support background checks when Mr. LaPierre himself stated in 1999 that NRA saw checks as 'reasonable'?" Busch wrote, referring to NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre's testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the wake of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting.

At that time, LaPierre said the NRA believed that universal background checks were a "reasonable" choice. The group even took out ads in major newspapers that read, "We believe it's reasonable to provide for instant background checks at gun shows, just like gun stores and pawn shops."

One week after that hearing, LaPierre rolled out the same argument that he would use 14 years later to attack President Barack Obama's gun safety proposals -- namely, that until the government prosecutes more background check violations, there is no point in expanding them.

April 19, 2013 7:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Republican politicians need to stop their heinous disregard for the innocent victims of gun violence. They need to stop letting their irrational hatred of Obama result in knee-jerk opposition blinding them to what needs to be done and do what's right and what the American public wants."

Lazy Priya, after spending a non-productive life not contributing in any way to society, now is too lazy to think beyond the standard liberal squawking point.

Right now, it is illegal to shoot and kill elementary school children. And, yet, someone did it.

Why, then, does anyone think making it illegal for lazy nuts to have guns will keep it from happening?

This guy in Newtown was someone who was lazy and never made any contribution to society because he couldn't handle a work setting. So, he sat around stewing in his bitterness and cooking up resentment, blaming everyone else for his problems, and, then, one day, snapping.

We need to deal with the lazy nuts. Having no purpose, they eventually lash out. Lock 'em up and train 'em to do something.

Idle hands are the devil's tools.

Those idle hands will find other ways to lash out, even if we somehow keep them from getting guns, which is unlikely.

April 19, 2013 7:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On his Thursday show, Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman and current host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, tore into the senators who voted to block a compromise bill to expand background checks, as those 45 senators’ names and pictures were shown onscreen:

"You do not ignore 90 percent of the American people on an issue of public safety. Mark it down — this is going to be a turning point in the history of the Republican Party as well. And let those out there chattering, let them chatter away all they want to and scream like hyenas. Let them do what they want to do.

This party that killed this background check yesterday — this party is moving toward extinction. A new Republican Party is going to replace it. And this is going to be a vote that people are going to look back on and say, ‘That party — that extremism — that was unsustainable.’


These are the COWARD senators who voted against the Manchin-Toomey amendment, with links to these COWARDS' contact information:

1. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) | @SenAlexander
2. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) | @KellyAyotte
3. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) | @SenJohnBarrasso
4. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) | @MaxBaucus
5. Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) | @SenatorBegich
6. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) | @RoyBlunt
7. Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) | @JohnBoozman
8. Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) | @SenatorBurr
9. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) | @SaxbyChambliss
10. Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN)| @SenDanCoats
11. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) | @TomCoburn
12. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)| @SenThadCochran
13. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) | @SenBobCorker
14. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) | @JohnCornyn
15. Sen. Michael Crapo (R-ID) | @MikeCrapo
16. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) | @tedcruz
17. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) | @SenatorEnzi
18. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) | @DebFischer2012
19. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) | @JeffFlake
20. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) | @GrahamBlog
21. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) | @ChuckGrassely
22. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) | @OrrinHatch
23. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) | @Heidi4ND
24. Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) | @DeanHeller
25. Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) | @SenJohnHoeven
26. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) | @jiminhofe
27. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) | @SenatorIsakson
28. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) | @Mike_Johanns
29. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) | @SenRonJohnson
30. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) | @SenMikeLee
31. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) | @McConnellPress
32. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) | @JerryMoran
33. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) | @lisamurkowski
34. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) | @RandPaul
35. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) | @robportman
36. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) | @SenMarkPryor
37. Sen. James Risch (R-ID) | @SenatorRisch
38. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) | @SenPatRoberts
39. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) | @marcorubio
40. Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) | @SenatorTimScott
41. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) | @SenatorSessions
42. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) | @SenShelbyPress
43. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) | @johnthune
44. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) | David Vitter
45. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) | Roger Wicker

April 19, 2013 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boy Scouts of America Proposes Dropping Ban on Gay Kids—But Not Gay Adults
April 19, 2013

While the nation's attention was turned to Boston on Friday morning, the Boy Scouts of America announced that it intends to end its ban on gay members, as long as its board approves the change. The organization would still, however, prohibit gay adults from serving as troop leaders or volunteers.

The proposed new policy states, "No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone." The proposed policy also reinforces the organization's position that "Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting." You can read the proposal here, or the media statement here.

The change would apply only to members; it does not change the policy regarding gay troop leaders or other volunteers. "The BSA will maintain the current membership policy for all adults," Deron Smith, the group's spokesman, told Mother Jones via email.

BSA's long-standing ban on gay members has been a huge source of controversy. In January, the group announced that it was considering whether to allow individual troops to admit gay members but put off making a decision until May. As my colleague Dana Liebelson has reported, the group lost some major funders because of the gay ban. Most recently, a number of high-profile musical acts ditched the Boy Scouts' annual Jamboree for this reason.

If the Scouts' 1,400-member board approves the change at its annual meeting in May, it would take effect January 1, 2014.

April 19, 2013 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Priya.

this is Theresa.
I have been working all week, came back to abjectly stare at all the friggin stuff that needs to be done around my house that embarrasses me because I haven't gotten to it, because I am working....and the complete mess it is...

and I wanted to hear again why you thought that Canadian citizens that are working should work to pay for your blogging ?

because it seems to me that you clearly could work. because,
you can argue a case, you have a computer, you could find a job.

yet you vehemently argue that those who are working should pay more and more taxes to support your optional activities.

I really find that so very unfair. It grates on me. I don't understand how anyone could not understand the unfairness of someone working hard to give the results of their work (through taxation) to someone else.... who could support themselves but CHOOSES NOT TO.

I don't accept that you cannot work. I really don't. there are jobs you can procure from home with a computer

and as I look at my messy house, my out of control backyard, and all the work I need to do this weekend to get it under control ... I wonder again why you believe that folks like me should work to support folks like you ?


because essentially they ARE taking more of my salary to support folks like you...

so why do you believe it is okay to rely on other folks to support you....

why can't you work again ?

I would truly like to understand.

Because, you see, that money that they take from me to support you, I have lots of uses for...

I would first to pay off my mortgage, and then for my kids education and then I might have some free time. Finally. I would go out to eat, go on vacation and spend the money liberally. But right now so much goes to taxes it is crazy. And I have to tell you

I keep working because I have children that I need to support.

April 19, 2013 9:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and so, the govt takes more and more money from me to support liberal bloggers like you that "CANt work" and I pay more taxes and you pay less.

And I have less time and resources to address the issue, and being a type A, I keep working and you keep blogging and you because of your political connections end up paying virtually nothing on any income you receive.. Why ? because you file as an LLC.. Priya the blogging LLC. I would bet that is true statement.

April 19, 2013 10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and I am still angry say...

why should I work to support Priya ?

Priya can you answer ?

I have a backyard that needs to be mowed, a hedge that is a mess, I would be willing to pay folks to fix that for for me....

I would be willing to pay folks to deal with various accounting issues on various things.


but you think I should pay you for DOING NOTHING.

WHY ?

and if you argue that you simply "well I am not capable of working even though I am capable of blogging 24x7

I am done with folks like you Priya... because folks like me that NEVER get a break from work work to support folks like you that SIT ON YOU FRIGGIN BUTT all day.

why should my tax dollars pay for folks like you instead of my own children.... WHEN I WORKED FOR THE MONEY ??????


WHY ?
WHY DO YOU THINK I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT YOU ?

April 19, 2013 11:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lazy Priya has apparently crawled back under a rock

munchin' on moss and slugs, waiting for this to blow over

April 20, 2013 9:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"(CNN) -- Adam Lanza stayed at home mostly, a witness said, playing on the computer.

But on December 14, 2012, he went out -- armed with 10 30-round magazines for his semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 caliber model XM15 rifle and bullets for his two handguns and a shotgun.

Lanza didn't make it home alive. Nor did the 26 people -- 20 of them schoolchildren ages 6 and 7 -- he shot dead in less than five minutes, firing one bullet roughly every two seconds he was at Sandy Hook Elementary School."

people keep drawing the conclusion that this case proves that we need to outlaw guns

why aren't they concluding that we need to end idleness?

if this guy wasn't allow to freeload and do nothing but sit around staring at electronic screens 24/7, this tragedy probably would have never happened

April 20, 2013 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if Congress wasn't such a bunch of cowards, we'd have background checks on those who can buy internet access

people who have psychological problems that prevent them from holding down a job, such as this Adam Lanza guy, and claim they were bullied as children, such as this Adam Lanza guy, and hate their parents, such as this Adam Lanza guy, should not be allowed to buy computers or gain internet access

we should do a background check to keep them out of their hands!!

April 20, 2013 11:26 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

“and I am still angry say...

why should I work to support Priya ?...

but you think I should pay you for DOING NOTHING.

WHY ?”

Chill out. Unless you live in Canada, you are NOT paying for her to do nothing, and I seem to recall in one of her post she wasn’t on welfare anymore anyway. Picking on a Canadian minority woman who was abused by her parents doesn’t help any of our problems here in the US. It just makes you look like another @$$h013 American.

If you want to complain about lazy Canadians, you have to also complain about all of our other lazy military allies, as we have been subsidizing their defense by funding our TOTALLY overblown military industrial complex. Europe, Japan, South Korea, and many other countries around the world have to spend only trivial amounts on defense because we spend 41% of the ENTIRE WORLD EXPENDITURE on arms for our military – 5 times as much as China, the next biggest spender.

From: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

*US military spending is almost 5 times more than China, 10 times more than Russia, and 95 times more than Iran.

*US military spending is some 63 times the spending on the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) whose spending amounts to just under $11 billion. (Libya has fallen, and Sudan has split into two)

*US spending is as much as than the next top 14 countries.

*The United States and its strongest allies (the NATO countries, Japan, South Korea and Australia) spend something in the region of $1.2 trillion on their militaries combined, representing over 70 percent of the world’s total.

*The six potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together account for about $226 billion or 30% of the US military budget.

If you want to fix some of the tax problems here in the US, we need to start reducing our military burden. We are living in the age of the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about but we ignored.

April 20, 2013 11:47 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Then you’ll probably want to look at why in many states, the largest single group of people receiving state health care are Wal-mart employees. Here are just a couple of examples from http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate-subsidy-watch/hidden-taxpayer-costs :

Alabama
In April 2005 the Mobile Register published an article citing data from the Alabama Medicaid Agency on companies in the state with employees whose children are participating in Medicaid. The newspaper obtained a list from the agency of 63 companies whose employees had 100 or more children in the program as of mid-March 2005. At the top of the list was Wal-Mart, whose employees had 4,700 children in the program. Following it were McDonald's (1,931), Hardee's (884) and Burger King (861). The data were similar to information obtained from the same agency by the Montgomery Advertiser two months earlier.

Arkansas
In March 2005 the Department of Human Services, responding to a request from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and the Arkansas Times, released a list of the number of employees at the state's largest employers who receive some form of public assistance for themselves or their family, mostly Medicaid coverage for their children. The disclosure found a total of 9,698 workers at the top nine employers, by far the largest number of which--3,971--were employees of Wal-Mart.

Why am I subsidizing medical care for Wal-mart employees? The Walton family is making millions of dollars off the backs of their employees. They aren’t going to be poor any time soon. If they paid their employees reasonable wages and gave them decent health care benefits, those hard working employees wouldn’t need any of my taxes. They’d be supporting themselves, rather than Sam’s family. And before you try and claim they have to pay employees that little to make a profit, read this interesting article comparing Costco’s pay to Sam’s Club – and do a little math: http://hbr.org/2006/12/the-high-cost-of-low-wages/ar/1

“Consider Costco and Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club, which compete fiercely on low-price merchandise. Among warehouse retailers, Costco—with 338 stores and 67,600 full-time employees in the United States—is number one, accounting for about 50% of the market. Sam’s Club—with 551 stores and 110,200 employees in the United States—is number two, with about 40% of the market.

Though the businesses are direct competitors and quite similar overall, a remarkable disparity shows up in their wage and benefits structures. The average wage at Costco is $17 an hour. Walmart does not break out the pay of its Sam’s Club workers, but a full-time worker at Wal-Mart makes $10.11 an hour on average, and a variety of sources suggest that Sam’s Club’s pay scale is similar to Wal-Mart’s. A 2005 New York Times article by Steven Greenhouse reported that at $17 an hour, Costco’s average pay is 72% higher than Sam’s Club’s ($9.86 an hour). Interviews that a colleague and I conducted with a dozen Sam’s Club employees in San Francisco and Denver put the average hourly wage at about $10. And a 2004 BusinessWeek article by Stanley Holmes and Wendy Zellner estimated Sam’s Club’s average hourly wage at $11.52.”

April 20, 2013 11:48 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

The benefit to Costco in lower turn-over rates is enormous, as it explains later in the article. One should also notice that Costco is NOT listed on the previous site where John Q. Taxpayer pays for their medical coverage. Go figure.

And from the looks of it, Walmart could be making even more money if they just hired enough people to stock their shelves, rather than throwing out expired products:

http://business.time.com/2013/03/27/hey-walmart-its-hard-to-make-sales-when-store-shelves-are-empty/

“A few months before that, Reuters reported on a group of Walmart employees claiming that low levels of staffing, as well as subpar wages and unsafe working conditions, have led to chronic long lines and haphazard restocking inside stores. In one instance, a Walmart store supposedly wound up having to throw away 2,000 pounds of Halloween candy because it didn’t make it onto store shelves in time for the holiday.”

There are plenty of people looking for work these days, and Walmart is not only leaving money on the table, but actually throwing it out. There are several ways they could make more money for themselves, and get their employees off of state medical roles, and relieve the burden on the US tax payer. But they chose not to do so. Why is that? Don’t tell me it’s because they don’t have enough tax breaks.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 20, 2013 11:48 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Theresa, as you're well aware you don't work to support me. None of your taxes have EVER contributed to my support and I'm no longer on welfare.

But you keep forcing me to wipe your spittle from my monitor with your frenzied lying. You've claimed on three occaisions you're done with me but you keep comming back here losing your mind over something you don't do and have never had to do.

This isn't about me, you have deep issues and you need help. Your mental health problems are obvious for all to see. You are obviously miserable and have psychotic tendencies. The blame for that lies with you and not me or anyone else. Seek help from a licensed therapist immediately

April 20, 2013 11:55 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Thanks for your support Cynthia. You are correct, I haven't been on welfare for several years and have repeatedly told Theresa this but she just can't let go of her victim fantasy.

April 20, 2013 12:15 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Have a scrumpdillyisious rainbow unicorn day.

April 20, 2013 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There you go Priya.

You blog 24x7 but I am the one with mental issues.
Really ?

As other Anon pointed out, it was Adam Lanza who wasn't working that went on a shooting spree.

Actually that kind of describes the Boston Marathon shooters as well.

Priya, you were the one that went off on how I was not entitled to keep the money I worked so hard for and then revealed that you had been on welfare (yes I get that it is Canada) for 10 years and that you don't currently work.

Can you not see how that would be infuriating to folks that work hard ?

Half the US doesn't work. we spent over a trillion dollars a year on various welfare/food stamp/housing/Medicaid programs.

It is not a sustainable model.

and now I am going to go mow the backyard, followed by weeding and raking...

have a nice day.

April 20, 2013 12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look who's complaining about paying taxes, a woman whose family income is $250K, far above the top 5% of all US families, who bring in $186K or more annually.

Tell us, Theresa, are you still paying for that fancy spa in Bethesda and planning to go without air conditioning again this summer?

I don't accept that you can't make ends meet bringing home $250K a year and keeping your Bush tax cut intact.

I really don't.

You must make some lousy family budget decisions.

"Although the United States has always been a capitalist country, our inequality—or at least its current high level—is new. Some thirty years ago, the top 1 percent of income earners received only 12 percent of the nation’s income. That level of inequality should itself have been unacceptable; but since then the disparity has grown dramatically, so that by 2007 the average after-tax income of the top 1 percent had reached $1.3 million, but that of the bottom 20 percent amounted to only $17,800. The top 1 percent get in one week 40 percent more than the bottom fifth receive in a year; the top 0.1 percent received in a day and a half about what the bottom 90 percent received in a year; and the richest 20 percent of income earners earn in total after tax more than the bottom 80 percent combined."

Pretty soon, there will be no middle class left.

Yet Theresa can only bitch that her family, which earns way above what middle class families earn, doesn't get more.

Theresa's BS claim that a red cent of her US taxes pays for a single thing for any Canadian is just plain ignorant....or a blatant lie. Care to tell us which it is?

Not everyone has a backyard or a hedge to call their own.

I guess Theresa's back here because her website, for ladies who were going to quit working if the $250K Bush tax cut was repealed, doesn't get much traffic now that the Bush tax cut for families clearing $250K annually is intact.

"For thirty years after World War II, America grew together—with growth in income in every segment, but with those at the bottom growing faster than those at the top. The country’s fight for survival brought a new sense of unity, and that led to policies, like the GI Bill, that helped bring the country even closer together.

But for the past thirty years, we’ve become increasingly a nation divided; not only has the top been growing the fastest, but the bottom has actually been declining. (It hasn’t been a relentless pattern—in the 1990s, for a while, those at the bottom and in the middle did better
[thanks, Bill!]. But then, as we’ve seen, beginning around 2000, inequality grew at an even more rapid pace.)"

April 20, 2013 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and I pay close to 42% in combined taxes every year with the bush tax cuts. That is highway robbery.

again, it is what you work for....
Priya decided to stay on welfare for 15 some years as opposed to working, therefore, yes, Priya doesn't have many assets.

Guess whose fault that is ?
It's Priyas. Nobody elses.

when the income tax was passed they promised it would never go about 3%. and indeed, it is 3% or money back if you don't declare much income (which is entirely different than making income).

It is the W2 folks that get screwed all the time.

the true rich are the incorporated.

you have your sights set on the wrong crowd.

but our President, who probably has never looked at a tax form in his life, keeps talking about rates.

it is not the rates. It is the code itself.

I have explained this a million times and I am not going to explain it again.

how much do you think the combined rate should be ? Given me a percentage ...90 % (why bother working).... 60% (better get divorced if you are both working)...

the code is a mess. I pay far far more than the millionaires.... who again, like Romney receive most of their income in capital gains...

did you know that they have decided to tax the rain in MD ?

in favor of that too ?

.

April 20, 2013 4:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll answer as many of your questions as you answered of mine.

You reap what you sew.

"I pay close to 42% in combined taxes"

"What taxes are you combining? State, federal, sales, FICA?

Per About.com:

2012 Federal Income Tax Rates were:

"10% for families earning $17,400 or less
15% for families earning $17,400-$70,700
25% for families earning $70,700-$142,700
28% for families earning $142,700-$217,450
33% for families earning $217,450-$388,350
35% for families earning more than $388,350"

If you don't want to pay Maryland state income tax, feel free to move to an income tax-free state.

"when the income tax was passed they promised it would never go about 3%"

Where do you come up with lies like this, Theresa?

"...In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate..."

April 20, 2013 5:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

subsequent to that, the income tax was determined to be unconstitutional and wasn't reinstated until a constitutional amendement was passed

so, Theresa's right

that was the real first income tax

the Civil War income tax was illegal

April 20, 2013 7:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDDXjZ2wLxw

April 21, 2013 8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"subsequent to that [the Civil War], the income tax was determined to be unconstitutional

What a liar!

Show us the legal case wherein the Civil War Tax of 1862 was "determined to be unconstitutional"

The fact is, the "Revenue Act of 1862, which levied a graduated tax of 3–5% on income above $600 (worth $13,798 today) and specified a termination of income taxation in 1866. The Civil War income taxes, ....expired in 1872"

"and wasn't reinstated until a constitutional amendement was passed

so, Theresa's right

that was the real first income tax
"

No, you're both wrong. Other taxes were passed between the expiration of the Civil War Income Taxes and the passage of the 16th Amendment as follows:

"Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., all income taxes had been considered indirect taxes imposed without respect to geography, unlike direct taxes, that must be apportioned among the states according to population."

"the Civil War income tax was illegal

No it wasn't. The Civil War Income Tax was limited to a specified length of time to pay off the debts of WAR, a necessary thing, unless you are a member of today's GOP.

April 21, 2013 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't say the Civil War tax was determined to be unconstitutional in its time. Income taxes were subsequently determined unconstitutional but, still, that means the one during the Civil War was unconstitutional as well.

Theresa was speaking of the first income tax after the constitution was amended to allow for such taxes.

April 21, 2013 7:07 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

I find it amusing that radical religious conservatives complain about income taxes when it was a previous generation of radical religious conservatives that helped push the income tax into place in order to later get Prohibition enacted. Income taxes and the desire to control individual behavior by the religious right are inextricably linked. We should have learned more from that terrible mistake.


From: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/alcohol-prohibition-and-the-revenuers#axzz2RCXChzUn

“Before the modern personal income tax in 1913, Uncle Sam relied mainly on customs duties and liquor taxation. From 1870 through 1912 receipts from these two taxes alone accounted for more than two-thirds of federal revenues (and in many years accounted for more than 75 percent). Liquor taxes trailed only customs duties as the largest single source of revenue during the half-century preceding the modern income tax, with liquor taxes accounting for about a third of federal revenues.

Then came the income tax (implemented first in 1914) and, on its heels, America’s entry into World War I. During the war federal revenues received through income taxation for the first time exceeded those from any other single source. Income taxes went from about 16 percent of the federal government’s revenues in 1916 to double that proportion in 1917. By 1918 the income tax supplied nearly two-thirds of those revenues.

Income-tax revenues accelerated most dramatically in 1918, but the income tax had already demonstrated its prodigious revenue potential the year before. Receipts in 1919 were almost triple those of 1916. More important, Congress passed in October 1917—two months before it successfully proposed the Prohibition-enabling Eighteenth Amendment—the legislation that would yield 1918′s enormous increase in income-tax receipts: the War Revenue Act of 1917. It raised more than $2.3 billion in 1918.

By fall of 1917 Congress saw the income tax as its chief source of revenue, reducing the cost of voting for Prohibition in December 1917. The lost liquor-tax revenues (beginning January 16, 1920) were trivial compared with the huge and rapidly growing revenues derived from the individual and corporate income taxes. The temperance movement’s decades-long quest was seemingly brought to a triumphant conclusion.”

Of course, during prohibition, religious institutions were granted special “exemptions” so they could keep using alcohol. Anything sound familiar about this?

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 22, 2013 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anything sound familiar about this?"

yes, there is something

it's called freedom of religion

it's one of the foundations of our country

which country's foundations do you support, Cinco?

have a nice day!!

April 22, 2013 10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://nationalreview.com/article/346228/putting-lipstick-obamacare-pig

April 22, 2013 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's a pure stream of cool facts, splashing right from the source

Obamacare is a loomimg disaster

fortunately, it looks like its implementation will be delayed

and you know what that means!!

the American voter, more and more opposed to this ill-conceived scheme, will get another crack at it

forget the shellacking from 2010 over this

without Romney at the head of the Republican effort, the Dems will tarred and feathered and ridden out of Congress on a rail

ain't life grand!!

another crack at the shellack!!

HAVE A NICE DAY!!!!!!

April 22, 2013 9:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hmmmm....

We see above an example of shiftiness where Cynthia suddenly blurts out some comment about the income tax that has no relevance to the previous discussion but attempts to divert from the losing TTF position.

So in addition to inherent stupidity, mental instability, and lack of imagination, we'll have to add that Cynthia is shifty.

Have a nice day!!

April 23, 2013 6:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When 90% of Americans want increased gun control policies and their elected officials reject even minimal reform, it begs the question, who exactly are our Congress members representing? Well, as usual, the money tells a significant part of the story: 42 out of the 45 Senators who voted no on the recent bill have received significant donations from the gun lobby.

“Politicians are bought!” “Politics are corrupt!” “Corporate interests over the welfare of citizens!” You’ve probably heard it all before and this kind of thing – sadly – no longer surprises you. But even if it’s something you’ve come to expect, that doesn’t make it any less disgusting or any less important to remind everyone how flawed the system is.

With research conducted by the Sunlight Foundation, The Guardian reported on the donations from the NRA and other pro-gun organizations over the last couple of decades. The NRA alone had given $800,000 to the Senators who helped nix the bill.

Among the top NRA recipients are Roy Blunt (Missouri) with $60,550 and Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) with $56,950. Fellow Republican Senators John Thune (South Dakota), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Jim Inhofe (Oklahoma) have each received well over $40,000 apiece, as well.

While donations of this sort are generally made during election cycles, at least two Senators suspiciously received money from the gun industry in recent weeks. During the month of March, Richard Burr (North Carolina) and Dan Coats (Indiana) had donations from an ammunition manufacturer and shooting group. Considering that these donations came at a time when gun control looked more likely to pass, their potential impact cannot be discredited.

In fact, there may be many more donations made by the gun lobby in recent months that we are not aware of yet. Although that financial information would normally have been made public by now, the ongoing Congressional ricin scare has postponed the filing deadline. Since the NRA and gun lobby have certainly been busy positioning themselves politically since the Sandy Hook massacre, it is not unreasonable to believe these groups put their money where their mouths are."

Citizens will vote the money-grubbers out of office and elect people who will vote as their constituents demand rather than as their corporate funders demand.

April 23, 2013 7:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Guardian reported on the donations from the NRA and other pro-gun organizations over the last couple of decades. The NRA alone had given $800,000 to the Senators who helped nix the bill."

hmmm..."over the last couple of decades"

let's say then, 800K divided by 20

that's 40K a year

you say about 45 Senators being bought

that's less than a thousand a year per Senator

that's pretty cheap

indeed, I'm sure any group in America could outbid that

face it: contributions have nothing to do with it

the truth is, the American voter tends to throw out any politician that tries to take away their constitutional right to bear arms

"Among the top NRA recipients are Roy Blunt (Missouri) with $60,550 and Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) with $56,950. Fellow Republican Senators John Thune (South Dakota), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Jim Inhofe (Oklahoma) have each received well over $40,000 apiece, as well."

over a couple of decades you say

I'm sure others have given more that the NRA, on both sides

"While donations of this sort are generally made during election cycles, at least two Senators suspiciously received money from the gun industry in recent weeks."

how about that!!

"During the month of March, Richard Burr (North Carolina) and Dan Coats (Indiana) had donations from an ammunition manufacturer and shooting group. Considering that these donations came at a time when gun control looked more likely to pass, their potential impact cannot be discredited."

oh yeah, you'd almost think those groups were contributing to legislators they agreed with

maybe we should make a law that gun manufacturers can only make political donations to those who want to put them out of business

"In fact, there may be many more donations made by the gun lobby in recent months that we are not aware of yet."

oh noooooo, Mr Bill

"Although that financial information would normally have been made public by now, the ongoing Congressional ricin scare has postponed the filing deadline."

I sense a conspiracy!!

"Since the NRA and gun lobby have certainly been busy positioning themselves politically since the Sandy Hook massacre, it is not unreasonable to believe these groups put their money where their mouths are."

it is, is it not?

btw, Sandy Hook would likely hav happened anyway

the shooter stole the guns from someone who would have pased a background check

unless you're suggesting we shouldn't sell guns to people with kids who are nuts!!

"Citizens will vote the money-grubbers out of office and elect people who will vote as their constituents demand rather than as their corporate funders demand."

it's never happened before

supporting the constitutional right to bear arms has always been a winner at the ballot box

honestly, 2014 is likely to see any legislator lose who doesn't promise to repeal Obamacare

have a real niiice day!!

April 23, 2013 8:15 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon exclaimed:

“"Anything sound familiar about this?"

yes, there is something

it's called freedom of religion

it's one of the foundations of our country

which country's foundations do you support, Cinco?

have a nice day!!”


Wow Anon, I don’t think I’ve seen you this happy and excited since you found out that annoying itchy rash you had was curable!

Saying “freedom of religion” is one of the foundations of our country is about like saying Al Capone was a highly successful carbonated beverage (i.e. beer) distributor. True, he was, for a time, but that totally ignores how he got to that position.

Our country was built upon a foundation of Christians “buying” land at ridiculously low prices from people who had no concept of what “land ownership” truly meant. When that didn’t work, the Christians would find excuses to push them off their land, kill a bunch of them if necessary, and take the land for themselves. I shouldn’t have to remind people that folks living here already were non-white and non-Christian. It is true that many of the natives were converted to Christianity, but often it was by less than gentle means. If they didn’t convert, that just gave Christians more of an excuse to wage war on the “godless heathens” that had the nerve to fight back once they started to realize all of their lands were being stolen.

This land grab and indefensible treatment of native non-Christians had been going on for about 2 and half centuries before the Declaration of Independence was signed, and it continued to go on for at least a century afterwards.

This bad behavior by Christians was not limited to just the Native Americans though. Lacking a sufficient workforce to acquire the wealth they desired, multi-national corporations based in Christian countries in Europe and manned by Christian employees kidnapped men, women, and children from non-white, non-Christian countries in Africa and sold them to Christian slave owners in America. For the most part, these people were NOT allowed to continue practicing their native religions. How is that “freedom of religion?”

Once the white Christians had stolen enough land from non-white, non-Christians, and built a large enough industrial base on the slave labor of non-white, non-Christians, they decide to take on the taxing authority and remove itself from its grasp

Our fore-fathers were well-educated and intelligent men. Adding the “freedom of religion” line to our founding documents was a really good idea. However, looking at the history that got them to that point, I have to conclude that what they were thinking of at the time was the centuries of brutal persecutions that happened in Britain after the Protestant reformation. Britain spent many, many years alternately persecuting Protestants, Catholics, Puritans and others depending on the religion of the potentate that managed to make it to throne. No doubt our fore fathers saw this ransacking of churches, public torture, and state execution of non-believers over trivial doctrinal differences as ultimately destructive to a modern society. It is no surprise they wanted to avoid that kind of brutal Christian in-fighting in their own new country.

However, when we see how it was applied, it seems mainly to have spared the white Christians from religious persecution by their own government. It did not help the Native Americans or the slaves and their practice of religion. In fact, those folks typically had their culture, language, and religion taken away and replaced by Christianity whether they wanted it or not.

Sure, I’m for “freedom of religion.” That’s like mom, apple pie, and RPN calculators… who wouldn’t be for that? But what our country was founded on? That was another matter entirely.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 23, 2013 10:35 AM  
Anonymous "Gay and lesbian couples deserve to be treated equally under the law" said...

The state Senate Republican Caucus in Rhode Island unanimously endorsed Senate Bill 38, a measure that would legalize gay marriage in the state, Think Progress reported on Tuesday.

Rhode Island state Sens. Dawson Hodgson (R-North Kingstown), Nicholas Kettle (R-Coventry), Dennis Algiere (R-Westerly), Chris Ottiano (R-Portsmouth) and David Bates (R-Barrington), the only Republicans in the chamber, released a joint statement announcing their endorsement.

"We support Senate Bill 38 because it rightfully extends the civil aspects of marriage to all Rhode Islanders while protecting the freedom of religion our state was founded upon," the letter reads. "Gay and lesbian couples deserve to be treated equally under the law, and at the same time churches, synagogues and mosques in our state must be free to exercise their faith and their sacraments as they see fit. This bill strikes the right balance and should be passed by the Senate."

The Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on the marriage equality legislation on Tuesday. According to the Associated Press, the committee is also reviewing separate legislation that would put marriage equality before voters in next year's election. The committee could advance either bill, or both.

State Sen. Donna Nesselbush (D-Pawtucket), who is gay and also the lead sponsor of SB 38, told the AP that she still had some doubts, but believed the measure could pass.

"We're not there yet, but I do believe a majority of senators support granting civil rights to gay people," she said.

April 23, 2013 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

look, the Boston bombers agree with TTF:

"The two suspects in the Boston bombing that killed three and injured more than 260 were motivated by the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials told the Washington Post.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, "the 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack," the Post writes, citing "U.S. officials familiar with the interviews."

April 23, 2013 10:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ROFLMAO Anon

Don't forget these FACTS:

"Recall" Web Site Threatens School Board

"Members of the Board of Education canceled their appearance at Monday's Germantown Citizens Association meeting on the proposed sex education curriculum after receiving threats and slanderous comments on an anti-curriculum Web site.

"The postings started having some direct threats to school board members," GCA board member Sheila Myers said. "Evidently Sharon [Cox] got some very specific ones. ... She became concerned about coming into a public meeting" where someone might threaten her physically. "


Frivolous lawsuit defined

From the CRC's internal communications, plan of ATTACK:

"This board is NOT going to recant anything because of "supplicant" appeals to listen to our position. The only thing that is going to get their complete attention is:
1. Continuing outrage streaming in to their castle headquarters
2. John Garza proceeding immediatley with his lawsuit. (Lawsuits tend to get peoples attention - merit or no merit because it forces them to deal with their legal team on a continuing basis)
3. 50,000 plus signatures between the paper petition and the on-line petition.
4. Tabulation of all the outrageous things said about us and this issue, and posted on both web sites.
5. Massive email campaign to inform and INFLAME.

In other words, aggressive tactics. "

April 24, 2013 8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How well did the CRC's "outrage streaming" turn out?

Dumb Plan Backfires

..."Since March 21, the county school board has received 60 postcards. Parents at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School forward most of those. B-CC is one of six schools selected to pilot a discussion of homosexuality and sexual identity this spring.

The catch? The postcards are running more than 3 to 1 in favor of the new curriculum. By Thursday, 45 parents had crossed out the printed message that reads "I am requesting that you reverse your decision to put this curriculum in MCPS schools and immediately reverse the decision to use my child's school as a trial school," replacing it with messages such as "I support the new curriculum."...

The letter is signed by Susan Jamison, a Poolesville attorney and parent with children in the county school system, and the director of the group Parents Against X-Rated Curriculum in MCPS. She did not return calls...."


And John Garza's lawsuit?

CRC loses again

"Yesterday the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled against the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, PFOX, and Family Leader Network, who had asked the court for a stay that would overrule a decision by the State of Maryland Board of Education that allowed implementation of the new sex-ed curriculum. The stay has been denied."

CRC Throwing in a Towel

"I got a call yesterday. A reporter wanted my reaction to the news that the Citizens for a Responsible ... Curriculum ... were not going to appeal any more, to get the new sex-ed curriculum thrown out. They'd gone to the courts, the state school board, the state superintendent of schools, another court, and now they're going to quit, he said. ...

They aren't going to appeal any more. This makes sense (which is something you don't take for granted with them). Even free legal assistance can be a waste when you just lose every time. The fact is, nobody has ruled in their favor since 2005, when a judge made a hasty decision and awarded them a temporary restraining order. So they're finally giving up: this is terrific news."

April 24, 2013 8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CRC engaged in a verbal battle

it's called democracy

the anti-war bombers engaged in a physical battle

it's called violence

April 24, 2013 11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you knew it was coming

George W Bush's approval now ties Barack Obama's

and he's got the big mo!!!!


"One president is falling. One president is rising. Now their paths have crossed. According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, former President Bush now has the exact same job approval rating, 47 percent, as President Obama, 47 percent. From The Washington Post:

Almost as many people (47 percent) approve of how Bush handled his eight years in office as disapprove (50 percent), according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. That’s the highest approval rating for Bush since December 2005. Bush’s approval dipped all the way to 23 percent in Post-ABC polling in October 2008 and was just 33 percent in January 2009 when he left office.

While Bush is enjoying a bit of a resurgence, Obama is faltering. As recently as this past December, as many as 55 percent of registered voters approved of Obama’s job as president. Now more Americans disapprove of Obama, 49 percent, than approve, 47 percent."

April 24, 2013 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fox News Channel’s coverage of the bombing at the Boston Marathon last week propelled the network to the top of the cable rankings. In both total day and primetime for the week of April 15-April 21, the News Corp-owned news network pulled ahead of usually top-ranked USA Network. In primetime, FNC garnered 2.874 million viewers on average for the week compared with No. 2 USA’s 2.621 million. CNN also climbed the cable ladder to finish No. 3 with 1.985 million viewers overall on average. History Channel was in fourth with 1.937 million viewers and A&E was fifth with 1.928 million.

April 24, 2013 12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fifty-one months of an Obama presidency seem like an eternity of speeches, photo ops, fundraisers, soaring debt, stagnant job growth, blame games and did we mention speeches?

In historical context, however, it's the snap of a finger. Which makes it somewhat surprising that already Americans are quietly rehabilitating President George W. Bush's image in their own minds. This despite Bush's virtual disappearance from the political scene since Jan. 20, 2009, save for a brief promotion tour for his book, "Decision Points."

You're about to hear a whole lot more about Bush, at least briefly, with Thursday's dedication of his presidential library at Laura Bush's alma mater, Southern Methodist University in Dallas. By custom, all former presidents will attend.

President Obama will also be there, although he's blamed Republican Bush for just about everything that's gone wrong during these long 1,554 days, except Obama's miserable NCAA tournament brackets. First, of course, to make the trip worthwhile, Democrat Obama will do another political fundraiser in Dallas.

Remember those iconic billboards that went up during the great ObamaCare legislative con? A smiling Bush waving with the caption, "Miss Me Yet?" Well, apparently more people do. ABC News and the Washington Post came out early this morning with a new poll timed to the library dedication.

His disapproval has dropped, while his approval has increased (47%).

This essentially ties the Texan with the Chicagoan, whose public approval has plummeted from 67% on Day One, when he had yet to break a single promise. Remember Obama's first day, the big ceremonial Executive Order signing to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center within 365 days? Well, never mind.

As Gary Langer points out, poll improvements four to five years after leaving the White House are not unprecedented. Bush's father improved 18 points, but Bill Clinton dropped four points.

The poll finds Bush's approval has gained across a broad ideological front of Americans--up 11 points among independents, 16 points among Republicans and 19 points among Democrats. That's right, up 19 points among Obama's Democrats.

Now, what could possibly explain that, do you suppose?

April 24, 2013 12:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

boston bombers were on welfare for years....
hmm.

April 24, 2013 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

idleness strikes again

April 24, 2013 2:06 PM  
Anonymous Mirror mirror on the wall said...

idleness strikes again

So are you off today, Anonymous, or does your boss allow you to post comments on Vigilance about people with too much time on their hands during the hours you are on the time clock?

April 24, 2013 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

looks like one of these murderers who call themselves "doctors" is about to receive justice:

"PHILADELPHIA -- A Philadelphia abortion provider won't testify or call witnesses at his capital murder trial, leaving jurors to weigh five weeks of prosecution evidence.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, is charged with killing four babies born alive at a clinic that authorities have described as filthy. He is also charged in the 2009 overdose death of a 41-year-old refugee who died months after coming to the U.S.

The jury is expected to hear closing arguments on Monday.

Former employees have testified that Gosnell relied on untrained, unlicensed staff to sedate and monitor women as they waited for abortions. Three workers have pleaded guilty to third-degree murder charges, admitting they helped medicate the adult victim or "snipped" babies' necks after they were born alive to make sure they died.

They told jurors that Gosnell had taught them the technique, and said they trusted that it was legal. At least one, though, admits she grew so concerned about conditions at the clinic that she took pictures of the outdated equipment, messy rooms and stacked specimen jars containing the severed feet of aborted babies.

Gosnell told staff he sometimes kept the samples for DNA purposes in case the pregnancy led to assault charges."

the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice

Have A Nice Day!!

April 24, 2013 6:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah, it sounds like they need to do background checks on idle people before they're allowed to buy a computer

empty hours staring at an electronic seems to lead to violently radical tendencies

maybe people are starting to wish for the old days of George W, when everyone who wanted to work could

and terrorist never again hit us after 9-11

Obama, the fabulous free-falling President

April 24, 2013 6:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

remember all that running of the mouth lazy Priya used to do?

you don't hear that much anymore

have a nice day!!!!!!!!!!!!!

April 24, 2013 7:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, and the Bostom Bombers were Obama advocates...
as well.

And the Newton shooter lived off his mom, and the Boston bomber shooter lived off a combination of welfare and his wife...

Hmmm....

April 24, 2013 10:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a strangely familiar tale....

have a nice day!!!!!

April 24, 2013 11:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush has be apolitical since leaving office. Smart move.

If he were to espouse his political views, his approval ratings would compare to his party's as follows.

Party Identification - Adults

The data currently tracking 458 polls shows:

Independent 34.2%
Democrat 32.6%
Republican 22.0%

April 25, 2013 8:30 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

On Wednesday, Anon reveled:

“His [Bush’s] disapproval has dropped, while his approval has increased (47%). This essentially ties the Texan with the Chicagoan…”

So Bush has finally crawled is way back up to Obama levels of public approval. Wow. What a totally irrelevant factoid; unless of course Bush were running against Obama for some kind of office. I’m thinking that will happen…….(….wait for it….)…….never. In fact, I think the chances of G.W. Bush ever running for public office again are in the single digits. That job as a greeter at a Texas hardware store is probably still open though: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/weird/George-W-Bush-Hardware-Greeter.html

Bush approval polls have about as much utility as a new pair of sunglasses for a blind man. They might make him look good, but beyond that, they are absolutely useless. It makes me wonder why the conservative press is spending so much time crowing about such trivialities. Is it to try and hide the fact that the Congressional Job Approval Rating is currently at 13.5%, even with all those tea-bagging Republicans in it? (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html)

It makes Obama’s 48.3% job approval rating look absolutely stellar. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html)
Well, maybe not stellar, just 257.778% better.

April 25, 2013 10:42 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Why is anyone wasting their time polling and posting about Bush these days? I’m glad you found something “good” to ameliorate your sadness from Epic Homophobe Fail Tuesday though, when in the real world, news like this made a few headlines:

1: http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2013/04/24/rhode-island-senate-passes-marriage-equality-bill

“The Rhode Island Senate approved legislation Wednesday to establish full marriage equality for same-sex couples with a 26-12 vote.

The bill will go back to the House for a procedural vote to accept the Senate's version; the House approved a different version of the legislation in January. The bill must then be signed into law by Gov. Lincoln Chaffee, who has expressed his support for marriage equality legislation.”

2: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/delaware-house-set-to-vote-on-bill-legalizing-same-sex-marriage/2013/04/23/d20e271e-abcc-11e2-9493-2ff3bf26c4b4_story.html

“DOVER, Del. — The state House on Tuesday narrowly approved a bill legalizing gay marriage in Delaware, barely a year after the state began recognizing same-sex civil unions.

The measure cleared the House on a 23-to-18 vote and now goes to the Senate, where supporters and opponents expect another close vote. Democratic Gov. Jack Markell has promised to sign the bill if it passes the Democrat-led legislature.”

3: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/gay-senator-comes-out-as-state-approves-same-sex-marriage/

“But the biggest news this week comes out of Nevada where Monday night the state Senate voted to repeal an amendment to the state Constitution banning gay marriage and replace it with one requiring Nevada to recognize the practice.”
(O.K. so that one happened Monday night – I didn’t find out about it until Tuesday)

4: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/23/world/europe/france-same-sex-vote
“(CNN) -- French lawmakers voted to legalize same-sex marriage Tuesday, despite vocal protests from some conservatives opposed to the step.
The nation's lower house approved a marriage bill, which would also give same-sex couples the right to adopt, in a 331-to-225 final vote.”

I guests Anon’s trip to France to whip those wine-drinking homophobes into a frenzy didn’t work out so well. Too bad. Better luck next time.

With news like this, all we’re wait for now is for Harold Camping to come out of retirement and incorrectly predict the rapture for the fourth time. I mean, it’s gotta happen soon with all this overt gayness everywhere, right?

Have a nice day,

(By the way, like many people, I do consider imitation as the sincerest form of flattery. So, umm, thank you.)

Cynthia

April 25, 2013 10:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Independent 34.2%
Democrat 32.6%
Republican 22.0%

I wonder if you excluded all the welfare recipients from this poll (ie, if on public assistance you don't count) what the numbers might be...

full time working adults only can vote. Bet we would have a drastically different election result.

April 25, 2013 10:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

those guys in Boston who didn't work and sat home all day looking at electronic screens, apparently had further plans:

"The brothers who allegedly detonated pressure cookers bombs at the Boston Marathon had plans of traveling to New York for an attack on Times Square, according to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, told interrogators that he and his older brother Tamerlan intended to set off explosives in Manhattan, according to a law enforcement officials who spoke to Reuters and NBC News.

"Last night we were informed by the FBI that the surviving attacker revealed that New York City was next on their list of targets," said Bloomberg at a quickly organized press conference this afternoon. "We don't know if we'd been able to do that [stop an attack] if the terrorists had arrived from Boston."

"Thank god we didn't have to do that," Bloomberg said in City Hall."

no church and state problems in NYC

April 25, 2013 2:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

when will those cowards in Congress do a background check on buying computers?

lives would be saved if the idle were kept off the internet

HAVE A NICE DAY!!!

April 25, 2013 2:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I wonder if you excluded all the welfare recipients from this poll (ie, if on public assistance you don't count) what the numbers might be..."

I wonder if you excluded all the people who earn money at firms that receive billions of dollars annually in CORPORATE WELFARE, what the numbers would look like.

April 25, 2013 3:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So Bush has finally crawled is way back up to Obama levels of public approval. Wow."

actually, the significant matter is the trend

doesn't look good for Barry, who has to convince Congress to cooperate with his agenda, something politicians consider suicidal as they watch his approval free-fall

something fewer and fewer will do

Obama said he would throw everything he had into gun control legislation

sad thing is: he did

"What a totally irrelevant factoid; unless of course Bush were running against Obama for some kind of office."

see above

not to mention, Obama has blamed all our troubles for the last four years on Bush

these numbers indicate Americans are no longer falling for it

"Bush approval polls have about as much utility as a new pair of sunglasses for a blind man. They might make him look good, but beyond that, they are absolutely useless."

oh, it may have some bearing on how Dems are perceived in the next election and how Jeb Bush will do in 2016

HAVE THE NICEST DAY!!!!!!!!!!!

April 25, 2013 3:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Americans are a forgiving and forgetting people. That’s all that can explain the rise in George W. Bush’s approval ratings since he left office in 2009. Back then, he had the lowest approval rating of any departing president since Richard Nixon (who departed in a helicopter after resigning in disgrace) with a 33 percent overall approval rating. Only 24 percent of Americans approved of his handling of the recession-bound economy. As recently as last November’s election, more voters blamed Bush than President Obama for the country’s ongoing economic woes.

Now, on the opening of his presidential library and an apparent Bush-rehabilitation tour, starting with a Diane Sawyer interview Wednesday night, Bush faces a kinder, gentler American public. According to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, Americans are now split on the former president, with 47 percent approving of his performance and 50 percent disapproving. He’s still underwater, as the pollsters say, but that’s not a bad jump in four years. He’s even climbed on the economy, with 43 percent now approving of the job he did, while 57 percent stayed tethered to the reality-based community, and still disapprove.

Bush has even climbed among Democrats: 25 percent approve of the job he did, up from only 6 percent when he left office. (Who says Democrats are haters?)

What’s going on? And will Bush’s comeback tour bump his numbers up even more, which would be some rare good news for the broken, embattled Republican Party?

A few things are clear: This campaign is as much about cleaning up the mess he made for his brother Jeb, who clearly wants to claim his rightful place in the White House, as it is about refurbishing his legacy. Last week Bush told Parade magazine he hopes his brother runs. “I would hope that people would judge [him], if Jeb were to run, on his merits and his track record.…So I hope he will run.”

George W. was a bad president. A historically bad president, honestly, in terms of damage done to the country and the world and even in terms of even achieving his own goals and the goals of his party and ideological movement. His biggest successes were an expansion of Medicare and getting permission from Congress to topple Saddam Hussein. So, yes, he is a kind person who is also secretly very smart when there aren’t cameras around. He also tortured, failed to stop 9/11, appointed various dipshit party hacks who brutally botched everything from the response to Hurricane Katrina to reconstruction following the conclusion of our invasion of Iraq. History will not judge his administration remotely kindly. I’m not sure why anyone, even a Bush supporter, would expect it to. (I mean, until some future-Amity Shlaes-like person writes a book about how secretly Bush is the BEST president.)

Alas, no one at the ceremony today will say “George W. Bush may be a super smart and generous and kind person but he was just a really, really bad president,” though at least one of the presidents there will be thinking it. (Hell, maybe all the presidents there, besides the one we’re talking about.) Also probably no one will bring up torture.

April 25, 2013 5:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Conversion therapy advocate issues formal apology, renounces “ex-gay” past

John Paulk says in a statement that he was never "cured" of being gay and apologizes for harming the LGBT community:

"For the better part of ten years, I was an advocate and spokesman for what’s known as the “ex-gay movement,” where we declared that sexual orientation could be changed through a close-knit relationship with God, intensive therapy and strong determination. At the time, I truly believed that it would happen. And while many things in my life did change as a Christian, my sexual orientation did not.

So in 2003, I left the public ministry and gave up my role as a spokesman for the “ex-gay movement.” I began a new journey. In the decade since, my beliefs have changed. Today, I do not consider myself “ex-gay” and I no longer support or promote the movement. Please allow me to be clear: I do not believe that reparative therapy changes sexual orientation; in fact, it does great harm to many people.

I know that countless people were harmed by things I said and did in the past,

Parents, families, and their loved ones were negatively impacted by the notion of reparative therapy and the message of change. I am truly, truly sorry for the pain I have caused.

From the bottom of my heart I wish I could take back my words and actions that caused anger, depression, guilt and hopelessness. In their place I want to extend love, hope, tenderness, joy and the truth that gay people are loved by God.

Today, I see LGBT people for who they are–beloved, cherished children of God. I offer my most sincere and heartfelt apology to men, women, and especially children and teens who felt unlovable, unworthy, shamed or thrown away by God or the church.

I want to offer my sincere thanks to everyone who encouraged me to take this initial step of transparency. Even while promoting “ex-gay” programs, there were those who called me on my own words and actions. I’m sure I didn’t appreciate it at the time, but they have helped me to realize this truth about who I am.

This is a life transition that has been and will continue to be, challenging. Sadly, my marriage of 20 years is in the process of ending. I want to take the time to make sure my next actions come from a place of truth and authenticity. Therefore, I’m drastically limiting my public engagement until my own personal life can be settled. After that I eagerly anticipate giving back to the community.

Finally, I know there are still accounts of my “ex-gay” testimony out there being publicized by various groups, including two books that I wrote about my journey. I don’t get any royalties from these publications, and haven’t since I left the ministry nearly ten years ago. I discourage anyone from purchasing and selling these books or promoting my “ex-gay” story because they do not reflect who I am now or what I believe today.

John Paulk"

April 25, 2013 5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I for one, would personally cut someone's finger off (read torture) if they had run off with my children. Actually, I would do ANYTHING necessary to get the information I needed to retrieve my family. Once you have committed a terrorist act and killed hundreds of people, I could care less what the US govt does to that person to prevent more terror attacks. Bush understood this, and as a result there were no more terror attacks under Bush after 9-11. He kept us safe.

Here is a concept. Perhaps Bush's approval rating is going up because people are coming to that realization.

April 25, 2013 5:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Perhaps Bush's approval rating is going up because people are coming to that realization."

Nope, you're stuck in your bubble.

You probably think lowering income taxes will help pay off Bush's war costs -- the costs the Iraqi oil revenues were going to cover.

"The $20 billion the president requested is not intended to cover all of Iraq's needs. The bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis -- from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment, as well as some contributions we've already received and hope to receive from the international community."
--Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld

< eye roll >

April 25, 2013 6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay.

Let's see if there is ANYTHING we can agree on.

People should work for a living, as opposed to expecting welfare for their entire lives.

Agree or disagree ?

People who are working and supporting themselves are generally, as a rule, more responsible and crime-free than those who do not work ?

Agree or disagree ?

April 25, 2013 7:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"George W. was a bad president. A historically bad president, honestly,"

not really

not even close

indeed, of the Presidents there today, he and Clinton are tied for best

here's the ranking:

1. W
1. Clinton
3. HW
4. Carter
5. Obama

During W's presidency, there was little unemployment and the terrorists never succeeded at their vows to keep striking America after 9/11. He showed poor leadership in his second term, however, and stop trying to rally Americans.

Clinton did a good job on the economy after he was properly spanked in the 94 elections by Newt Gingrich. He also ended abusive welfare and stop encouraging idleness. He decimated the military, however, and looked weak chasing Bin Laden by randomly bombing other countries. His sexual abuse of a young intern was sickening and made oral sex a part of our kids' history curriculum going forward.

April 25, 2013 8:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/April/24/maryland-aca-premiums-carefirst-blue-cross.aspx

MD premiums up 25-50% ?

Also...

MD taxing the rain ?

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/18/no-really-maryland-has-a-tax-on-rain-now/

some of us that used to work really hard to get this state to try and maintain some sense of reality have given up. you intend to tax those of us that are working to DEATH (and after death) to support those of you that don't want to get off your butt. and for the record, I have NEVER, not once, been on unemployment and sans 3 maternity leaves at 6 weeks each (besides one leave when my father died at 10 weeks)... and exactly two periods of unemployment at less than a total of 6 months...

I have worked my entire life.

why do you think that those of us that work hard should work to support Priya, who has never really worked ? like ever ?

because it is too hard for Priya ?

Yes it is hard for everyone to work.

Why does Priya get a pass for this behavior ?

Do you agree with it ?


April 25, 2013 10:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh for god's sake, Theresa.

You live in America and Priya lives in Canada. Your money has nothing to do with her!

You've got your Bush tax cut made permanent.

You bring home $5OOO a week and can only bitch that it's not enough.

Quit your belly aching!

April 25, 2013 11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

History Usually Kinder to Ex-Presidents
Retrospective approval ratings typically exceed approval ratings while in office

"PRINCETON, NJ -- As the current president and former presidents gather in Dallas to open the George W. Bush presidential library, a Gallup review of presidential job approval ratings finds that presidents' retrospective approval ratings are almost always more positive than their job approval ratings while in office. In particular, Americans rate John F. Kennedy, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan much more positively in retrospect than they did while the men were president.

...Of nine former presidents about whom Gallup has asked at least one retrospective job approval rating, six have averaged higher retrospective ratings than their average job approval rating while in office. The main exceptions were Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, whom Americans view much less positively in retrospect than they did while they were president. Nixon's low ratings are most likely related to his involvement in the Watergate scandal, while Johnson's likely result from his overseeing the unpopular Vietnam War. But Johnson's overall term average was aided by the rally in support for him after he took office due to the assassination of Kennedy. Johnson averaged 72% approval his first two-plus years in office, compared with a 45% average thereafter.

Additionally, seven of nine former presidents have had higher retrospective approval ratings than their final job approval rating as president just before leaving office. That includes George W. Bush, who earned a 47% retrospective approval rating in the November 2010 poll, the only time Gallup has measured Bush retrospectively. That rating is 13 percentage points higher than Bush's 34% final job approval rating as president in January 2009, but similar to his overall job approval average of 49%.

The opening of George W. Bush's presidential library at Southern Methodist University in Dallas has brought the former president and his administration back into the spotlight. Bush's 34% final approval rating is generally indicative of his low second-term ratings. Bush averaged 37% approval during his second term as the U.S. continued fighting the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq. During his second term, Bush also dealt with the slow government response to Hurricane Katrina, controversy over a proposed deal to sell U.S. cargo operations to foreign-owned companies, the problematic nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court, record-high gas prices, and the financial crisis.

Bush's second-term struggles were in stark contrast to his strong first term ratings -- averaging 62% -- which were aided by the rally in public support for government officials after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. This included a record-high 90% approval rating in a Sept. 21-22, 2001, Gallup poll.

...George W. Bush's job evaluation definitely improved after he left office, but on a relative basis, he did still rank near the bottom of the list of presidents in terms of his retrospective approval ratings and Americans' predictions of how history will ultimately judge him.

April 25, 2013 11:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"MD premiums up 25-50% ?"

Having trouble with reading comprehension again? Your link does not say that, T.

It actually says "Maryland’s dominant insurer says proposed premiums for new policies for individuals will rise by 25 percent on average next year.

That’s lower than what some had predicted. Just three weeks ago, the insurer, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, had been looking at a proposed 50 percent increase. But the company revised that initial estimate...

...Consumer advocates were reluctant to draw conclusions from the raw rate filings for the exchange, which make it difficult to quote proposed prices for specific individuals. And they cautioned that filings by CareFirst and other carriers are only preliminary.

“Now the regulators take a look and say, ‘How do you justify these increases?’” said Kathleen Stoll, director of health policy for the pro-ACA consumer group Families USA. “That often results in a reduction to the proposed charges.”"


Those of us who are not living inside the bubble recall "In February of 2010, Anthem Blue Cross of California requested a 39% increase in health insurance premiums in the individual market. After Secretary Sebelius and state officials asked for a public justification for these increases, Anthem Blue Cross delayed raising its rates for two months. After additional scrutiny, an independent audit discovered errors in Anthem’s calculations resulting in Anthem withdrawing its request"

April 25, 2013 11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You bring home $5OOO a week and can only bitch that it's not enough."

there's a fundamental difference in attitude here.

the question is, how much of the money you earn should the govt let you keep. If you started with the same amount, and you earned it, should you be allowed to keep it or does it all belong to the govt regardless of what you do ?

you act as if everything I EARN is actually the government's money, and the government is doing me a FAVOR letting me keep MY MONEY.

I am supporting a family, paying 1/2 my income (close to it) in taxes, paying for my own children, supporting myself, and have never been on welfare, and HAVE ALWAYS WORKED. And always worked hard. all the friggin time. and supported caregivers, cleaners, contractors, in the process. the higher my tax rate, the less I am willing to hire help. what about that don't you understand ?

you keep coming back to what I make as if I "lucked into it".
I earned it.

I worked hard. Priya sat and did nothing. there's a difference.

I will not defend my attitude NOR will I address this "stop bitching" comment. I work hard. I have ALWAYS WORKED HARD. without people like me this society would collapse. People like Priya suck off people like me. they are parasites.

and I am done supporting them.

again, do you believe that it okay for some people to simply suck off society for their entire lives ?

Priya is in Canada - so is not a US taxpayer problem - but is a problem, regardless. The boston bombers were also sucking off society. If a person presents themselves as an articulate person who can argue a political point, should they not be required to work ? It is outrageous that the Priya's of the world collect benefits... sorry, who here having seen Priya blog 24/7 thinks Priya is NOT CAPABLE OF HOLDING DOWN A JOB ?

It has NOTHING to do with how much of my salary - according to the US govt - I should be allowed to keep. It has to do with the fairness of rewarding idleness and at the same time punishing hard work. How did you react to Katherine Russell working 80 hours a week to support her husband who didn't work and was making bombs on the side ?

again, any thoughts on how this relates to Obama's approval rating versus Bush's ?

Games up guys.

April 25, 2013 11:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Games up guys.

That's right. The game is up. Several, in fact.

Romney espoused more tax cuts for the rich just like you do, and lost to President Obama, big time.

The tide has turned for marriage equality and now several states have legalized it, including Maryland! YAY! And more states will follow the path to equality.

Right here in MoCo, your efforts to continue to discriminate against trans folk went down to flaming defeat.

No wonder you're so bitter.





April 26, 2013 9:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here you go, a story to warm top earners' hearts:

"After a month or so of the sequestration budget cuts only affecting people Congress doesn’t really care about, the cuts hit home this week when mandatory FAA furloughs caused lengthy flight delays cross the country. Suddenly, sequestration was hurting regular Americans, instead of irregular (poor) ones! Some naive observers thought this would force Congress to finally roll back the purposefully damaging cuts that were by design never intended to actually go into effect. Those observers were.. sort of right! The U.S. Senate jumped into action last night and voted to… let the FAA transfer some money from the Transportation Department to pay air traffic controllers so that the sequestration can continue without inconveniencing members of Congress, most of whom will be flying home to their districts today. The system works! (For rich people, like I’ve been saying.)

The Washington Post says, “The Senate took the first step toward circumventing sequestration Thursday night” though in fact what they did was work to ensure that the sequester continues not affecting elites, who fly regularly. The Senate, which can’t confirm a judge without months of delay and a constitutional crisis, passed this particular bill in about two minutes, with unanimous consent. The hope is that the House can get it taken care of today, I guess in time for everyone to fly to Aspen or wherever people whom Congress listens to fly to on Fridays.

...Move on, people who may become homeless! We fixed the airports, what more do you want?"

April 26, 2013 9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Romney espoused more tax cuts for the rich just like you do, and lost to President Obama, big time."

Romney didn't suggest tax cuts for the rich. He suggested tax reform, and it will probably happen although we need to be vigilant to keep Obama from turning tax reform into a tax hike.

"The tide has turned for marriage equality and now several states have legalized it, including Maryland! YAY! And more states will follow the path to equality."

marriage will eventually be redefined throughout the Eastern megapolis and the west coast but in the heartland and the south, where most states have the correct definition in their constitutions, it will never change, leaving a divided country

"Right here in MoCo, your efforts to continue to discriminate against trans folk went down to flaming defeat."

no one ever wanted to discriminate against trans

the goal was not to make unnecessary laws, which always degrade liberty, by definition

"After a month or so of the sequestration budget cuts only affecting people Congress doesn’t really care about, the cuts hit home this week when mandatory FAA furloughs caused lengthy flight delays cross the country. Suddenly, sequestration was hurting regular Americans,"

this is completely unnecessary

WSJ had a great analysis of why earlier in the week

Obama is playing a game very familiar to small-time local politicians

this was displayed clearly when he cancelled the White House tours and Donald Trump offered to pay for them

his spokesman said "No, it doesn't work that way. Americans need to feel the pain."

Obama is trying to create a crisis

Americans are on to him, which is why his approval rating is diving



April 26, 2013 10:30 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Of course people are thinking better of Bush these days… he just came out with a new library.

Given the way “The Decider” tended to speak, we’re surprised to learn that he may actually be able to read. We’re happy for him, and all those people who voted for him the second time don’t feel quite as stupid now – he has a *library* - he MUST be able to read!

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 26, 2013 10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The nation's economy grew at a 2.5 percent pace during the first three months of the year, slightly below estimates as concerns linger about the health of the recovery.

A two-year high in consumer spending boosted growth in the January-March quarter but declines in government spending hampered a more robust expansion, the Commerce Department reported on Friday in its first estimate of growth.

Friday's figure is an improvement from the anemic 0.4 percent growth reported in the fourth quarter of last year, but falls well short of projections for growth of up to 3.4 percent.

One bright spot in the report was consumer spending, which makes up about 70 percent of economic activity. It increased an at annual rate of 3.2 percent at the beginning of the year, the fastest pace since the final quarter of 2010.

Government spending fell at a 4.1 percent rate as the cuts from sequestration began. Without those reductions in federal spending, economists said, growth for the quarter would have eclipsed 3 percent."

April 26, 2013 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sen. Pat Toomey's job rating is at a record high following the Pennsylvania Republican's sponsorship of legislation to expand gun background checks, according to a poll released Friday.

Pennsylvania voters approved of Toomey's performance by a margin of 48 percent to 30 percent, up a net 7 points from March, the Quinnipiac University survey reports.

"...The U.S. Senate vote to reject background checks for people buying guns online or at gun shows leaves 34 percent of voters "angry," while 36 percent are "dissatisfied." Only 5 percent are "enthusiastic," with 22 percent "satisfied."

Pennsylvania voters approve 34 - 29 percent of the way U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey is handling gun control and give Sen. Toomey an overall 48 - 30 percent approval rating, his highest ever. By a 54 - 12 percent margin, voters think more favorably of Toomey because of his co-sponsorship of legislation to require expanded background checks.

Looking at support for background checks:

69 percent of voters "strongly support" the measure;
16 percent support it "somewhat;"
5 percent are "somewhat opposed;"
7 percent are "strongly opposed."

Voters disagree 68 - 27 percent with the argument that extending background checks unfairly targets gun enthusiasts. Voters do agree 56 - 36 percent that extending background checks would close loopholes for gun buyers who want to avoid such checks..."

April 26, 2013 12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, George W. Bush Was a Terrible President, and No, He Wasn’t Smart

April 26, 2013 5:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"George W Bush's approval now ties Barack Obama's

and he's got the big mo!!!!

...former President Bush now has the exact same job approval rating, 47 percent, as President Obama, 47 percent

...Bush's approval...was just 33 percent in January 2009 when he left office."


Guess who has even bigger mo!!! based on his approval rating increases over his last Presidential approval poll?

President Carter doubled his last presidential approval rating of 34% to 66% after leaving office.

Dumbya has a long way to go to catch up with Jimmy's post-presidential bump!

April 26, 2013 6:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

W was a moderate Republican with a common sense side

while he doesn't belong on Mt Rushmore, he was leagues above Obama in intelligence and leadership qualities

America came under attack early in his presidencies because of stupid decisions of both his father and Clinton

my only real gripe against him is that he got disinterested after his fifth year in office and no longer tried to rally the country's support

letting the Dems take Congress in 2006 was what lead to the financial crisis we still live with

he should have tried harder

we'll see what Obama's rating is when he leaves

if we can find a microscope that powerful

April 26, 2013 7:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Guess who has even bigger mo!!! based on his approval rating increases over his last Presidential approval poll?

President Carter doubled his last presidential approval rating of 34% to 66% after leaving office.

Dumbya has a long way to go to catch up with Jimmy's post-presidential bump!"

pretty sure Bush will look pretty good 25 years from now, the time since Carter left office

personally, I liked Jimmy. I actually worked on his campaign and he was the last Dem I voted for in a general election, although I'm still a registered Dem

soon as Obamacare hits, any good will for him dry up

he'll always be remembered positively by history for breaking the racial barrier but those who study history will surely rank him close to worst

meanwhile, great news for Republican hopes of taking the Senate in 2014

Obama will be the first President to fight life:

"WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama vowed Friday to join Planned Parenthood in fighting against what he said are efforts by states to turn women's health back to the 1950s, before the Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide, and singled out the GOP-governed states of North Dakota and Mississippi for criticism."

April 27, 2013 4:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, going against abortion rights worked soooo well for the GOP in the 2012 elections.

Except Mitt Romney was defeated in a "stinging loss" while Democrats picked up eight seats in the House and two seats in the Senate.

I hope you will encourage the GOP to forever stick to that "winning" strategy, Bubblehead.

April 27, 2013 11:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hopefully, Obama will keep thinking like you

right now, the vast majority of Amercians believe abortion should only be acceptable under certain limited conditions

this percentage will only grow as families who believe that tend to reproduce and pass their values to the next generation while amoral atheist hedonist families tend to reproduce at much lower rates, preferring to kill any children who are inconvenient

April 27, 2013 12:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the AG in Virginia knows how to stamp out abortion

a new law in Virginia, requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as hospitals, is likely to result in the closure of most of the state's 20 abortion factories

already, a Norfolk clinic that murders 1600 unborn babies a year says it will close rather than comply

a model for the nation

HAve a NIce DAy!!

April 27, 2013 3:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the despicable day of anti-family forces is nearing nightfall!!

April 27, 2013 3:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home