Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.
That’s the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 6-3 Tuesday night to tell the U.S. Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station “is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders.”
Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.”
I wonder how the people who lose their jobs and homes in the downturn will feel about that?
Update: It appears that this quote was “Dowdfied” by using only part of the quote. I thought we had agreed that we would leave stuff like this to the other side.
This afternoon, actor Heath Ledger was found dead of an apparent drug overdose in the apartment of Mary Kate-Olsen, a known GOP operative. I wouldn’t be surprised if George Bush’s name was on the prescription labels, too. It all goes back to the religious right’s backlash against Brokeback Mountain and the seething hatred all conservatives have for same-sex couples. Whether it’s Ledger/Gylellynyhal, or Kerry/Edwards, Bush just can’t stand the thought of two men being madly in love with one another.
It means that Dick Cheney’s star is fading. He used to be the go-to guy when people needed to be eliminated.
Update: BlameBush has the goods
January 27, 2008 — HUMA Abedin, the traveling aide who is rarely out of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s sight, has been seen with bachelor Rep. Anthony Weiner on the campaign trail. Shortly before Clinton arrived for a fund-raiser Thursday night at the Hiro club in the Meatpacking District, Abedin was spotted going into the Maritime Hotel around the corner with Weiner. If they were trying to keep their affair a secret, you’d think they’d find someplace where political reporters wouldn’t be walking by.
Obscured by the protracted and fundamentally pointless squabbling over race, punctuated for comic relief by Bubba’s ham-fisted bad-cop routine, is the ultimate irony of the campaign. As ironies go, it doesn’t get better than this. For almost five years, the mantra of the hard-left, too often parroted by shameless liberal Democrats, has been “Bush lied!” Shouted incessantly, it’s from the Joseph Goebbels playbook, an outrageous Big Lie that insults everyone’s intelligence. Obviously, Bush expected to find WMD in Iraq; he wasn’t trying to sabotage his own re-election bid. But, although Republican candidates will defend Bush, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and conviction, and Democrats will continue to press the theme that Bush “misled” the country (the hapless George McGovern has emerged from the dreams of graying radicals to demand Bush’s impeachment), there is one candidate in the race who knows with absolute certainty that the intelligence on Iraq as of January 20, 2001 had not changed from the time of Operation Desert Fox in November 1998. There is one candidate who knows-not merely believes, but knows for a fact– that America’s intelligence-gathering agencies felt that Saddam retained WMD.
Can you guess her name?
Recent polls show black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina’s primary in five days.
For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?
No other voting bloc in the country faces this choice.
Nah! The only reason for supporting a candidate is that they share a skin color or genital configuration. Expecting black women to actually think about who they are voting for would be ridiculous.
NEW YORK (AP) – Wall Street plunged at the opening of trading Tuesday, propelling the Dow Jones industrials down about 300 points after an interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve failed to assuage investors fearing a recession in the United States.
U.S. markets joined stock exchanges around the globe that have fallen precipitously in recent days amid concerns that a downturn might spread around the world. U.S. bonds were mixed, with investors seeking safer investments as stocks plummeted. The price of oil, meanwhile, fell amid expectations that a downturn would depress demand for energy.
Is this the result of the Democrats constant talk of how bad the economy is, rather than any actual weakness? Before you poo-poo this notion, take a look at what the Democrats were claiming in March 2001 only two months into Bush’s first term.
[BILL] PRESS: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE. They call him the maestro, but today, not even the maestro could orchestrate a recovery. Fed chairman Alan Greenspan cut interest rates but still the market tumbled, raising fears not only of a bear market, but of an actual recession — with predictable political reactions.
President Bush said the shaky economy proves the need for his tax cut. The Democrats say it’s all his fault. The market would still be strong if he hadn’t been so negative in his public comments.
So who is it that is making public comments about how bad the economy is now?
That would be the Democrats. And they have been doing so for quite a while. If they thought Bush could “talk down” the economy in two months, what do they think their constant carping has done in the past few years?
To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new “directorate” of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU “obstruction” of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:· A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.
· The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.
· No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.
· The use of force without UN security council authorisation when “immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings”.
In the wake of the latest row over military performance in Afghanistan, touched off when the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said some allies could not conduct counter-insurgency, the five senior figures at the heart of the western military establishment also declare that Nato’s future is on the line in Helmand province.
“Nato’s credibility is at stake in Afghanistan,” said Van den Breemen.
“Nato is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure,” according to the blueprint.
OLYMPIA, Wash. – A law being proposed to state legislators would ban smoking in a car if there are children inside.
Because Washington is a state that has nothing better to do than intrude into the parent-child relationship. It must be pretty heady stuff to be as smart and wonderful as a Washington State legislator.
State Representative Shay Schual-Berke compares it to drunk driving, saying you’re injuring your children for life if you smoke with them in your car.
Yes. I cannot count the number of times I have driven by the scene of an in-car smoking incident. The blood, the cries, the twisted wreckage, the broken bodies.
“Did you know that the poisons from secondhand smoke, which we know cause cancer in adults; we know cause asthma and bronchitis in children and adults, is also associated with sudden infant death syndrome?” she said. “I’ve seen people smoking and I’ve watched their children in the backseat coughing.”
We “all know” nothing of the kind. If Rep Schual-Berke had actually taken the time to check she would have found that the second-hand smoke research was baseed on faulty research that had to alter the statistical practices in order to come to their predetermined finding. But if she did that she might not be able to justify intruding into your family life.
Some are all for the ban, including Christina Porter, who says she’d never smoke with kids inside.
Would she support a law requiring her to smoke in the car if other people supported it? Or does she only support using the police powers of the government to force her whims onto others?
“No, not in a million years; that’s one of my biggest pet peeves,” she said. “Who else is going to protect the children if the parents aren’t going to do that themselves? It’s no different than saying we can’t smoke in a restaurant or a bar.”
It’s “For The Children” can be used to support any intrusion into the private lives of the citizenry. How about we have unanounced spot checks of the legislator’s homes and workplaces to insure that they’re not doing anything that someone, somewhere might disapprove of? After all, it’s OK if it’s “for the children.”
Others say it’s an invasion of privacy.
You know how those “others” are. They actually think that they can raise their children without the constant benevolant intrusion of elected officials. Aren’t they aware of the hundreds of thousands of child deaths each year due to the negligence of parents? What a bunch of selfish bastards.
It’s For The Children!! Damn it! And you had better get used to it because what your children are exposed to in the car is only the beginning.
“I really do not believe that a government should be insisting on laws like that. It’s just a little intrusive now, definitely,” said parent Bryan Bailon.
Another self centered selfish mouthbreather who needs to be silenced for his and his children’s own good. Let one of these people start making decisions for their children and the next thing you know they’ll be feeding their kids non-organic fruit.
Schual-Berke says you wouldn’t get pulled over just for smoking while your kids are in the car. But you could face roughly a $100 fine if you’re caught after you’re pulled over for something else. She says the law is needed to protect children.
Do you really think that would last? I can remember the first seatbelt laws here in Oregon. It wasn’t a primary offense either. You could not get pulled over for it. Now we have “click it or ticket”. How many years would it take for the legislature to change that? “For The Children” Of course.
Several states already banned smoking in cars with children, including California and Alabama. Supporters of a ban here say 27 other states are considering a similar ban.
Which means what exactly? Didn’t your mother ever tell you that just because your friends jumped off a bridge was no reason to do it yourself? Or didn’t you listen to your mother because she was not a State Legislator?
Prod nothing. It sounds like absolute control to me.
Private property managed by government regulation. The “Third Way”. It really is “Liberal Facsism” at least in the economic sense if not in the anti-Communist or comic opera costume area.