From the excellent blog of The Atheist Missionary.
7 hours ago
Friday, November 20, 2009
Are Republicans Really This Stupid ?
I knew there was a segment of the Republican Party that really wasn't too bright. All you have to do is look at the teabaggers to know that. But I have to admit that I'm shocked to see that the stupidity extends to more than half of the party.
Public Policy Polling has revealed that in it's poll 52% of GOP voters think the urban community-activist organization ACORN stole the 2008 election for Barack Obama. How could they possibly believe that? ACORN doesn't have enough members to affect even one-half of one percent of a national election.
Obviously, these Republicans have been listening to too much Limbaugh, Beck and O'Reilly, who have gone out of their way to demonize a community organization that does a lot of good work in large urban areas -- like helping people file their taxes, register to vote and find employment.
I seriously doubt that ACORN has enough members and volunteers to even steal an election in a large urban area, where most of their members and volunteers are. I would especially like to know how acorn pulled off this great theft in states where they have little or no presence, but where Obama won. Take North Carolina for example. That state went for Obama, but has only 8 ACORN members in the whole state. Please tell me how those 8 members pulled that off.
But it goes further than just Fox News and the far-right media. The mainstream media has done a very poor job of covering the mostly false ACORN accusations, and have left many people unfamiliar with ACORN with a false view of the organization. These media, who are supposed to dig out the truth, are guilty of presenting only one side of the ACORN story to their great shame.
Peter Dreier and Christopher Martin of Occidental College (in California) have released a survey regarding this poor media coverage. They found that most stories about ACORN's involvement in voter fraud was lacking in that:
- 82.8% of the stories failed to mention that actual voter fraud is very rare;
- 80.3% of the stories failed to mention that ACORN was reporting registration irregularities to authorities, as required by law;
- 85.1% of the stories about ACORN failed to note that ACORN was acting to stop incidents of registration problems by its (mostly temporary) employees when it became aware of these problems;
- 95.8% of the stories failed to provide deeper context, especially efforts by Republican Party officials to use allegations of "voter fraud" to dampen voting by low‐income and minority Americans, including the firing of U.S. Attorneys who refused to cooperate with the politicization of voter-fraud accusations—firings that ultimately led to the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
If you want to see an election that was stolen, look back to 2000 when a candidate with a minority of the vote was handed the election by a right-leaning Supreme Court. In 2008, Barack Obama won the election fair and square with a huge majority of the vote -- both the popular vote and the electoral college.
Anyone who can't see that is either stupid or in complete denial. It's pathetic that this includes a majority of Republicans.
Army Corps Of Engineers Is Responsible
For years now, the Army Corps of Engineers has denied any responsibility for the flooding and damage caused in New Orleans during and immediately after Hurricane Katrina. It's going to be much harder for them to claim that now, because a federal judge has disagreed.
U.S. District Judge Stanwood R. Duval has issued a decision, which says the flooding in the Lower 9th Ward and in St. Bernard Parish was not due to Hurricane Katrina but was directly due to the failure of the Army Corps of Engineers to properly maintain a navigation channel known as the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MRGO). The judge cited the Army Corps' "insouciance, myopia and shortsightedness" in not maintaining the channel properly.
In harsh terms, Judge Duval said the Army Corps has known for over 40 years that failure to properly maintain MRGO could cause the failure of the levee protecting the affected areas, and found that they were negligent in failing to do what they knew to be necessary to protect New Orleans. The judge ordered a damage payment of $719,000 be paid to a small group that had filed suit against the Army Corps in 2006.
But that payment may be just the tip of the iceberg. Over 100,000 people have filed claims with the Army Corps of Engineers, and this judgement makes it far more likely they will eventually be paid damages also. It is possible that this judgement could cost the federal government billions of dollars.
The Army Corps is not talking and neither is the Justice Department. They just said they are "studying" the decision. They will probably appeal and drag this out for many more years, but I hope not. This has drug on too long, and these people have suffered for too long. It is time to make it right.
The United States government failed the people of New Orleans, causing much damage and loss of life. They can't take back what was done in the past, but they can stop failing them now and do the right thing -- regardless of cost.
Doing the right thing is never too expensive.
Kinky Withdrawing ? RIDICULOUS !
There has been a nasty rumor going around in some political circles that Democratic candidate for governor Kinky Friedman is going to withdraw from the primary race. The rumor says he will throw his support to hair-care magnate Farouk Shami, who has just announced his candidacy.
It is true that Shami and Friedman are friends, and Shami supported Kinky during his independent run for governor in 2006. But that doesn't mean Kinky has any intention of withdrawing. Kinky says the rumors of his withdrawal "couldn't be more wrong." Shami is simply one more candidate to beat in the primary -- just like Tom Schieffer or Hank Gilbert.
Kinky thinks the rumor might have stemmed from "confusion" over his pledge to support the winner of the Democratic primary (if he loses the primary). He went on to say, "Right now, I think all of them look better than Prince Humperdink (Perry)."
I disagree. I think the rumor was started by supporters of some of the other candidates in an effort to try and convince people that Kinky is not a serious candidate. But wherever the rumor came from, it's silly and makes no sense at all.
According to the only poll released so far, Kinky is the FRONTRUNNER in the race by a large margin. When do you remember a frontrunner ever dropping out of a race because someone else (with no name recognition) entered the race? Things may change before primary day (since the campaigns are just getting started), but right now Kinky is the leading contender.
There's still a long way to go in this campaign, and I doubt that any of the serious contenders will be dropping out, regardless of whatever rumors may be going around.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
I Won't Be Reading It
I've always considered myself to have a pretty high tolerance for pain. For instance after being shot in the stomach, I found myself cracking jokes with the EMS Tech on the way to the hospital. But I do have my limits, and I have no doubt that trying to read Sarah Palin's book of fiction would send me way above my pain tolerance very quickly.Therefore, I won't be reading Sarah's book. I understand it is full of lies and half-truths, but I will leave it to much braver journalists and bloggers than me to expose them. And I'm sure many of them will spend the next month or so doing just that. However, I will avidly read as many of these commentaries as I can.
Meanwhile, President Obama has shown me that he's as smart as I thought he was. He has said that he won't be reading Palin's book either. He was a little nicer than me about it though, saying, "I probably won't, but I don't get a chance to read things other than briefing books very often these days anyway."
Hasan Showed Problems During Residency
The following is a transcript of the evaluation of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan by the director of his Psychiatry Residency Program. It was obtained by NPR. The director notes some obvious and troubling deficiencies about Hasan, but then approves his receiving his credentials. He notes he should be all right with proper supervision, but admitted he shouldn't need supervision at this point.
Frankly, after reading this I am troubled by Hasan being credentialed. I certainly would be worried about being treated by a doctor (psychiatric or otherwise) who had this much trouble with his residency and was still deemed to be in need of supervision. Is the Army in such dire need of psychiatrists that they need to take borderline cases like Hasan?
When you consider other things like Hasan arguing with his peers about religion and justifying suicide bombers and contacting an Imam with dubious ties, I am starting to believe the U.S. Army dropped the ball on this one (and possibly the FBI and others also). Hasan has been sending out troubling signals for years. Someone should have acted.
National Capital Consortium
Psychiatry Residency Program
Borden Pavilion, Walter Reed Army Medical Center
Bldg.6, Rm. 2059, 6900 Georgia Ave, NW
Washington DC, 20307-5001
XXXXXXX
Consortium Participating Instructions: Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, National Naval Medical Center, Malcolm Grow USAF Medical Center
May 17, 2007
Memorandum for: Credentials Committee
Subject: CPT Nidal Hasan
1. I am the program director for NCC Psychiatry Residency Training Program. I took over as PD in MAR 2007 and was Assistant PD from July 2006. I have been a faculty member of the residency since July 2004.
2. This memo is based on my personal knowledge of and the documented incidences in CPT Hasan’s Resident Training File.
3. The Faculty has serious concerns about CPT Hasan’s professionalism and work ethic. Clinically he is competent to deliver safe patient care. But he demonstrates a pattern of poor judgment and a lack of professionalism. In his PGY-2 year, he was counseled for inappropriately discussing religious topics with his assigned patients. He also required a period of in-program remediation when he was discovered to have not documented appropriately an ER encounter with a homicidal patient who subsequently eloped from the ER. He did successfully remediate this problem. At the end of his PGY-2 year, he was placed on administrative probation by the NCC GMEC for failure to take and pass USMLE Step 3 and to obtain an unrestricted state medical license by the end of his PGY-2 year; as a result he was not promoted to PGY-3 on time. He did eventually complete step 3 and get a license and was promoted to PGY-3. He was counseled for having a poor record of attendance at didactics and lower than expected PRITE scores. One year he failed to show for his PRITE examination at all. During his PGY-3 year, he was counseled for being consistently late to NNMC morning report. During his PGY-4 year, he was discovered to have only seen 30 outpatients in 38 week of outpatient continuity clinic. He was required to make this missed clinic time up using his elective. He failed his HGT/WGT screening and was found to be out of standards with body fat % and was counseled on that.Lastly, he missed a night of call for MGMC ER and then did not respond to numerous pages by my office the next day.
4. Take together; these issues demonstrate a lack of professionalism and work ethics.
He is able to self-correct with supervision. However, at this point he should not need so much supervision. In spite of all of this, I am not able to say he is not competent to graduate nor do I think a period of academic probation now at the end of his training will be beneficial. He would be able to contain his behavior enough to complete any period of probation successfully. My purpose in writing this letter is to give the credentials committee the benefit of full disclosure and the opportunity to modify CPT Hasan’s plan of supervision following initial privileging.
5. I did discuss this memo with CPT Hasan and informed him I would be adding it to his initial credentialing paperwork.
6. POC is the undersigned and may be reached at 202-XXX-XXXX or email at XXX/
Sincerely,
Scott Moran, MAJ, MC
Program Director
NCC Psychiatry Residency Training
GWB Library Plans Revealed
The picture above is an artist's rendition of the George W. Bush Presidential Center (Library) on the campus of Southern Methodist University. This is where Bush's coloring books and other presidential papers will be stored. Personally, I think The Pet Goat should have an honored place in that library. It's as indicative as any book of the caliber of Bush's presidency.
Laura Bush presided over the planning of the library's design, and tried to maintain a Texas flavor to the concept "from the Texas limestone and pecan wood paneling inside the complex to the wildflowers, bluebonnets and prairie land outside." Mrs. Bush said, "I know we can't please everyone, but I think this almost does."
I'm sure Mrs. Bush probably believes that, but there are millions of us Texans that would be just as happy to see the library not built at all (or perhaps moved to his birth state -- Connecticut).
I still find it hard to believe that SMU wanted this dreadful monument to an epic failure on it's campus. After a long and hard fight to become recognized as an institution of academic excellence, this beacon of a failed presidency will set them back many years.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
"War On Christmas" Nonsense Starts Again
It's still over a week before the Thanksgiving holiday, and the American Family Association (AFA) has already started whining about the "war on christmas". They have taken a statement by Gap and made erroneous assumptions about it. Now they are asking people to boycott the Gap, Banana Republic and Old Navy (all stores run by Gap, Inc.).
Last year, Gap released a statement saying, "Gap recognizes that many traditions are celebrated throughout this season and we feel it is important to display holiday signage that is inclusive to everyone." Now to me, that sounds very reasonable. The store doesn't want to exclude any potential customers or make them feel uncomfortable.
But the AFA thinks it is a calculated attack on christmas. They have even accused Gap of refusing to say the word christmas. Obviously, the AFA has made an incorrect assumption (or is telling a bald-faced lie). Gap has been running a new commercial which includes the word christmas -- along with hanukkah, kwanzaa and solstice.
Gap is not anti-christmas. They are simply trying to reach out to people of all beliefs. But this is not about Gap in the final analysis. It is about AFA trying to advertise itself and push it's religious agenda. Even though the christians are the dominant religion in this country, groups like AFA would like to be viewed as a victim -- that way they get publicity and donations.
The solstice season was not even a christian holiday until several centuries after Jesus' death (if he ever lived at all), when they appropriated another religion's holiday because they couldn't get people to stop celebrating it. Now groups like AFA want to force others to celebrate their stolen holiday.
Frankly, I have no interest in celebrating a christian holiday, but I do enjoy celebrating the secular aspect of christmas. Many others would like to celebrate the holiday in their own way also. If christians, including the AFA, wish to celebrate christmas as the birthday of their god, then they should be able to do that.
But what they shouldn't be able to do in a free and secular country such as America, is force businesses or individuals to worship in the same way. War on christmas -- what nonsense!
Uninsured Trauma Patients Likely To Die
We have known for quite a while that people without insurance have a greater chance of dying than those who have insurance. Those without insurance are less likely to be screened for many cancers or admitted to a hospital for procedures like heart bypass surgery. In addition, many people without insurance have to put off going to the doctor, and by the time they do go it may be too late for a cure.
It has been estimated that at least 18,000 people die each year because they don't have insurance. But things are supposed to be different for trauma patients. After all Congress passed a law in 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which is supposed to guarantee that trauma patients brought to emergency rooms get the treatment they need regardless of whether they have insurance or not.
At least, that's the way it's supposed to work. But something is wrong with that concept, because a new study by researchers from Harvard University and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston shows the uninsured trauma patients have a much greater chance of dying. Their study used information from the National Trauma Data Bank (which receives it's info from 1,154 U.S. hospitals).
The study found that people enrolled in private health insurance plans, health maintenance organizations or Medicaid had about an equal chance of survival after being taken to the emergency room for trauma. Medicare patients had a 56% higher chance of dying than those in the first three groups. This is probably because it contains only those 65 or older, who have a much larger chance of already having some kind of chronic illness.
But the real shock comes with the uninsured trauma patients. Although they are supposedly receiving equal trauma treatment, they actually have an 80% higher risk of death than patients with some kind of health insurance. That's an incredibly huge difference in risk of death.
Thinking this might have something to do with these patients having more chronic illnesses, they decided to look at only those trauma patients between the ages of 18 and 30. They reasoned that since this group was far less likely to have a chronic illness, the risk of death would probably be much lower. They were wrong. The younger group actually had an 89% higher risk of death than those of the same age group who had insurance.
What is happening? Are the emergency room doctors ignoring the 1986 law? Not knowingly. These doctors were as shocked as anyone by the risk figures. They were convinced that they were giving everyone equal treatment. I hope they are right, because otherwise it would show a real callous attitude toward those without insurance.
No one really knows why the uninsured have such a greater chance of dying. Some think it's regarding treatment received after the patient leaves the emergency room. The uninsured are not as carefully screened for other illnesses, and they receive less expensive tests like MRIs and CAT scans. Others believe those without insurance are those with less money, and therefore live in more dangerous areas or lead more dangerous lives.
Whatever the reason, it is a fact that the uninsured have a much greater chance of dying when taken to the emergency room for a trauma -- and that is unacceptable. This just reinforces the critical need to cover all American citizens with health insurance.
Failure to institute universal health insurance coverage just shows a horrid disregard for the lives of our fellow Americans. Working for low wages should not be tantamount to a death sentence.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Right-Wing Opposes "Rule Of Law"
The Justice Department has finally decided to do the right thing, and bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (9/11 mastermind) and four of his cohorts to justice in a court of law -- just like any other vicious criminals. They will be tried and hopefully convicted in a New York criminal court, and it's about time -- it should have happened years ago.
This is not anything unique. Terrorists have been tried in our civilian criminal courts many times in the past. Take for example the original Trade Center bombers (who failed to bring the towers down), the case of Timothy McVeigh and his sidekick, and the case of the puerto Rican terrorists many years ago. They were all tried and convicted in a civilian court of law.
But those cases were before President Bush suspended the rule of law, and decided he could decide who would get a fair trial and who wouldn't. Well, he was not only wrong, but he's no longer president. It looks like the Obama administration believes in the Constitution and the rule of law, and that's a good thing for everyone in America.
But it does point out a difference between the ultra-right-wing and other Americans. Most Americans want to live in a free country governed by the Constitution and rule of law, where everyone (no matter how despised) gets a fair trial governed by the law. But the right-wing doesn't want that. They would prefer to live in a dictatorship where a leader decides who should have rights and who shouldn't. That's sad.
No one should have the right to deny a fair trial with constitutional rights to anyone else -- not in a truly free country. In America, you don't get to deny rights to anyone just because you don't like them or the crime they're accused of committing. By protecting the rights of even the vilest of criminals, we protect those same rights for every single person in this country (and that's what the Founding Fathers wanted).
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) says it well, "We have a judicial system that's the envy of the world. I don't think we should run and hide and cower. Let's use our system."
Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) voiced opposition, saying we shouldn't give terrorists the rights guaranteed to United States citizens. His stupid statement ignores both American law and American history.
The fairness of our laws and our courts have never been reserved just for American citizens. Foreigners in the United States who violate our laws, have always been granted the same fair trial and constitutional guarantees as American citizens get. In a nation governed by the rule of law, everyone must be treated equally, citizen or not.
I want these terrorists convicted and given harsh sentences as much as anyone. But it must be done in a fair and open trial -- both to protect our system of justice and rights, and to convince the world of our fairness and justice.
A truly free country can do no less.
Poll Says Palin Not Capable Of Presidency
A new CNN/Opinion Research Poll shows that despite all the media hoopla, Americans really don't have a very high opinion of Sarah Palin. Although she has an admiring cadre of support among the right-wing teabagger crowd, the huge majority of Americans just don't see her as capable of a higher office such as the presidency.
The CNN/Opinion Research Poll asked 1,014 Americans between November 13th and 15th whether they thought some top politicians were capable of being president. The sampling error is plus or minus 3 points. Remember, the question was not whether they would vote for the person, but simply is the person capable of performing the job.
The five politicians in the poll were Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Of the five, Sarah Palin finished dead last. Only 28% of those polled said Palin was capable of being president.
Even many Republicans don't believe she is qualified for the job. About 54% thought she was capable, while 44% of them said she was not. But she didn't fare nearly so well among independents, where only 29% said she was qualified to be president. About 90% of Democrats said she was unqualified.
Here are the percentages who thought they were qualified to be president for all five politicians:
Sarah Palin...............28%
Mike Huckabee...............43%
Mitt Romney...............50%
Joe Biden...............50%
Hillary Clinton...............67%
It looks like if Palin is serious about running for the presidency, she has a lot of convincing to do -- even among her fellow Republicans. Both Romney and Huckabee were judged as qualified to be president by 63% of Republicans. That's a full 9 points higher than Palin.
With numbers like these, I doubt if Palin could get the Republican nomination. But if she could somehow manage it, it would be a real gift for the Democrats.
Hard Times In The Publishing Business
Political Cartoon is by David Horsey in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Death Penalty Sentences Down In Texas
There's an interesting thing happening in the state of Texas these days -- something very unusual. It seems that juries are not giving out as many death sentences as they used to. In fact, Texas is now experiencing a 35 year low in sending new inhabitants to Death Row. Here are the death penalty sentences for the last 15 years:
1995...............43
1996...............37
1997...............35
1998...............43
1999...............47
2000...............28
2001...............30
2002...............35
2003...............28
2004...............25
2005...............15
2006...............11
2007...............15
2008...............9
2009...............9
As you can see, the number took a fairly sharp dive in 2005, and hasn't been above 15 since that year. Did something happen in 2005 that made a difference in the number of people being sent to Death Row? Many people say yes. That was the year that Texas passed the law allowing life in prison without the possibility of parole. Prior to 2005, even life sentences for Capital Murder could result in a parole after 35-40 years.
It is believed that juries gave death sentences to people prior to 2005 to assur they would never walk the street again. With the new law guaranteeing no parole, juries suddenly had an option to the death penalty that would also assure the convicted felon would never be released.
The chart above shows the difference between death penalty sentences for the years right before and right after the 2005 law for the five most heavily populated counties in Texas. Tarrant County (Fort Worth) showed a small decline after 2005, while Harris (Houston), Dallas (Dallas) and Bexar (San Antonio) counties showed a significant decline. Travis County (Austin) is a liberal bastion in Texas, and the 2005 law actually resulted in harsher sentences being given there (life w/o parole instead of just life).
I have no problem accepting that the 2005 law has significantly reduced the amount of death sentences. However, some believe there is another cause also. State Senator Eddie Lucio Jr. (D-Brownsville), author of the life w/o parole law, says, "It isn't life without parole that has weakened the death penalty. It is a growing lack of belief that our system is fair."
For several years now, we have been hearing of many people being unjustly convicted -- not only in Texas, but all across the country. Just in Dallas County alone, at least 19 people have been released from prison because DNA has now proved they were innocent.
There is also the case of Todd Willingham, who was executed a few years ago. At least three separate investigations by forensic experts have now shown that he was probably innocent of the crime he was executed for.
Are death penalties down because of a growing awareness of the unfairness of the justice system, or because of the 2005 law giving juries an alternative that would guarantee the person would never be released. I imagine the truth is that both have had an effect.
Whatever the reason, I'm just glad death sentences are down. I've never been comfortable with state-sanctioned killing.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Too Stupid For Words
Sometimes people will do something so stupid that you just know they would be dead if breathing wasn't an involuntary bodily function -- because otherwise there's no way they'd be able to breathe and walk at the same time. Consider this bit of idiocy in Paris, France.A new internet company thought they had come up with a great way to advertise their business. They heavily advertised that they would be throwing envelopes containing from 5 to 500 Euros from the top of a bus near the Eiffel Tower. When it came time for the publicity stunt, over 5,000 people had shown up (I'm surprised it wasn't more than that).
Sounding completely brain-dead, a spokesman for the company said, "We couldn't anticipate that there would be so many people." Really? You promise to give away free money in the middle of a world-wide recession, and you don't think thousands of desperate people will show up?
Then the police show they're not much smarter (if any) than the promoters of the event. They take one look at the crowd and decide they represent a "security threat". But instead of just calling for reinforcements, they convince the promoters to call off the event.
Now what do you think happened next? I probably insulted you with that question, because any third-grader would know that a riot was going to happen. How could it not? You now have thousands of very angry people in a small space.
The crowd started to break windows and turn over some cars. Finally, the riot police were called out, and at least ten people were arrested before they finally got control of the situation.
Everyone involved should have their asses kicked -- the promoters, the police and the crowd. I don't think there was a fully-functioning brain in the lot.
NOTE -- The promoters now claim they will give the money to some charity.
Hutchison Cries "Uncle" In Governor's Race
A year or so ago, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison decided she wanted to become the governor of Texas. She knew it would not be easy, because she would have to beat the darling of the ultra-right-wing, Rick Perry, to get the Republican nomination. She said at that time that she would probably resign her senate seat around the end of the summer to concentrate on campaigning for governor.Most of us here in Texas know better than to take Hutchison at her word, and sure enough, a few weeks ago she did a bit of waffling and changed her resignation date to some time in November. Well, it's November now and Hutchison has changed her mind again. She now says she will keep her senate seat until after the Republican primary next March.
Announcing her plans to remain in the Senate, Hutchison said, "I am more determined than ever to become the 48th governor of the great state of Texas. But at the same time I must put what's best for my campaign aside and do what is best for our state. That is why I must stay in the Senate while running for the Republican nomination for governor."
That may sound good, but it's a huge load of crap. There's always something important going on in the Senate -- that's just the nature of the beast. The truth is she got a good look at the two latest polls that show her far behind Rick Perry, and she said "uncle". She saw that the odds were against her and she gave up.
She knows full well that she must come back to Texas and campaign full-time to have any chance of beating Perry in the primary. But if she resigns her senate seat and does that, she stands a good chance of being neither a senator or governor next year. So she has decided to keep the bird-in-hand and give up hope of snatching the one in the bush.
She'll keep spending her supporters' money and mouthing platitudes about wanting to be governor, but the race is now over. Rick Perry will be the Republican nominee for governor in the 2010 election. The only real question now is who'll be his Democratic opponent?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Ex-Rep. Gets Prison Sentence
In July of 2005, Rep. William Jefferson (D-Louisiana) was caught on tape by the FBI taking a $100,000 bribe. About $90,000 of that money was later found in his home freezer, and the FBI claimed Jefferson had been involved in 11 separate bribery schemes since August of 2000. He wasn't just a crook -- he was a big-time crook on a continuing basis.I think he really thought he was above the law. He even took the FBI investigation to the Supreme Court, claiming they didn't have the authority to search his office. He lost that case, and his life has been on a downhill slide ever since.
Last November, he lost his seat in Congress to a Republican (Joseph Cao), even though the district is largely a liberal Democratic one. Then three months ago, a jury convicted him of 11 out of 16 counts of bribery. Yesterday, he was sentenced to a significant prison term.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III (of Alexandria, Virginia) sentenced Jefferson (pictured) to a term of 13 years in a federal prison.
Personally, I think he deserved every year of that sentence and I hope he has to serve every day of it. I don't care which political party Jefferson is in, bribery is one of the most serious offenses a congressman can commit.
I hope every congressman of either party that is taking bribes, is caught and convicted and sentenced to at least 13 years.
Repubs Take Hypocrisy To A New Level
A few days ago, 176 Republicans joined a few blue dog Democrats in voting to attach the odious Stupak amendment to the Health Care Reform Bill passed by the House of Representatives. This horrid amendment made sure that poor and working class women would not be able to include the payment for voluntary abortions in their health insurance.
Of course, almost all of those voting for the amendment were men, who will never have to make the awful choice of having an abortion or an unwanted baby (which probably can't be cared for financially). This doesn't surprise me, because most Republicans believe women should be second-class citizens, and their bodies should be controlled by men.
That would be enough hypocrisy for a party that claims to believe in equality and freedom, but the Republicans have taken their hypocrisy to a new level -- a level I wouldn't have believed possible until now.
Politico has reported now that the health insurance policy provided by the Republicans Party actually includes payment for voluntary abortions. That's right, while they are telling the rest of America that abortions are an evil sin and should be outlawed, they are providing insurance that will pay for abortions for their own employees -- even though their party platform calls abortion "a fundamental assault on innocent human life." Is this not the epitome of hypocrisy?
Now some of you may be thinking this is a new policy and the Republicans didn't know what was in it yet. Wrong!!! They have had this same policy since 1991 -- that's eighteen years.
And the Cigna Company, who supplies the policy, said the provisions of the policy were explained to the Republicans when they bought it (and you would think at least a few of them would have read the policy by now). Republicans were given the chance to opt out of any provisions they didn't want in the policy, and they chose for 18 years to include the abortion provision.
Personally, I don't see how anyone could have a health insurance policy and not know what it covers and doesn't cover. I know when I worked for the state and received employer-provided insurance, every employee was notified of the health insurance benefits (and given a copy of exactly what the insurance would and wouldn't pay for). Are we supposed to believe the Republican Party (or Cigna) didn't do that for their employees?
But that's exactly what the Republicans want everyone to believe -- that they didn't even know the benefits provided in their own insurance policy. Evidently no one in the party has the ability to read.
They are also saying that there is no proof that anyone ever had an abortion that was paid for by the insurance policy. Really? In eighteen years? Is that even near the realm of believability?
Spokesmen for the party say now that RNC Chairman Michael Steele has made sure the clause has been eliminated from the insurance policy. Can we believe that? After all, they've been talking out of both sides of their mouth for at least the last eighteen years. This whole mess just emphasizes the fact they they consider themselves to be above the rules they want to lay down for the rest of us.
By the way, the Democratic Party's insurance policy contains the same provision. But most Democrats support choice and opposed the Stupak amendment. And their party platform says the party "unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay." No hypocrisy there.
How can anyone still vote Republican? They just can't be trusted.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Pervert Is Caught By His Wife
You've probably seen the NBC show Perverted Justice. It's where some adults pretend to be children on the internet to trap some perverts into revealing themselves. Then when they show up to have sex with the young targets, they are humiliated and arrested. The same sort of thing happened in Great Britain -- with an unusual and very funny twist.The pervert is 68 year-old David Roberts (pictured), a retired former pub owner. Roberts like to cruise internet chat rooms in search of young girls. He thought he's struck gold when a 14 year-old girl chatted with him and seemed to be interested in his advances. He performed some lewd acts for her on the internet, and then arranged to meet her to have sex.
There was just one problem. The 14 year-old girl wasn't 14 at all. In fact, it was his 61 year-old wife. She had become suspicious of him, and got on the internet to see what he was really doing. All the time he thought he was talking to a 14 year-old, he was actually chatting with his wife who was on a different computer in the next room.
After he performed the lewd acts and arranged to meet her for sex, she reported him to the police. It was several weeks before he knew he had been talking to and turned in by his own wife. Needless to say, they have now separated.
Roberts was arrested, and they also found some child pornography on his computer. He was given a three year community order (which we in America would call probation) and was banned from contacting anyone under 18, either in person or on the computer. He's lucky. If he'd been arrested here in the States, he'd be going to prison just for the child pornography on his computer, let alone the rest of it.
I just love the fact that he was caught and reported by his own wife. That has to be the ultimate humiliation. And I doubt it will help him in divorce court either. I don't know how British divorce courts work, but I hope she's able to clean him out. He deserves it.
Teacher Shortage Is Over
A few years ago, there was a nearly critical shortage of teachers in the United States -- especially among poorer and rural schools. But the recession in this country seems to have taken care of that. Instead of a shortage, there is now a glut of people trying to find employment as teachers.
In Texas, the Round Rock Independent School District recently had a need for 322 teachers. They received over 5,000 applications for those teaching jobs. They have also seen their pool of available substitute teachers double to around 1,200.
Why is this happening? The first reason is cutbacks in funds due to the recession. Many school districts are cutting back on the number of teachers they employ. The demand for teachers nationwide has declined in 60 out of 61 subjects. The only area in which jobs are still available is mathematics (although more special education teachers are also needed).
John Black, a deputy superintendent in Augusta (Kansas), says that not long ago "we were recruiting really, really hard just to get people to take a look at us and take a look at our profession. Now we have these great applicants wanting to teach, and we don't have jobs to offer them."
At the same time that schools are cutting back on teachers, many who had planned to retire or find other types of work are hanging on to their teaching jobs because of the recession. In addition, many who have been laid off from other jobs are trying to find teaching positions, and of course, the colleges are still pumping out education graduates. All of this has combined to create the current glut of teacher applicants.
I wouldn't expect the situation to get any better any time soon. The rest of the economy is still dumping more jobs each month, and even the most optimistic prognosticators expect the unemployment rate to keep rising for at least another year. This will just create even larger pools of applicants for the few jobs that are available.
But that's just for us peons. Remember, the recession is over for the rich (and the corporations)!!
Dallas Gets Some Bad News
Yesterday, Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle announced that he will retire in April of 2010. This verified what City Manager Mary Suhm had already told the City Council. This is not good news for the city of Dallas.
Chief Kunkle has been on the job in Dallas since May 2004. He was hired away from the city of Arlington, and has been a breath of fresh air when compared to the list of failures that preceded him. When Kunkle assumed the job, the crime rate was very high and many groups in the city felt like they were being picked on by police. There were a lot of bad feelings.
Chief Kunkle has turned all that around and provided the leadership to make the Dallas Police Department respected again. He has reached out to all groups in the city and convinced them they will have their concerns heard and addressed, and he has done it all in a low-key and respectful way.
During his five year tenure, he has presided over a 32% decrease in violent crimes and a 34% decrease in homicides. In addition, the department has had fewer deadly-force incidents and fewer in-custody deaths.
Chief Kunkle has done an excellent job for the city of Dallas. I hope his replacement is as competent as he turned out to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
