Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - MissusDe

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15
3DHS / Re: California gas crisis....?
« on: October 07, 2012, 06:35:41 AM »
I'd like to know that, too. This isn't the first time this has happened. And it's especially frustrating when there are refineries within a few hours and we're paying the highest gas prices in the country - $4.69 a gallon for regular, last I saw.

3DHS / "America is today's California"
« on: August 25, 2012, 09:16:36 PM »
This was in our little neighborhood newspaper, in the Editor's Notes section by Mike Dobbins.

This was part of Sarah Palin's congratulatory letter to Romney for picking Paul Ryan, his running mate. I have very mixed emotions on that - but that's not the issue here.

Regardless of how you perceive Sarah, the section herewith reflects exactly how I feel about this great state of which I'm proud to be a native-son.

"When I think about the direction our country is rapidly drifting in, I can't help but look at California as a cautionary tale.

The Golden State once boasted the entrepreneurial innovation of Silicon Valley, the American creative engine of the arts, economically powerful and beautiful cities from San Francisco to San Diego, and fertile farmlands that helped feed the nation.

Now it is descending into financial ruin accompanied by an exodus of middle class Californians leaving for other states.

As one writer put it, California's 'fastest-growing entity is government and its biggest prodct is red tape...'

"...(The) rest of the country (will soon) look like California, minus the beautiful scenery and warm weather ... America is today's California - complete with $100 billion taxpayer funded bullet trains to nowhere; out of control environmental extremists who have destroyed family farms and left some of the most fertile farm land in America fallow in order to protect a three inch fish; permanent high unemployment; government policies hostile to small business job creators; crippling high taxes; an abysmal real estate market; bloated government that wastes taxpayer money; endless budget shortfalls due to massive unfunded liabilities; city after city declaring bankruptcy; and a state government run by, in the words of one Wall Street Journal writer, 'a brothel of environmentalists, lawyers, public-sector unions and legislative bums.'

Ouch. But unfortunately, it's all too true - and painful to witness for those of us who remember when California truly was the Golden State.

3DHS / Re: I think my sis just figured the problem with kids today
« on: July 08, 2012, 01:06:29 AM »
I'm fairly certain Simon Says is among those childhood games that are banned these days, since it doesn't adhere to the 'everybody's a winner!' school of thought.

3DHS / Re: Taxes are good for you
« on: July 04, 2012, 03:34:14 PM »
I'm reminded of one of the short films on the Animatrix dvd, which explains how the Matrix came to be:

3DHS / Now and then
« on: July 04, 2012, 06:58:39 AM »
Interesting opinion piece from an even more interesting site I came across recently.

4th of July Reflections: Freedom is Not for the Faint-Hearted

from Ricochet (

3DHS / Re: Print it
« on: June 27, 2012, 03:26:07 AM »
Amazing. This sounds like something Heinlein or Clarke wrote about in the 50's / 60's.

3DHS / Re: Flash Mob on Subway
« on: May 13, 2012, 12:42:12 AM »
Wonderful memory for the children on board.

3DHS / Hilary Rosen reverses course, apologizes to Ann Romney
« on: April 13, 2012, 01:06:54 AM »
After sparking a firestorm with her accusation that mother-of-five Ann Romney has “never worked a day in her life,” Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen apologized Thursday afternoon after she had stood by her comments earlier in the day.

"I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended," Rosen said in a statement. "As a pundit, I know my words on CNN last night were poorly chosen."


3DHS / Re: The Left’s war on conservative women
« on: April 12, 2012, 03:19:14 PM »
Ann Romney's response via Twitter:

Ann Romney@AnnDRomney
I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.

Rosen is digging in:

Hilary Rosen@hilaryr
When I said @AC360 Ann Romney never worked I meant she never had to care for her kids AND earn a paycheck like MOST American women! #Truth

Hilary Rosen@hilaryr
Mitt Romney is running for President, not Ann. He hired only 10%women at Bain; now makes up false concern for women's economic struggle.

Hilary Rosen@hilaryr
I've nothing against @AnnRomney. I just don't want Mitt using her as an expert on women struggling $ to support their family. She isn't.

Donnapt@donnapt 11 Apr 12
@hilaryr So what? Does that disqualify her from being a good first lady? Does it make her a bad person? What is your point other than envy?

Hilary Rosen@hilaryr
@donnapt My point is that he should stop saying that she is his guide to women's economic problems. She doesn't have any. #IsntItObvious?

When you’ve lost David Axelrod…

David Axelrod@davidaxelrod
Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.

And Jim Messina…

Jim Messina@Messina2012
I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize.
What others are saying:

Ryan Williams@RyanGOP
RT @ggitcho: @BarackObama adviser Hilary Rosen attacks Ann Romney, an MS, cancer survivor & mom of 5, for "never working a day in her life"
matt whitlock@mattdizwhitlock
Hillary Rosen says Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life." Because being a mother (with MS) to 5 successful sons is a walk in the park.

Dear Hillary Rosen: Your remarks attacking Ann Romney were disgraceful.

1 Mountain At A Time@RockSolidHiker
WHAT? Oh this really ticks me off. I guess Hillary Rosen says that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life. #bloodboiling

Christine K Roberts@ckroberts
Hilary Rosen owes Ann Romney an apology.

Dana Loesch@DLoesch
If the goal of feminism is to provide women choices, then why would you denigrate the choice of a fellow woman? @hilaryr

Teri Christoph@TeriChristoph
All Democrats should be making this mental note right now: Never hire @hilaryr. Worst PR person ever.

Teri Christoph@TeriChristoph
Will @BarackObama call Mrs. Romney to apologize for Hilary Rosen's shameful behavior?

More from Rosen and her Huffington Post pal Rachel Sklar:

Hilary Rosen@hilaryr
@AnnDRomney I am raising children too. But most young American women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children. You know that don't u?

Hilary Rosen@hilaryr
@AnnDRomney Please know, I admire you. But your husband shouldn't say you are his expert on women and the economy. #HeNeedsMore
Hilary Rosen@hilaryr
oh and @AnnDRomney welcome to Twitter. You will find it a very exhilarating and often unforgiving place!
rachelsklar@rachelsklar 11 Apr 12
So wonderful that @AnnDRomney joined Twitter tonight. Amazing to have her join this important conversat'n opened by @hilaryr. Hope she does.

@rachelsklar @AnnDRomney @hilaryr didn't open a conversation. She talked down all at home mothers and now the campaign is in repair mode.
The Romneys’ son, Josh, weighs in:

Josh Romney@joshromney
My mom has been able to get more followers in the last hour than I have in the last couple years. Follow her here @AnnDRomney

Josh Romney@joshromney
@AnnDRomney is one of the smartest, hardest working woman I know. Could have done anything with her life, chose to raise me
And a stay-at-home-dad talks back to Rosen:

Nick Humphries@thehumphries
Maybe @hilaryr will demonize me for being a stay home dad who does fostercare too! Im not working but raising kids, what does that make me?

3DHS / The Left’s war on conservative women
« on: April 12, 2012, 01:00:35 PM »
The Left’s war on conservative women: We’re damned if we do stay home, and damned if we don’t

By Michelle Malkin

Hillary Clinton did it to stay-at-home moms in 1992:

I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession…

Teresa Heinz-Kerry did it to Laura Bush in 2004:

Q: You’d be different from Laura Bush?
A: Well, you know, I don’t know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don’t know that she’s ever had a real job — I mean, since she’s been grown up.

And now, Anita Dunn colleague and Huffington Post Beltway insider Hilary Rosen has done it to Ann Romney:

She’s “never worked a day in her life.”

I am also reminded of the liberal elite female journalists who scolded Sarah Palin for being a working mom in 2008:

Sisterhood of the Protected Female Liberal Journalists

Let’s talk Mommy Wars, double standards, and the media elite. Last Friday, Obama Campaign National Finance Committee member Howard Gutman attacked Sarah Palin’s ability to be a good parent and have a high-powered public life at the same time. In a finger-wagging appearance on the Laura Ingraham radio show, Obama’s operative scolded the Republican mother of five children for not putting her professional career on hold.

“Your responsibility is to put your family first,” Gutman lectured as he singled out Palin’s Down’s Syndrome baby and pregnant teenage daughter. “The proper attack is not that a woman shouldn’t run for vice president with five kids, it’s that a parent, when they have a family in need,” should get out of the public sphere and stay home.

The Gutman standard has now been proffered by countless Obama hacks and water-carrying commentators. Damningly, it’s high-powered working mothers in the journalism business helping to broadcast the anti-Palin slams or doing nothing to defend her.

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien denied Palin attacks on her network, even as her colleague John Roberts asked: “”There’s also this issue that on April 18th, she gave birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome…. Children with Down’s syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?”

NBC’s Meredeith Viera asserted that only blogs went after Palin’s motherhood abilities while running for veep, even as her colleague Brian Williams slyly raised feminists’ “fears or doubts that she should be able to do this, that she should be doing this.”

How would CNN’s O’Brien like the Gutman standard applied to her? She’s been working overtime covering the presidential campaign season, anchoring daily coverage, nighttime conventions, and producing documentaries that require large chunks of time away from home. Disney’s Family Parenting website lauds her as “a modern mom balancing a thriving career as one of America’s top news anchors along with her four children” – two daughters now ages 7 and 6 and twin boys who are 4. Where are the Palin-bashers to lambaste O’Brien’s professional pursuits?

How about Katie Couric? Her husband died at 42 when her daughters were 6 and 2 years old. With two young children devastated by the loss of a father, she opted not to quit journalism. She anchored NBC’s Today Show through his illness and death, continued working an intensive, time-consuming schedule as one of America’s most visible broadcast journalists while a single mother with two fatherless children at home, and then jumped to CBS News, where she maintains a rigorous on-air schedule, travel plans, and off-air social calendar. Where are the finger-waggers?

Also at CNN, Campbell Brown flew to Las Vegas last year to moderate a political debate while 8 ½ months’ pregnant. Fox News host and left-wing blogger Alan Colmes, last seen questioning Sarah Palin’s commitment to prenatal care because she worked and traveld late in her pregnancy, had no comment. When she initially left the Today Show in 2007, Brown said she was stepping down to devote more time to family and baby. She immediately turned around the next day and jumped ship to CNN, where she has anchored wall-to-wall CNN Election Center coverage and will launch a new nightly show in November.

…As a working woman in the media for 16 years and a working mother in the media for the last eight. I know the commitment and energy it took for these women to get to the top. I’ve filed columns from hospital beds, written books while nursing, brought my toddlers to TV studios, and told bedtime stories on the cell phone while boarding planes. I’ve worked hard to strike the “balance” we all seek. I’ve made good choices and bad choices, and have no regrets about the opportunities I’ve taken and the opportunities I’ve rejected. I couldn’t have done it without a supportive husband willing to forego his own career goals – the kind of spouse that the media has ignored in Todd Palin and the kind of spouse I’m sure the Sisterhood of the Protected Female Journalist all have.

I don’t challenge the commitment these fellow working mothers in the media have to their home lives. What I challenge is their silence and complicity as the Palin-bashers impose a “Family First” double standard on conservatives. The sorority is closed to the Right.
This is how the Left’s war on conservative women works:

We’re damned if we do stay home and we’re damned if we don’t.

We’re damned because we conservative moms drive the Left and its feminist shills mad with our mere existence, our exercise of free will, our fierce belief in protecting our families from the Nanny State, our embrace of free-market principles, and our rejection of the perpetual victim/grievance mentality.

From Hillary Clinton to Hilary Rosen, progressive feminists have shown nothing but the most reflexive, regressive contempt for women on the other side of the ideological aisle.

It doesn’t matter if you’re a conservative stay at home mom, work at home mom, or work outside the home mom. If you’re Right, the Left is gonna hate.

Chauvinists can wear heels, too.

3DHS / Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
« on: April 12, 2012, 03:17:04 AM »
From the depends-on-how-you-look-at-it dept:

We've certainly talked quite a bit about the institutional-level corruption of the way Congress and lobbying works, but a recent This American Life episode, done in partnership with the Planet Money team takes a much deeper dive into how lobbying works. You absolutely should listen to it. It's really fascinating, even for folks who follow a lot of this stuff. There is also a full transcript (link below), but hearing the whole thing is quite fascinating. Among the elements that are most interesting are the details of just how much time and effort goes into politicians raising money, and how the various fundraisers work.

But one thing that struck me in listening to it, was a comment made towards the end by (former) Senator Russ Feingold, who points out that while most people think of lobbying as bribery, they often have the picture backwards. It's extortion:

I've had conversations with Democratic givers out here in the Bay Area and I'll tell you, you wouldn't believe the requests they're getting. The opening ante is a million dollars. It's not, gee, it'd be nice if you give a million. That's sort of the baseline. This is unprecedented. And, in fact, one thing that John and I experienced was that sometimes the corporations that didn't like the system would come to us and say, you know, you guys, it's not legalized bribery, it's legalized extortion. Because it's not like the company CEO calls up to say, gee, I'd love to give you some money. It's usually the other way around. The politician or their agent who's got the Super PAC, they're the ones that are calling up and asking for the money.[/b]

This is actually confirmed much earlier in the show, when former lobbyist Jimmy Williams explains that part of the job of the lobbyist is to avoid calls from politicians who are always asking for money:

Jimmy Williams: A lot of them would call and say, "Hey, can you host an event for me?" And you never want to say no. Actually, no. You always want to say no. In fact, you always want to say no. But, you could look on your phone with these caller IDs and you would be like, really? I'm not taking that call.

Alex Blumberg: Oh, so you would dodge calls for fundraising?

Jimmy Williams: Oh yeah. Every lobbyist does. Are you kidding? You spend most of your time dodging phone calls. Oh yeah.

What's equally stunning as you listen to it, is how much everyone seems to dislike the system. The politicians hate having to spend many hours each day fundraising (which they do from phone banks across the street from the Capitol, because they're not allowed to do it from their offices). The lobbyists hate having to focus on raising money for the politicians. The donors hate getting the calls asking for more money. One politicians talks about how he burned out all his friends:

Walt Minnick: You essentially wear out your friends and you wear out the people who are your natural supporters, because if someone writes you one check or comes to a fundraiser, they get on a list. And three or four months later you call them back again. And the best thing about being an ex-congressman is my friends now return my phone calls.

The show concludes with a fascinating discussion between Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, who famously passed campaign finance reform a decade or so ago, only to see most of what they worked for get tossed aside by the Supreme Court's Citizens United case. McCain explains that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did because it simply has no idea how corrupt the political system is today:

John McCain: At first, I was outraged. The day that Russ and I went over and observed the arguments, the questions that were asked, the naivety of the questions that were asked and the arrogance of some of the questioners, it was just stunning. Particularly Scalia with his sarcasm. Why shouldn't these people be able to engage in this process? Why do you want to restrict them from their rights of free speech? And the questions they asked showed they had not the slightest clue as to what a political campaign is all about and the role of money that it plays in political campaigns. And I remember when Russ and I walked out of there, I said, Russ, we're going to lose and it's because they are clueless. Remember that day we were over there, Russ?

Russ Feingold: Absolutely, John. I couldn't agree with you more. It clearly was one of the worst decisions ever of the Supreme Court. The trouble with this issue-- and I think John would agree with this-- is people have gotten so down about it, they think it's always been this way. Well, it's never been this way, since 1907. It's never been the case that when you buy toothpaste or detergent or a gallon of gas, that the next day that money can be used on a candidate that you don't believe in. That's brand new. That's never happened since the Tillman act and the Taft Hartley Act. And so, people have to realize this is a whole new deal. It's not business as usual.

So why doesn't it get fixed? Well, because the people in power now know how to use the system to win, so they're afraid to mess with it, and potentially lose their ability to use the system as it stands now to succeed.

Russ Feingold: We managed to get-- against all odds, we did get people. It took a lot of hard work. Now the problem is, of course, is people are reticent to do that because they got elected under the system.

Alex Blumberg: So it's just fear of change?

[b]Russ Feingold:[/b] Sure. When you win a certain way, your people say to you, hey, this is how we do it and this is how we won. We better not mess with success. I think that's one of the problems in this presidential race, where not only the Republicans, but even my candidate, President Obama, has opened the door to this unlimited money through some of his people. It's hard to get people to change something after they win that way. And that's one of my worries about it.

It really is worth listening to the whole thing if you want to understand the institutional, unavoidable level of corruption in DC -- even if it's not the way you may have suspected it worked. The folks at Planet Money have also done some follow up stories that are interesting, including a detailing of the most and least lucrative committee assignments. In the full episode, they explain that committee assignments are all a part of the corrupt process. If you get on a "good" committee (define by its ability to raise more money from lobbyists), it also means that your party demands that you pay more money back to the party, or you may lose that lucrative committee seat. Still, it may surprise some folks that the least lucrative position is on the Judiciary Committee. That's the committee that handled SOPA and PIPA... which involved no shortage of lobbyists. The cynical voice in the back of my head wonders if part of the SOPA/PIPA fight was really about turning the Judiciary Committee into a cash-flow positive committee, rather than a cash-flow negative committee.

Also, if you were wondering how/when most political fundraisers happen, there's a breakdown for that as well:

If you've got the money, it looks like you could eat all your meals (and have some drinks) at fundraisers.

And if you're wondering where these fundraisers happen? Planet Money has mapped those out as well. The most common locations happen to (conveniently) form a ring around the Capitol:

No reason to travel very far to collect your money, I guess...

Transcript: Take the money and run for office -

3DHS / From the what-are-we-teaching-students dept
« on: April 10, 2012, 03:49:30 AM »
SF Students Suspended & Barred From Walking At Graduation Because They Joked About Teachers On A Blog

We just recently talked about the famous Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court ruling that establishes that students have First Amendment rights. Apparently some schools still don't realize this. Thankfully, there are some organizations willing to step in and remind them when they get confused. The ACLU of Northern California and the Asian Law Caucus were apparently able to successfully convince a San Francisco high school to reverse a previous ruling in which three students were suspended for posting some parody/joking blogs about some teachers:

In March, after students at a San Francisco high school posted parodies and irreverent memes from their home computers about teachers and school administrators on a Tumblr blog (“Teaches Pink Floyd for 3 Weeks; Makes Final Project Due In 3 Days”; “Nags Student Govt About Being On Task; Lags On Everything”), the principal dragged three students she suspected of creating the blog posts into her office and interrogated them at length. (The blog has since been taken down.) The principal then immediately suspended the students for three days, accusing them of bullying and disrupting school activities. The students were also barred from attending a school dance and prom, and even from walking with their classmates at graduation. In addition, the principal did not provide the students with an opportunity to resolve the concerns through a restorative justice approach prior to imposing the punishments, which disregards the School District’s prioritization of restorative justice as an alternative, when possible, to suspension and expulsion.

That seems like a pretty extreme reaction. When I was in high school, I actually remember doing something similar -- parodying the teacher -- in a paper for that teacher. Thankfully, he had a sense of humor. But either way, this is something that tons of high school kids do all the time. And it's clearly protected speech. Once these groups contacted the school and explained the law, the school backed down:

After we contacted the San Francisco Unified School District, they took prompt action to investigate the matter and reverse the discipline. Although the students already missed three days of school, the suspensions have been removed from their records, and they’ll be dancing at prom, and walking with their classmates at graduation.
It's too bad it even needed to go that far. What's really disturbing in all of this is what the school officials are teaching kids. Joking and parody are key forms of education and creativity. It's too bad some schools still don't recognize that (or what the law actually says).

3DHS / Census: 1940 vs 2010
« on: April 07, 2012, 05:28:28 AM »

3DHS / Hire Just One
« on: April 07, 2012, 05:11:23 AM »
Congress eyes job creation incentives through Pennsylvania man's Hire Just One program

He's best known for his Hire Just One program, a job creation project he came up with to get Americans back to work. Now, his new Hire Just One initiative has picked up the bipartisan support of two Pennsylvania members of Congress, Rep Jim Gerlach, a Republican, and Rep. Allyson Schwartzm, a Democrat.

If implemented, the plan would transfer a person's weekly unemployment compensation to a company that hires them, as a payroll subsidy for expanding its staff.

Epstein says his plan has many steps to ensure lasting employment. He outlined the plan to Fox News, saying employers can't fire anyone to take advantage of the deal, "There has to be a net gain of jobs. Also, a person has to be unemployed at least six months, and a company has to pay that person double what their unemployment is as a minimum."
Gerlach says Epstein's plan is being considered by the House Ways and Means Committee, and members are working to craft the idea into a bill to present to Congress.

"What stuck with me about Gene's proposal is that rather than us debating in Washington how many weeks somebody should have unemployment compensation benefits, and how do employers continue to fund unemployment compensation," Gerlach said, "why aren't we talking about better, easier ways to connect unemployed people with employers today and get them back to work?"

Gerlach wants to "get it moving through the legislative process by getting the support and attention of the committee chairman where the bill will be, as well as the leadership in the House and the Senate, and hopefully get it moving through the process as soon as possible."
Epstein says his original Hire Just One project, in which he donated $1,000 to charity if a company hired just one employee, has put over 100,000 people back to work. He believes this new phase could take at least three million people out of the unemployment line. Once they are employed, he hopes they will start spending, which will stimulate the economy further.

When asked why he continues to try so hard to get other people a paycheck, Epstein says with a smile, "I think without caring about other people and doing everything you can to help other people, you are a foolish person and there's no downside to doing good."

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15