Bedtime story entitled
Posted By: Bush, McCain and the Hurricane. sm on 2008-08-31
In Reply to: Bedtime story from Hurricane country entitled - Bush, McCain and the Hurricane. sm
"Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves – protect us from harm…" ". We are more compassionate than a government that…sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes." Barack Obama, nomination acceptance speech, 08/28/2008.
This is written in response to the post below that express the "bootstrap mentality" approach to Katrina and Bush/federal government response. Bush never seems to be held accountable for any of his actions or lack thereof. What I do know is that we deserve better from our so-called leaders. I want someone in charge of the country who knows that what I am about to describe is unacceptable. I am writing this because, at the very least, we should not allow our memories to fade away too quickly about the most shameful episode of leadership/federal agency failure and breakdown in recent memory.
As for the poster who said that "if you don't live here, you don't know what you are talking about": Thing is that I do live in hurricane country on the Gulf Coast where to this day, 3 years later, we still welcome, house, employ, include, encourage and support Hurricane Katrina survivors/refugees. Hurricane Gustav is poised to make a visit here on the opening night of the RNC and will be slamming ashore and doing its thing during the opening speech by you-know-who. My memory of the last time we went through this is very clear. Where it seemed fuzzy, research filled in the blanks. I'm going to jump right in here.
When Hurricane Katrina made landfall, President Bush was on one of his marathon vacations. The August 2005 vacation, in fact, was the longest vacation of any US President (5 weeks). By the time Katrina showed up, he already had been at the ranch for 3 weeks, so he was pretty well rested up. On August 26th, Katrina strengthened to a Category 3 Hurricane and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco declared state of emergency. Blanco asked President Bush to declare federal state of emergency for Louisiana. Next day, Bush interrupted his bike ride with Astronaut Lance Armstrong and declared a state of emergency in selected regions of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi on Saturday, the 27th. The declaration did not include any of Louisiana's coastal parishes, an oversight that would later be addressed in Congressional hearings. Same day, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin ordered a voluntary evacuation of all residents from the city of New Orleans.
Go here to see a map of parishes not included in the declaration. http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/637/1/. This map is an eye-opener. Mr. Harris calls it upsidedownland. Hello. Inland parishes included, coastal parishes excluded. Bushes parents live in the hurricane-prone city of Houston. He probably should have know better.
August 28th, within 9 short hours, Katrina doubled in size and strengthened from a category 3 to a 5. Nagin's evacuation became mandatory. During video conferences involving the president on August 28th and 29th, the NHC director informed Bush that Katrina might push its storm surge over the city's levees and flood walls, using such language "potential for nightmare scenarios," and that this has been known for at least the three decades he has worked at the NHC. Previous warnings, such as the one made by the Houston Chronicle in 2001, told of a disaster that "would strand 250,000 people or more, and probably kill one of 10 left behind as the city drowned under 20 feet of water" following a severe hurricane making landfall on NO. Other publications, such as Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, and The Times-Picayune had given similar doomsday scenarios in which a sinking city would drown and its residents would be left homeless.
On August 28th, the National Weather Sevice out of Baton Rogue and NO issued the following bulletin. This text is included in its entirety because the warning Bush decided to ignore just don't get any more clear than this. Before reading this, keep in mind that in response, Bush alerted FEMA Director Michael Brown, aka "Brownie," and stayed put, on vacation, since he had "done his part." No shouts in tended. This is the way cut and paste works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weather_Service_bulletin_for_New_Orleans_region
...DEVASTATING DAMAGE EXPECTED...
HURRICANE KATRINA...A MOST POWERFUL HURRICANE WITH UNPRECEDENTED
STRENGTH...RIVALING THE INTENSITY OF HURRICANE CAMILLE OF 1969.
MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER. AT
LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL
FAILURE. ALL GABLED ROOFS WILL FAIL...LEAVING THOSE HOMES SEVERELY
DAMAGED OR DESTROYED.
THE MAJORITY OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WILL BECOME NON FUNCTIONAL.
PARTIAL TO COMPLETE WALL AND ROOF FAILURE IS EXPECTED. ALL WOOD
FRAMED LOW RISING APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL BE DESTROYED. CONCRETE
BLOCK LOW RISE APARTMENTS WILL SUSTAIN MAJOR DAMAGE...INCLUDING SOME
WALL AND ROOF FAILURE.
HIGH RISE OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL SWAY DANGEROUSLY...A
FEW TO THE POINT OF TOTAL COLLAPSE. ALL WINDOWS WILL BLOW OUT.
AIRBORNE DEBRIS WILL BE WIDESPREAD...AND MAY INCLUDE HEAVY ITEMS SUCH
AS HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND EVEN LIGHT VEHICLES. SPORT UTILITY
VEHICLES AND LIGHT TRUCKS WILL BE MOVED. THE BLOWN DEBRIS WILL CREATE
ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTION. PERSONS...PETS...AND LIVESTOCK EXPOSED TO THE
WINDS WILL FACE CERTAIN DEATH IF STRUCK.
POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS...AS MOST POWER POLES WILL BE DOWN
AND TRANSFORMERS DESTROYED. WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY
THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED. FEW
CROPS WILL REMAIN. LIVESTOCK LEFT EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL BE
KILLED.
On August 29th, John McCain's 69th birthday, Katrina hits New Orleans as a category 4, levies break, Bush continues his itinerary. He jets on off to Luke Air Force Base near Phoenix to join McCain and wish him happy birthday (kinda makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside). Picture available on the website cited below. Afterward, Bush spoke about Medicare to 400 guests at the Pueblo El Mirage RV Resort and Country Club in nearby El Mirage. Not to worry. Brownie's doin' a heck of a job. August 29th: FEMA press release: 'First Responders Urged Not To Respond To Hurricane Impact Areas Unless Dispatched By State, Local Authorities.'
Five hours after the hurricane hit, FEMA chief Michael Brown asks Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff for approval to send 1,000 Homeland Security workers within 48 hours to the Gulf Coast to provide assistance. Bush fires up the jet and heads out to Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. for talk on prescription drugs for seniors. Back in NO, the 17th Street Canal levee breaks. The Red Cross, while providing relief and support across the Gulf Coast, did not enter New Orleans to provide relief at the Superdome, or any other victim shelter in the city.
August 30th. The Coast Guard reports that it has rescued some 1,200 people from rooftops around the area. Of course, it's all over the TV. The number of evacuees in the Superdome swells to 20,000, as people rescued or left homeless throughout the city are brought to the stadium. Gov. Blanco says the Superdome will have to be evacuated. Bush appears in Coronado, Calif. for a V-J Day commemoration. Go to the website cited below for photo corresponding to the following caption: President Bush plays a guitar presented to him by Country Singer Mark Wills, right, backstage following his visit…" The photo is very telling. For those of you who don't go ballistic when they read democratic commentary, you will find some fascinating information next to the photo.
August 31st. Evacuation of the Superdome begins. Bush cuts vacation short by 2 days and returns to Washington after a brief fly-by over New Orleans where he observed the scene from above.
September 1st: Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff claims "we have a tremendous array of forces that are currently deployed in New Orleans," as cable TV networks show live images of looting, Superdome residents awaiting evacuation and people stranded without food and water throughout the city. Bush tells "Good Morning America" that "I don’t think anyone anticipated a breach of the levees." That day, Newsweek reported, "The reality, say several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president, did not really sink in until Thursday night. Some White House staffers were watching the evening news and thought the president needed to see the horrific reports coming out of New Orleans. Counselor Bartlett made up a DVD of the newscasts so Bush could see them in their entirety as he flew down to the Gulf Coast the next morning on Air Force One. "
September 2nd: President Bush takes aerial tour of New Orleans. Relief copters grounded in New Orleans during Bush visit.
September 3rd: Construction equipment removed from broken levee after Bush visit. Louisiana Senator Landrieu Implores President to "relieve unmitigated suffering" and end FEMA's "abject failures"
September 4th: More than 4,600 active duty military personnel join almost 27,000 National Guard troops in Louisiana for disaster relief. Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard lambastes FEMA's response on NBC's "Meet the Press"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina
In a September 26, 2005 hearing, former FEMA chief Michael Brown testified before a U.S. House subcommittee about FEMA's response. He was questioned about why Bush's declaration of state of emergency of August 27 had not included the coastal parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and Plaquemines (in fact, the declaration did not include any of Louisiana's coastal parishes, whereas the coastal counties were included in the declarations for Mississippi and Alabama). Brown testified that this was because Louisiana Governor Blanco had not included those parishes in her initial request for aid (can you say pass-the-buck/fib?), a decision that he found "shocking." After the hearing, though, Blanco released a copy of her letter, which requested assistance for "all the southeastern parishes including the New Orleans Metropolitan area and the mid state Interstate I-49 corridor and northern parishes along the I-20 corridor.
A couple of cliches thrown in for good measure: A picture's worth 1000 words. Actions speak louder than words.
Go here for a Katrina Timeline. August 25 to September 5. The links embedded in this timeline make for a good read as well.
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/wiki/Katrina_Timeline/
Go here for a corresponding timeline of Bush's vacation and a few photos. http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/010936.php
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Bedtime story from Hurricane country entitled
"Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves – protect us from harm…" ". We are more compassionate than a government that…sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes." Barack Obama, nomination acceptance speech, 08/28/2008.
This is written in response to the post below that express the "bootstrap mentality" approach to Katrina and Bush/federal government response. Bush never seems to be held accountable for any of his actions or lack thereof. What I do know is that we deserve better from our so-called leaders. I want someone in charge of the country who knows that what I am about to describe is unacceptable. I am writing this because, at the very least, we should not allow our memories to fade away too quickly about the most shameful episode of leadership/federal agency failure and breakdown I have ever witnessed in my lifetime.
As for the poster who said that "if you don't live here, you don't know what you are talking about": Thing is that I do live in hurricane country on the Gulf Coast where to this day, 3 years later, we still welcome, house, employ, include, encourage and support Hurricane Katrina survivors/refugees. Hurricane Gustav is poised to make a visit here on the opening night of the RNC and will be slamming ashore and doing its thing during the opening speech by you-know-who. My memory of the last time we went through this is very clear. Where it seemed fuzzy, research filled in the blanks. I'm going to jump right in here.
When Hurricane Katrina made landfall, President Bush was on one of his marathon vacations. The August 2005 vacation, in fact, was the longest vacation of any US President (5 weeks). By the time Katrina showed up, he already had been at the ranch for 3 weeks, so he was pretty well rested up. On August 26th, Katrina strengthened to a Category 3 Hurricane and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco declared state of emergency. Blanco asked President Bush to declare federal state of emergency for Louisiana. Next day, Bush interrupted his bike ride with Astronaut Lance Armstrong and declared a state of emergency in selected regions of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi on Saturday, the 27th. The declaration did not include any of Louisiana's coastal parishes, an oversight that would later be addressed in Congressional hearings. Same day, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin orders a voluntary evacuation of all residents from the city of New Orleans.
Go here to see a map of parishes not included in the declaration. http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/637/1/. This map is an eye-opener. Mr. Harris calls it upsidedownland. Hello. Inland parishes included, coastal parishes excluded. Bushes parents live in the hurricane-prone city of Houston. He probably should have know better.
August 28th, within 9 short hours, Katrina doubled in size and strengthened from a category 3 to a 5. Nagin's evacuation became mandatory. During video conferences involving the president on August 28th and 29th, the NHC director informed Bush that Katrina might push its storm surge over the city's levees and flood walls, using such language "potential for nightmare scenarios," and that this has been known for at least the three decades he has worked at the NHC. Previous warnings, such as the one made by the Houston Chronicle in 2001, told of a disaster that "would strand 250,000 people or more, and probably kill one of 10 left behind as the city drowned under 20 feet of water" following a severe hurricane making landfall on NO. Other publications, such as Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, and The Times-Picayune had given similar doomsday scenarios in which a sinking city would drown and its residents would be left homeless.
On August 28th, the National Weather Sevice out of Baton Rogue and NO issued the following bulletin. This text is included in its entirety because the warning Bush decided to ignore just don't get any more clear than this. Before reading this, keep in mind that in response, Bush alerted FEMA Director Michael Brown, aka "Brownie," and stayed put, on vacation, since he had "done his part." No shouts in tended. This is the way cut and paste works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weather_Service_bulletin_for_New_Orleans_region ...DEVASTATING DAMAGE EXPECTED... HURRICANE KATRINA...A MOST POWERFUL HURRICANE WITH UNPRECEDENTED STRENGTH...RIVALING THE INTENSITY OF HURRICANE CAMILLE OF 1969. MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER. AT LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL FAILURE. ALL GABLED ROOFS WILL FAIL...LEAVING THOSE HOMES SEVERELY DAMAGED OR DESTROYED. THE MAJORITY OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WILL BECOME NON FUNCTIONAL. PARTIAL TO COMPLETE WALL AND ROOF FAILURE IS EXPECTED. ALL WOOD FRAMED LOW RISING APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL BE DESTROYED. CONCRETE BLOCK LOW RISE APARTMENTS WILL SUSTAIN MAJOR DAMAGE...INCLUDING SOME WALL AND ROOF FAILURE. HIGH RISE OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL SWAY DANGEROUSLY...A FEW TO THE POINT OF TOTAL COLLAPSE. ALL WINDOWS WILL BLOW OUT. AIRBORNE DEBRIS WILL BE WIDESPREAD...AND MAY INCLUDE HEAVY ITEMS SUCH AS HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND EVEN LIGHT VEHICLES. SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES AND LIGHT TRUCKS WILL BE MOVED. THE BLOWN DEBRIS WILL CREATE ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTION. PERSONS...PETS...AND LIVESTOCK EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL FACE CERTAIN DEATH IF STRUCK. POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS...AS MOST POWER POLES WILL BE DOWN AND TRANSFORMERS DESTROYED. WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS. THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED. FEW CROPS WILL REMAIN. LIVESTOCK LEFT EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL BE KILLED.
On August 29th, John McCain's 69th birthday, Katrina hits New Orleans as a category 4, levies break, Bush continues his itinerary. He jets on off to Luke Air Force Base near Phoenix to join McCain and wish him happy birthday (kinda makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside). Picture available on the website cited below. Afterward, Bush spoke about Medicare to 400 guests at the Pueblo El Mirage RV Resort and Country Club in nearby El Mirage. Not to worry. Brownie's doin' a heck of a job. August 29th: FEMA press release: 'First Responders Urged Not To Respond To Hurricane Impact Areas Unless Dispatched By State, Local Authorities.'
Five hours after the hurricane hit, FEMA chief Michael Brown asks Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff for approval to send 1,000 Homeland Security workers within 48 hours to the Gulf Coast to provide assistance. Bush fires up the jet and heads out to Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. for talk on prescription drugs for seniors. Back in NO, the 17th Street Canal levee breaks. The Red Cross, while providing relief and support across the Gulf Coast, did not enter New Orleans to provide relief at the Superdome, or any other victim shelter in the city.
August 30th. The Coast Guard reports that it has rescued some 1,200 people from rooftops around the area. Of course, it's all over the TV. The number of evacuees in the Superdome swells to 20,000, as people rescued or left homeless throughout the city are brought to the stadium. Gov. Blanco says the Superdome will have to be evacuated. Bush appears in Coronado, Calif. for a V-J Day commemoration. Go to the website cited below for photo corresponding to the following caption: President Bush plays a guitar presented to him by Country Singer Mark Wills, right, backstage following his visit…" The photo is very telling. For those of you who don't go ballistic when they read democratic commentary, you will find some fascinating information next to the photo.
August 31st. Evacuation of the Superdome begins. Bush cuts vacation short by 2 days and returns to Washington after a brief fly-by over New Orleans where he observed the scene from above.
September 1st: Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff claims "we have a tremendous array of forces that are currently deployed in New Orleans," as cable TV networks show live images of looting, Superdome residents awaiting evacuation and people stranded without food and water throughout the city. Bush tells "Good Morning America" that "I don’t think anyone anticipated a breach of the levees." That day, Newsweek reported, "The reality, say several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president, did not really sink in until Thursday night. Some White House staffers were watching the evening news and thought the president needed to see the horrific reports coming out of New Orleans. Counselor Bartlett made up a DVD of the newscasts so Bush could see them in their entirety as he flew down to the Gulf Coast the next morning on Air Force One. "
September 2nd: President Bush takes aerial tour of New Orleans. Relief copters grounded in New Orleans during Bush visit.
September 3rd: Construction equipment removed from broken levee after Bush visit. Louisiana Senator Landrieu Implores President to "relieve unmitigated suffering" and end FEMA's "abject failures"
September 4th: More than 4,600 active duty military personnel join almost 27,000 National Guard troops in Louisiana for disaster relief. Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard lambastes FEMA's response on NBC's "Meet the Press"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina
In a September 26, 2005 hearing, former FEMA chief Michael Brown testified before a U.S. House subcommittee about FEMA's response. He was questioned about why Bush's declaration of state of emergency of August 27 had not included the coastal parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and Plaquemines (in fact, the declaration did not include any of Louisiana's coastal parishes, whereas the coastal counties were included in the declarations for Mississippi and Alabama). Brown testified that this was because Louisiana Governor Blanco had not included those parishes in her initial request for aid (can you say pass-the-buck/fib?), a decision that he found "shocking." After the hearing, though, Blanco released a copy of her letter, which requested assistance for "all the southeastern parishes including the New Orleans Metropolitan area and the mid state Interstate I-49 corridor and northern parishes along the I-20 corridor.
A couple of cliches thrown in for good measure: A picture's worth 1000 words. Actions speak louder than words.
Go here for a Katrina Timeline. August 25 to September 5. The links embedded in this timeline make for a good read as well.
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/wiki/Katrina_Timeline/
Go here for a corresponding timeline of Bush's vacation and a few photos. http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/010936.php
I think JM was up past his bedtime.
And you're entitled to yours as well.
On 9/11/2001 and shortly thereafter, Bush, for whom I have never voted, became my hero. I was very proud he was my President when he stood in that rubble and vowed that "the people who knocked down these buildings are going to hear from all of us." I fully supported our invasion of Afghanistan.
While he was still flying high on his approval ratings, he told us we needed to get rid of Saddam Hussein because he represented an imminent threat to us. I (along with most members of Congress) believed him because the whole country still believed IN him after 9/11.
It’s been well documented that it was all a lie. ALL OF IT. He not only jeopardized the lives of our CHILDREN by sending them to die in a bogus war, he did it on the blood of all the 9/11 victims and their families. He didn’t give our soldiers adequate equipment, including body armor. THEY WERE FORCED TO DIG THROUGH LANDFILLS TO FIND ARMOR TO PROTECT THEMSELVES BECAUSE THIS PRESIDENT DIDN’T CARE ENOUGH ABOUT THEM TO PROVIDE IT FOR THEM!!!!!! Instead, he made sure he included "comprehensive health benefits for all Iraqi citizens" in his war budget.
He and all his cronies promised this war would be quick. That isn’t the truth.
He has personally turned Iraq into the best training ground that al Qaeda could ever hope to have.
His arrogance is only exceeded by his STUPIDITY. When I hear him speak with foreign leaders, I’m truly amazed that these are people who often can speak multiple languages, when our President can’t even get the hang of ONE language, and that stupid SMIRK he's always wearing as he mangles the English language does nothing but embarrass me.
The irony is that he allegedly wants to spread "freedom all over the world" (because GOD personally told him to), yet slowly but surely he’s reducing personal freedoms for citizens in his own country. Try getting into an "open" town hall meeting with George Bush if you dare to disagree with even ONE of his views. Ain’t gonna happen. He will only accept those who blindly follow him like sheep, aggressively defend every single stupid thing he does, show unfaltering reverence to him, and NEVER question the wisdom of his actions.
And WOULD I believe Bush if he came on TV and said we were being attacked? NO FRIGGING WAY. Not unless I saw video of it and it was corroborated by as many MEDIA people as possible. (I can't even begin to described how personally depressing it is to realize that I believe in the MEDIA infinitely more than I do this President, which is a very strong sign that something is seriously wrong in this country.) This President lied about Iraq. I would find it very hard to believe ANYTHING he ever said again. Trust is a very important thing and can’t just be given nilly willy. If someone twists facts to fit in with what they are trying to sell, that is a LIE. And once a person like that shows his or her true colors, I will never believe such a person again. Like Bush TRIED to say (before mangling it): Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. To me, a person who must resort to distorting facts for their own gain shows a very serious character flaw. I choose to stay away from such people because they don’t have an ounce of credibility.
And you’re right. This war is NOT another Vietnam. It’s much, much worse. During Vietnam, our government at least respected the lives of our soldiers enough to provide them with adequate protection. But it’s by no stretch of the imagination going to be "quick," as was promised. It's is going to be as long and drawn out as Vietnam, if not more so. And God forbid if we should truly NEED our troops to do what their supposed to be doing, which is DEFENDING us from an attack someday. There won’t be any. They’ve been spread very thinly all over the world. And recruitment quotas aren’t being met because young people don’t want any part of this administration because they simply don't trust it or believe it. Our young people are quite intelligent.
As far as knowing about true hardship, this generation isn’t SUPPOSED to know anything about it. Our parents and grandparents worked very hard to make sure their children would have a better life. Things WERE getting better before this President came into office. He inherited a surplus, squandered it, and then went on to create the largeset deficit in American history. However, when (not if) we’re attacked again, we’re going to learn plenty about it, because we have a President who hasn’t cared enough to take adequate precautions in his own country to protect his own people. He hasn’t put suggested precautions in place, such as protecting our nuclear/chemical plants. He hasn’t bothered to secure our borders. For crying out loud, some DRUNK guy wandered into an airport the other day and took a PLANE OUT ON A JOY RIDE. How secure is THAT? If there is hardship to be experienced by us, the blood will be on his hands.
And once again, as far as using the word "lie," it’s the simplest, shortest, most accurate word for something that is a blatant, purposeful UNTRUTH told with the intent to mislead. It IS the appropriate word to use.
And you are entitled to that....although...
I don't think being chosen to be on the ticket for the second-highest job in the land is exploitation. I certainly don't think she feels like she is being exploited. To each his own...we can all have our opinions. :) I don't really understand, from a purely objective standpoint, someone could object to her. Obama - limited experience. Palin - Limited experience. Obama - 1st chair. Palin - 2nd chair. Obama - beautiful wife and family. Palin - handsome husband, beautiful family. Obama - wants change in Washington. Palin - wants change in Washington and has a history of doing just that. There are other similarities. Wondering why the positives for him are negatives for her?
Well you're entitled to that...sm
And I am a liberal for ya!! A somewhat conservative liberal, how about adding that to your title bank.
Let's rewind. I said I was awkwardly uncomfortable at listening to some of his jokes. It was *in your face* comedy though the most of it is how a lot of us feel. I don't apologize for saying this guy is funny, he is. And, though the most of the jokes were about Bush, Rummy, Cheney and crew he did aim jokes at liberals too.
No one said you were not entitled to an opinion.
Why is it that when challenged to step back, these kind of statements always come up? In fact, you have not addressed one single item in my post. You say you do not hate Bush but then proceed to itemise another litany of complaints. And still not a word about terrorism! This truly does boggle the mind.
Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion, but
I hardly think it holds a candle to the awful Hilary comment - that was just in plain bad taste and I couldn't believe she even would go there.
I am simply stating what I caught with my eye and see that others out there have seen it too - it's just weird. Let's leave it at that.
You are entitled to your opinion, but...
please remember that not everyone believes in God. Your statement is your merely an opinion, not fact. Personally, religious fanatics scare me, especially ones like Sarah Palin who could possibly be placed in a position of power.
And I never said you weren't entitled!
Give me a break! You have religious freedom. I never said you didn't!
Each person is entitled to their own
opinion whether it is for or against abortion. I think your reply was uncalled for and rather childish. You can disagree with someone's opinion without being like this.
That is your choice and you are entitled to it.
I just think that you need to open your heart a little and learn to be a tad more tolerant. I don't want to see gay people making out in public but I don't like seeing straight people do that either. There is a time and place for that....not out in public for all to have to watch. Love the person, hate the sin. You seem to hate the person who sins because of the sin. Is that not too a sin?
You're entitled to your point of view
but not everybody thinks he has lied. Just because people say he has lied does not make it true. There has been nothing substantial to support that he lied. I just wish people would just quit throwing the word lie around so freely, because they are jumping to conclusions with no substantiation.
What scares me is I wonder how many people could withstand a real threat to this country. We are so un-unified if it came across the television that we were being attacked....I'm not sure some of you would believe it....you'd just say, "another Bush lie..."
Our generation knows nothing of true hardship. The Iraq war is not a quagmire...it's not another Vietnam...it's not anything like the dems are whining about it being....
You're entitled to your opinion.
No matter how skewed it is. 
*Entitled to your opinion but escorted
So your saying Ann's not entitled to her free speech
but you are entitled to yours? The 9/11 widows can say anything, but Ann better shut up?
The double standards rule the day here.
Ann has her opinions but at least she is not saying America is guilty of genocide.
So be it. We have differing opinions, both of us are entitled....
No matter who gets elected, I hope things get better for you. Sincerely.
I agree, all are entitled to handle grief in their own way.
It does seem that the grieving parent who chooses not to let his loss become a big public issue deserves just as much tolerance and respect as one who does. I don't think smearing or degrading any parent who's had such a loss is appropriate. We've heard for years now from families who have had losses and still support Bush and support the current war, and to my knowledge no one on the left has made a huge effort to discredit their motives or drag them through the mud or call their behavior "politically motivated." That just wouldn't be respectful and I know I would be against any such effort.
You're entitled to your opinion. I guess it depends on what side of the spectrum you're on.nm
x
Here's the story. sm
Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 10:51 p.m. EDT
RFK Jr.: Bush, Barbour to Blame for Katrina
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is blaming Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, along with President Bush, for causing Hurricane Katrina.
As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2, Kennedy blogged Tuesday on HuffingtonPost.com. The influential Democrat's enviro-conspiracy theory had the sinister Gov. Barbour engineering Bush's energy policy on behalf of the president’s major donors from the fossil fuel industry.
Kennedy charges that in March 2001, the former Republican National Committee chairman issued an urgent memo to the White House on CO2 emissions.
With that, the president dropped his pro-environment campaign promise like a hot potato.
Because of Bush and Barbour's CO2 folly, said Kennedy: Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged.
RFK, Jr., even suggested that Katrina's last minute detour through Mississippi was a bit of Divine payback, declaring:
Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast.
Another take on the story....
Republicans on the Record
What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)?
Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.
In fact, the civil rights movement was not about politics. Nor was it about which politicians did what and which political party should take the most credit. When it came to civil rights, America's politicians merely saw the handwriting on the wall and wrote the legislation to make into federal law the historical changes that had already taken place. There was nothing else they could do.
The movement of blacks to the North, as well as their contributions as fighting men in the world wars, plus the hard work of millions of blacks and their families and churches, along with the efforts of many private groups and individuals made the civil rights movement succeed.
Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators.
In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.
The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation's military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.
Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.
As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]
It has been maintained all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.
Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.
I know. I was there.
When I moved to Georgia in 1970, the Democratic Party had a total lock on Georgia. Newt Gingrich was one of the first outsiders to break that lock. He did so in a West Georgia area into which many Northerners were moving. He gained the support of rural West Georgians over issues that had absolutely nothing to do with race.
JFK – The Reluctant Civil Rights President
JFK evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed.
His lukewarm support for theAct included his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. Dixiecrats preferred the jury system to trials presided over and decided by judges because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil rights violators.
His record in the 1950s did not mark Kennedy as a civil rights activist. Yet the 1957Act to benefit African-Americans was passed with the help of Republicans. It was a watered- down version of the later 1964 bill, which Kennedy backed.
The record on JFK shows he was a man of his times and a true politician, more given to equivocation and pragmatism than to activism. Kennedy outlined civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for him to act.
For the most part, in the 1960 presidential campaign he avoided the civil rights issue altogether. He did endorse some kind of federal action, but he could not afford to antagonize Southern Democrats, whose support he desperately needed to defeat Richard Nixon. Basically, he could not jeopardize the political support of the Dixiecrats and many politicians in the rest of the country who were concerned about the radical change that was in the offing.
After he was elected president, Kennedy failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. That failure was for pragmatic political reasons and so that he could get the rest of his agenda passed.
Introducing specific civil rights legislation in the Senate would have meant a filibuster and the obstruction of other business he felt was just as crucial as civil rights legislation. A filibuster would have happened for sure and it would have taken 67 members to support cloture to end such a filibuster. Sixty-seven votes Kennedy believed he did not have.
As it was, Kennedy had other fish to fry, including the growing threat of Russian imperialism, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs as Cuba went down the communist rat hole, his increase in the numbers of troops and advisers he was sending to Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In addition, the steel business was in crisis and he needed a major tax rate cut to stimulate a sluggish economy. Kennedy understood his options and he chose to be realistic.
When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act.
The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. Various efforts by groups of Protestant and Catholic clergy, along with the Urban League, NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, black activists, individuals both white and black and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr., as well as other subsets of his movement, are what forced civil rights to be crafted into federal law.
The National Opinion Research Center discovered that by 1963 the number of Americans who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30 percent in 20 years, to 72 percent. Americans supporting school integration had risen even more impressively, to 75 percent.
The efforts of politicians were needed to write all the changes and efforts into law. Politicians did not lead charge on civil rights – again, they just took credit, especially the Democrats.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act
When all the historical forces had come together, Kennedy decided to act. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963.
Gathering business and religious leaders and telling the more violent activists in the black leadership to tone down the confrontational aspects of the movement, Kennedy outlined the Civil Rights Act. In it, the Justice Department was given the responsibility of addressing the worst problems of racial discrimination.
Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.
Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill's final success.
Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.
Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Man From Illinois
In the Senate, Hubert Humphrey was the point man for the Civil Rights Act. That is not unusual considering the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the presidency.
Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California led the Republican pro-civil rights forces. But it became clear who among the Republicans was going to get the job done; that man was conservative Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen.
He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.
Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.
Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.
Believing that Dirksen could be forced into voting for the Civil Rights Act, they demonstrated and picketed and there were threats by CORE to continue demonstrations and violence against Dirksen's offices in Illinois. James Farmer of CORE stated that people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters in protest.
Dirksen blew it off in a statement typical of him: When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end.
Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill's seven sections.
The Republican swing votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.
As they worked through objections to the bill, Dirksen explained his goal as first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill.
In any event, there were still 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions. Senators Dirksen and Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a clean bill as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute.
This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure, which was crucial to obtain the support of the swing Republicans.
On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.
In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.
On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart:
There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied.
After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?
Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind.
The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.
This does not tell the whole story either...
See below:
What is SCHIP?
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created by Congress in 1997 and is funded by both the federal government and the states. The program is designed to help states initiate and expand the provision of child health insurance to uninsured, low-income children.
SCHIP is administered by the states which have three options for providing SCHIP coverage. They can:
create separate SCHIP programs;
expand eligibility for benefits under the state’s Medicaid plan (a Medicaid SCHIP program); or
use both approaches in combination.
Within federal guidelines, states determine their SCHIP program(s):
design,
eligibility rules,
benefits packages,
payment levels, and
administrative and operating procedures.
At the federal level, SCHIP is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services though the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
There is nothing here about enrolling all the children in private insurance. That is at the discretion of the states. According to this they can expand the Medicaid coverage for SCHIP...government administered. At the federal level, it is administered by Medicare/Medicaid. Goverment administered. So to say it is not government administered is an untruth.
"Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."
That is also an untruth. This is from the bill itself:
SEC. 110. LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR STATES THAT PROPOSE TO COVER CHILDREN WITH EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.
(a) FMAP Applied to Expenditures- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(8) LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD HEALTH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO CHILDREN WHOSE EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE-
`(A) FMAP APPLIED TO EXPENDITURES- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2008, the Federal medical assistance percentage (as determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4) of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP under subsection (a)(1) with respect to any expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage for a targeted low-income child whose effective family income would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or type of income.
`(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State plan amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan.'.
It does NOT exclude coverage for those OVER the 300% marker. It only limits matching funds. And you notice it says EXCEEDS 300% of the poverty line. So anything UP TO 300% of the poverty line would be covered under the proposal sent to Bush, which equals the $82,600. Bush understands the bill better than this guy does. It does leave it open for New York or anywhere else to put people on the program right up to $82,600 per year income. Just like Bush said. I did not make this up. It is copied directly from the bill that is posted on the Library of Congress website.
Just making sure the whole story is told.
here is that story...
Commissioner dismissal controversy
On July 11, 2008, Governor Palin dismissed Walter Monegan as Commissioner of Public Safety and instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he subsequently turned down.[44][45] Monegan alleged shortly after his dismissal that it may have been partly due to his reluctance to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann.[46] In 2006, before Palin was governor, Wooten was briefly suspended for ten days for threatening to kill McCann's (and Palin's) father, tasering his 11-year-old stepson (at the stepson's request), and violating game laws. After a union protest, the suspension was reduced to five days.[47]
Governor Palin asserts that her dismissal of Monegan was unrelated to the fact that he had not fired Wooten, and asserts that Monegan was instead dismissed for not adequately filling state trooper vacancies, and because he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."[48] Palin acknowledges that a member of her administration, Frank Bailey, did contact the Department of Public Safety regarding Wooten, but both Palin and Bailey say that happened without her knowledge and was unrelated to her dismissal of Monegan.[48] Bailey was put on leave for two months for acting outside the scope of his authority as the Director of Boards and Commissions.
In response to Palin's statement that she had nothing to hide, in August 2008 the Alaska Legislature hired Steve Branchflower to investigate Palin and her staff for possible abuse of power surrounding the dismissal, though lawmakers acknowledge that "Monegan and other commissioners serve at will, meaning they can be fired by Palin at any time."[49] The investigation is being overseen by Democratic State Senator Hollis French, who says that the Palin administration has been cooperating and thus subpoenas are unnecessary.[50] The Palin administration itself was the first to release an audiotape of Bailey making inquiries about the status of the Wooten investigation.[48][51]
I think the story is entirely possible, but unlikely.
I have done a little bit of poking around and read a few other tidbits here and there and formed my opinion.
Everyone keeps saying that her water broke while she was in Texas, but it did not technically. She was just leaking fluid, and she was not in labor. She had had 4 kids and knew she was not yet in labor and discussed that with her doctor, who gave her the go-ahead to fly. That is not that unusual to me.
She waited a long time to announce her pregnancy. Okay, but probably the reason she waited was because she already knew the baby had Down's (she reportedly found out in December) and knew that there was a higher chance that she would miscarry. Rather than announce her pregnancy, then lose her baby, she chose to keep it private until she was more certain she would indeed carry to term. I understand that. I also think that she probably needed the time to process how her family would adapt to a special needs child, and wrap her mind around it, so to speak. Not to mention the fact that a fifth child is not usually announced with the pomp and circumstance of a first baby. That is typical.
As far as her not looking pregnant, that happens all the time. I remember seeing Pamela Anderson on a talk show and she was 7 or 8 months' pregnant. I was shocked at how tiny she was. She looked barely pregnant, and her baby wasn't even extra small when it was born. DIfferent women carry differently and Governor Palin was dressing in jackets and other clothing which would hide a bulge.
I saw the picture of her daughter and that was completely unconvincing as well. Girls wear shirts tight across the tummy like that all the time, even if they are chubby in the midsection. It is very common. If she was pregnant and trying to it it while posing for a family photo, wouldn't she choose different clothing?
All that being said, even if it were to turn out to be true, I wouldn't hold it against her for claiming the child as her own in order to protect her daughter and the baby. I don't see anything wrong in hiding a teenage pregnancy if it can be successfully hidden. No one should be proud of being unwed and pregnant. It's too bad that so many young girls think absolutely nothing of it, an actually get pregnant on purpose knowing full well that the baby's father will never be a part of its life. That is part of what is wrong with our society today.
thanks for your story
We must be nearly the same age because I know several women who were pressured into giving their children away and they are still haunted by that decision to this day. You are correct about the damage Palin is doing to her daughter.
What the..? What was there ONE story about someone
have been SP's doing ?? You make it sound like she handed down firings to several thousand. LOL But hey, if she's that powerful and good at putting her plans into action, then maybe I will vote for McCain/Palin.
Let me tell you a story
Back in the early 70s, I was a single mom, going through a divorce, and no job. My son was only 1-1/2 years old. I needed help and had no one. I went to Welfare to see if they could help me. I got some money for an apartment and food stamps.
After 5 months, I found a job, told welfare I was going off it because I didn't need the help anymore. Well, they absolutely begged me to stay on it for at least another year. Needless to say, it was harder to get OFF it than to get on it. I just couldn't get it through their heads that I didn't want their handouts. I had a standing invitation to come back anytime.
Well, fast forward 8 years. My new husband's job went down the tubes and we went through all our savings, living paycheck to paycheck on mine. Went back to welfare to see if we could at least get food stamps for our 2 kids now. Nope! I earned $11 too much. They told us to sell the cars and the house we were buying and then maybe, just maybe, we would qualify for everything. No way!
Needless to say, we had a friend who owned a bar and served sandwiches and soup. He let my husband work for him doing odd jobs around his property and paid him in leftover soup and sandwiches. Hubby was also able to pick up a few other odd jobs and that's how we survived for 2 years. We had a woodburner and cut and split our own wood, had seeds given to us and grew our own garden in the summer. We survived, but it wasn't easy. The only thing nice about it was my children learned about survival and my husband and I never gained any weight.The kids ate first, then hubby because his odd jobs were tougher than mine, and I ate last.
To this day, I can't look at a plate of spaghetti, soup, or chili. LOL
I actually got the story from CNN ....
Just sayin ... 
And in a related story...
...*Curious George* wants to know who's visiting porn sites. Hmmmmmm... thought spying was only supposed to be used to catch *terrorists*....
U.S., Google Set to Face Off in Court
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business WriterTue Mar 14, 8:16 AM ET
The Bush administration will renew its effort to find out what people have been looking for on Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine, continuing a legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government.
Lawyers for the Justice Department and Google are expected to elaborate on their opposing views in a San Jose hearing scheduled Tuesday before U.S. District Court Judge James Ware.
It will mark the first time the Justice Department and Google have sparred in court since the government subpoenaed the Mountain-View, Calif.-based company last summer in an effort to obtain a long list of search requests and Web site addresses.
The government believes the requested information will help bolster its arguments in another case in Pennsylvania, where the Bush administration hopes to revive a law designed to make it more difficult for children to see online pornography.
Google has refused to cooperate, maintaining that the government's demand threatens its users' privacy as well as its own closely guarded trade secrets.
The Justice Department has downplayed Google's concerns, arguing it doesn't want any personal information nor any data that would undermine the company's thriving business.
The case has focused attention on just how much personal information is stored by popular Web sites like Google — and the potential for that data to attract the interest of the government and other parties.
Although the Justice Department says it doesn't want any personal information now, a victory over Google in the case would likely encourage far more invasive requests in the future, said University of Connecticut law professor Paul Schiff Berman, who specializes in Internet law.
The erosion of privacy tends to happen incrementally, Berman said. While no one intrusion may seem that big, over the course of the next decade or two, you might end up in a place as a society where you never thought you would be.
Google seized on the case to underscore its commitment to privacy rights and differentiate itself from the Internet's other major search engines — Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news), Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and Time Warner Inc.'s America Online. All three say they complied with the Justice Department's request without revealing their users' personal information.
Cooperating with the government is a slippery slope and it's a path we shouldn't go down, Google co-founder Sergey Brin told industry analysts earlier this month.
Even as it defies the Bush administration, Google recently bowed to the demands of China's Communist government by agreeing to censor its search results in that country so it would have better access to the world's fastest growing Internet market. Google's China capitulation has been harshly criticized by some of the same people cheering the company's resistance to the Justice Department subpoena.
The Justice Department initially demanded a month of search requests from Google, but subsequently decided a week's worth of requests would be enough. In its legal briefs, the Justice Department has indicated it might be willing to narrow its request even further.
Ultimately, the government plans to select a random sample of 1,000 search requests previously made at Google and re-enter them in the search engine, according to a sworn declaration by Philip Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley who is helping the Justice Department in the case.
The government believes the test will show how easily it is to get around the filtering software that's supposed to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit material on the Web.
I only posted one story. sm
And the subject, to me, is Ward Churchill has his deception, not AIM. I would think as an OP, you would be more in tune to what the OP publications are saying about him.
Where did you find this story? sm
I can't find anything anywhere on this. Thank you!
I only found one story on this. sm
From an obscure site called Rogers Cadenhead. The remainder of the stories, from the LA Times, etc., did not include anything about U.S. Troops protecting the Hezbollah sympathizers.
Could it be possible there are 2 sides to the story? sm
The US, UK, and Israel also have a long and colorful history of 'creating incidents' to further their own agendas. I would say control of the Middle East is something at the top of the list. Hezbollah is wrong to send rockets into Israel. In fact, they are all wrong, but what do you expect them to do just wait there and be incinerated by Israel?
Here is a follow up to the first story... sm
http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=448&z=56
Real story from the MSM?.....sm
Bush controlled, corporate crony owned media telling the truth - not going to happen. That only happens when you have a democratic republic, not a corporate plutocracy. TV news definitely lies, suppresses, and distorts news.
Actually that's not the complete story...
You did not mention that when Summersby was dying of cancer she stated that it had been a romantic affair after all and wrote about it in her book. This contradicted what she had earlier stated. Who knows what really happened, and does it really matter? I doubt it. It only proves that we're all flawed humans, even some Republicans!!
I like the semaphore story better....nm
nm
yes, he changed the story
"just a bit" to better prove his point that she was a reformer. Like his cross in the dirt story as a POW. When he first told it, it happened to someone else. It went over better when he changed it to first person. That is dangerous behavior. We have been through 8 years of information manipulation. Please no more.
This whole story is absurd, more like a
fairytale or wishful thinking, right is running scared is all.
That's not the whole story/reason. (sm)
I, for one, do not want to pick produce from the fields and do many of the jobs that migrant workers do. I'm not lazy, per se, but I have other opportunities to make my income in ways closer to how I want to live.
Many Americans do not want to do those menial jobs. So, we do need migrant workers who are willing to fill those positions.
That isn't the whole story, though. And it doesn't make it acceptable to allow illegals in regardless of the job situation, etc.
Is this a true story? LOL
nm
Here's the rest of the story.
1. No soup for researching the breakdown on appropriations and who came down for and against as they progressed through time. That "congress did" cop-out does not cover for the fact that between 2002 and 2007, Dems were outnumbered by war zealots with glazed-over eyes as they followed a leader of liars and prevailed on the money issues. Answer: The pubs dominated and ARE credited for building up a $400B debt, no matter how fast you spin it.
2. Thank you. Obama voted against. Vision, conviction and courage to place principle over politics. Biden voted for, but has since stated he believes it was a mistake because of the W administration mismanagement of the war. Go here for Biden on the issue of Iraq: Does not appear to be part of the fleeced flock anymore. http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm.
3. Obama. Ahead of the curve. Petraeus is not running for president.
4. Petraeus is a military man with a military agenda and a reputation to protect, just like McCain. Trouble is, public is war weary and are looking for nonmilitary solutions…or at least somebody who is willing to consider such notions. There has to be a plan for what lies beyond the surge, which is not an everlasting solution. Question is whose plan? Bush and McCain NOW get it that Obama gots it and are going with his flow. According to you, Petraeus is onboard too. By the way, the Iraqi leadership just might be entitled to weigh in on this one. After all, it IS their country. They backed Obama on international television this past summer, lest we forget.
5. Well then, according to you, Petraeus is onboard troop draw-down. No highjack here, but a bit slow on the draw.
6. There has been no political resolution. Iraqis have not taken control of their own nation. Exactly what do you think will happen after troop withdrawal? The Sunni, Shia and Kurds will throw farewell flowers at the troops and each other in gratitude for all the help and Iraq will become the "oasis of democracy" in the Middle East? All the surge has done is prolong the inevitable. We need to step aside NO MATTER WHAT the consequences and hand the Iraqis the keys to the kingdom and let them sort themselves out.
A story I like to tell about the Ivy League...
I earned a BBA (Bachelors of Business Administration) from Temple University. Many years ago, I had a pretty high-powered job. I'll never forget a young lady who came in to interview with me for a job in our department. It seemed as though she couldn't mention often enough that she had earned her BBA from the University of Pennsylvania. So, following her lead, I spent quite a bit of time talking to her about her time at Penn, and it didn't take her very long before she was expressing her opinion that an Ivy League education was better than any other, and so she was the best candidate out there. I admired her spunk, but not her flawed logic.
I told her that the BBA degree was accredited by a single organization, and that the study curriculum at all schools offering the degree was the same. One could argue that faculty in some schools were better or worse than in others, but there was no hard and fast measure of that opinion. The curriculum, however, was the same in every school.
I asked her what her University of Pennsylvania tuition had been. This was in the early 1980s, and she proudly said it was around $30,000 a year. I told her that tuition at Temple University was about $4000 a year. So the cost of my BBA had been roughly $16,000. The cost of hers had been roughly $120,000. I told her that in my opinion, we had purchased the same product, but that there was a significant difference in the cost of that product. I then asked her if as an employee of our company, I might expect her to likewise overpay on budget items in our department.
The kicker was, my degree was hanging on the wall in my office. She couldn't help but see it. It really wasn't the way to warm up to the interviewer. My impression of her was that someone paid a lot of money for her education, but she wasn't too smart.
thats your story and your sticking to it...
x
Yours is a compelling story....
and is indicative of why assistance is needed to help those truly in need. I have never said welfare needs to be stopped. What I said is able-bodied people who want assistance should have a job or job training attached to it, so they can get OUT of the cycle of poverty. I said that assistance SHOULD be used for those physically or mentally unable to work. However, if any of us are honest, we know that there are thousands upon thousands who are on assistance who are completely capable of working. They take benefits from those who truly are physically unable, like you were, or lessen those benefits and make it harder to get benefits. Assistance programs need to be fixed so that those who really are physically or mentally unable to work can get the help they need.
The other side of the story....
http://www.newsmax.com/smith/barack_obama_tony_rezko/2008/09/02/126890.html
Yep. there are two sides to every story....
you just have to choose the side that fits your view for your country. Godspeed in your search. :)
Other side of the story...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/16/2008-09-16_john_mccain_campaign_releases_troopergat.html
half the story
Refuted.
http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/WSJletter111003.html
Try reading this one.
Here's the same story on ABC.?. see inside
I thought AOL was considered a liberal site, but I guess not. Here's ABC with a bit more information, but basically the same story:
Inside the White House: What Went Wrong?
Sources in the Meeting Tell ABC News Why the Talk Turned Into a Screaming Match
By JONATHAN KARL
Sept. 26, 2008
If all had gone according to plan, Thursday's White House meeting would have been a triumphant photo opportunity, where top Democratic and Republican congressional leaders come together with the president and the two presidential candidates to support a plan for stabilizing the financial markets. Instead, the meeting devolved into a shouting match that nearly derailed the economic bailout plan.
Here's an account of what happened, based on conversations with several of those present, both Democrats and Republicans:
The first sign of trouble: Twenty minutes before the White House meeting, Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson calls House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say there are problems with the agreement reached earlier in the afternoon. Pelosi is miffed. Democrats believed the issues Paulson raised had already been resolved.
President Bush opens the meeting at 4 p.m., quickly turning it over to Paulson who gives a status report on the markets and says, "We need to get this done quickly." Paulson turns it over to Pelosi, who defers to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who defers to Sen. Barack Obama. Obama starts things off for the Democrats by reiterating his principles on what the plan should include. Obama agrees with Paulson on the need to act quickly but says some on the Hill "don't understand the need for the rush." Some of the Republicans took this as an attack on them.
Obama then defers to Sen. John McCain, but McCain defers to House Republican Leader John Boehner to speak on behalf of the Republicans. Boehner says House Republicans have "a lot of problems" with the plan and "most of my caucus is not there."
At this point, the meeting is still fairly cordial. Pelosi even compliments the president on his speech Wednesday night. But the meeting starts to devolve.
After some more give and ake, Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, presents a five-page list of 192 economists and business school professors who oppose the plan. Bush isn't impressed. "I don't care what somebody on some college campus says," Bush says. Instead, he says he trusts Hank Paulson, who, he says, has more than 35 years of experience and access to more information than those academics on Shelby's list.
Boehner says House Republicans have a different idea: providing federal insurance for mortgage securities instead of buying them outright.
Obama chimes in again, asking Paulson what he thinks about the insurance idea. Paulson says he thinks the idea is unworkable, and adds, "We can't start over."
After 43 minutes, McCain finally speaks. He says there are "legitimate concerns that need to be listened to" and that there has been "significant progress" in incorporating his principles into the bill. "We have one shot at getting this done right," he says. McCain does not get specific. "He said a whole lot of nothing," says one Republican in the room.
Shortly after that, things get a whole lot worse. Rep. Spencer Baucus, the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, speaks in favor of the Republican alternative, setting Rep. Barney Frank, the Democratic chairman of the committee, into a rage. Frank accuses Republicans of "sandbagging" him by bringing up a plan he's never seen. There's more shouting. The president brings the meeting back to order and urges everybody to get back together because "we need to get this done." The deciding factor for him on any final deal, he says, is whether or not Hank Paulson says it will work.
The meeting ends, but the fireworks are yet to come.
Democrats go back into the Roosevelt Room to discuss whether to go out to the cameras waiting on the White House driveway. Paulson comes in and literally begs them not to go out and criticize the meeting. For dramatic effect, Paulson gets down on one knee and says, "Please, I beg you, don't blow this up."
Barney Frank, shouting, "Don't give me that bulls**t."
More Frank: "Hank, you've got a problem here. Republicans want to torpedo this."
Pelosi is also outraged, but the Democrats decide not to go out as a group to the microphones.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5895827&page=1
Video story
Found interview with REAL PEOPLE about this. Click link below for story, then video next to story. I had a hard time getting vid to play, but viewed another story's video then went back to this one and it worked.
The FBI is investigating and Obama's camp had no comment.
Click below.
I don't believe this story for one minute!
The "B" carved in this young lady's cheek is more like scratch, and it is backwards. Have you ever looked at writing in a mirror? It's backwards! This young lady may have been mugged, but she scratched the "B" in her cheek all by herself. She is also a college Republican field representative, which makes this story even more fishy and explains her motive for doing this. Talk about stooping low...this is as low as it gets!
|
