There are some very pleasant silver linings for conservative Republican voters who refused to hold their nose and "vote for the win" as they were instructed to when Arrrrrrrrrnold was running for governor and the incumbent reelection. There are two which I wish to address.
This messy, nasty sorrid, shocking, dishonarable affair has done what only Arrrrrrrrrrrrrnold could do - drive a stake in his own political career and end allllllll speculation of him ever moving on into a larger political career! He will now crawl back under the rock he came from and never be referred to again by Country Club Republicans as an up and coming shinning star. Egg on face is not a positive image and does not win others to your side.
The second is a myth which has had a stake driven into it - the myth that voting for the win is all that matters. I submit honor is a higher standard than holding your nose and voting for the party candidate. At the end of the day - or at the end of a life - most of us want to be able to say we have been honorable, had integrity and made mostly good decisions. This is a decision - not voting for Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnold - I will not have to cop to. Yeah! I wish I had some good whiskey I could toast with - knowing I stuck to my principles and got one over on the elite know-it-alls. This should become a verb - Arrrrrrrrrrrnolized. Meaning hood winked, scammed, suckered by a slimy, low life of a candidate. Or maybe Edwardized after John Edwards? Or it could be - like in Spanish the feminine and masculine form - in this case the democrat and republican form of the word. Needless to say when the Republican elite say this is the candidate you must vote for "for the win" I believe we all now have been bestowed to repudiate their choice and to say something like, "" a verb & a pronoun," I have some honor, a little integrity and a whole lot of wisdom and I will not be Arrrrrrrrrrrnolized."
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Carbon Monoxide Detectors, Doug Brown, Neighbors InDeed, Sun City Lincoln
Sorry no link to the article. The story came through the local neighborhood paper "The Woodcreek News" May 20111 edition.
Operative quotes:
"On July 1 of this year, a new [Another] California law goes into effect.... Senate Bill 183 requiring placement of carbon monoxide detectors in all California single family dwellings."
"There are 30 to 40 "avoidable deaths" each year in California stemming from CO poisoning. So an easily plugged-in "gizmo" is well worth the minor cost, right?"
"And of course, if you plan to sell your house, or you're a landlord, you must install one or risk a fine of about $200.00. Ouch!"
This is so do-goodery - if there is such a word - and so misconceived and heavy handed as to be only from communist California. There are 36,961,664 people (Google - http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html ) in California. So the percentage of population 40 people represents is: .00000108220236. So much for risk analysis and cost effectiveness studies. Are the do-gooders at the state capitol insane? Has life in California come to this kind of risk avoidance where we are chasing this infinitesimal number in saved lives?
Second there are 11.5 million (Google -http://www.zillow.com/advice-thread/How-many-Single-family-homes-are-in-California/226480/) "single family dwellings." My home, built in 1996, has 6 smoke alarms which I assume the law says I have to replace them all. But for an average overall for California lets assume 50% or 3 carbon monoxide detectors per home. so again math is great! 11,500,000 X 3 X $20.00(The cheapest cost of detectors from the above article.). A whopping total of $690,000,000.00 spent on just the detectors. So much for the above statement "...well worth the minor cost, right?" Love the "right?" at the end - like Mr. Brown is saying, "any imbassile can see it is worth the cost!" No Mr. Brown not everyone assumes it is "worth the cost." I surely don't think it is worth the cost when I divide the $690,000,000 by the 40 lives it will save and see it is costing: $17,250,000 to save each of these 40 lives. Geez with this kind of cost analysis and cost effectiveness the do-gooders are going to pass a law to - save the 350 children who die in car accidents from head trauma - all children 4 years old ( 4 years and older because younger toddler's neck will be broken by the weight of the helmet in an accident.) to 18 years old must wear crash helmets in the car at all times. Better still - all children to age 15 or 165 pounds, which ever comes first, will have to be strapped into a car seat and cannot ride in the front because we can save another 125 children from vehicle deaths (Most California parents will take their kids to McDonalds and supersize their kid's meals so they can become obese and go over the 165 pound limit earlier.). Absolutely not Mr. Brown. I don't think this is a very good idea. I think the housing market and the state economy cannot absorb 690 million dollars worthlessly spent on carbon monoxide detectors. This is like the state throwing $690,000,000 worth of taxes away. The
"ouch," Mr. Brown, is in this whole cockamamy idea to try and save 40 people.
The fine; for me, I am making an assumption about having to replace all my hard wired smoke detectors because assuming I sell my house and I have installed combination detectors where my smoke detectors were I cannot be held liable for incorrect installation when the new buyers die from carbon monoxide poisoning. I also assume, in my case, the cost of each is going to be above the $20.00 and more like $35.00 (Hard wired devices). So the cost, plus installation and risk of falling and killing myself (There is a risk they did not factor in - the number of deaths caused by people falling off ladders and killing themselves installing carbon monoxide detectors in place of smoke detectors. Probably 80 people will die.) I will pay the $200.00 fine or reduce the cost of my home $500.00 so the new buyer can install carbon monoxide devices.
As a political person this is obviously a quid-pro-quo law lobbied for by the 2, or 3 manufacturers of smoke alarms/carbon monoxide detectors who's business has tanked with the crashing of the housing market. What a better way to create new business. Rather than businesses depending on the free market and advertising to convince consumers of the need for carbon monoxide detectors, they lobby some state do-gooder legislator to introduce a law, have it passed by the lock-step do-gooders at the California Capitol and signed by Moonbeam do-gooder Jerry Brown, or is it do-gooder Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhrnold - Girlie Boy - Schwarzenegger which requires all "single family dwellings" be required to install carbon monoxide detectors or replace older smoke detectors with newer smoke detectors with carbon monoxide detectors. I guess this is a prime example of follow the money, or (Estimated) $640,000,000. Which leads me to the next scam. Aren't most carbon monoxide producing devices in California "single family units" required to have a permit and inspection when installed? The only ones I am aware of which do not require such an inspection are gas stoves, gas driers and space heaters using kerosene or natural gas. So how are those 40 "avoidable deaths" dieing? Now if they are dieing from permitted and inspected installations should not the law address engineers and inspectors being held liable rather than assuming they did not investigate, approve and inspect the installation and there is a need for detectors to protect citizens from their incompetence? And if the deaths are caused by the improper use, or installation of fireplaces, stoves, space heaters and driers maybe the law should only apply to those who purchase such devices - like a mandatory carbon monoxide device sold with each of these devices; or better yet a carbon monoxide detector built into each of these devices to sound when they malfunction! What am I doing! It doesn't matter we don't need any of this the likely hood you are going to die from carbon monoxide poisoning is .00000108220236 as a percentage of the population; nothing, nada, zilch.!
Operative quotes:
"On July 1 of this year, a new [Another] California law goes into effect.... Senate Bill 183 requiring placement of carbon monoxide detectors in all California single family dwellings."
"There are 30 to 40 "avoidable deaths" each year in California stemming from CO poisoning. So an easily plugged-in "gizmo" is well worth the minor cost, right?"
"And of course, if you plan to sell your house, or you're a landlord, you must install one or risk a fine of about $200.00. Ouch!"
This is so do-goodery - if there is such a word - and so misconceived and heavy handed as to be only from communist California. There are 36,961,664 people (Google - http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html ) in California. So the percentage of population 40 people represents is: .00000108220236. So much for risk analysis and cost effectiveness studies. Are the do-gooders at the state capitol insane? Has life in California come to this kind of risk avoidance where we are chasing this infinitesimal number in saved lives?
Second there are 11.5 million (Google -http://www.zillow.com/advice-thread/How-many-Single-family-homes-are-in-California/226480/) "single family dwellings." My home, built in 1996, has 6 smoke alarms which I assume the law says I have to replace them all. But for an average overall for California lets assume 50% or 3 carbon monoxide detectors per home. so again math is great! 11,500,000 X 3 X $20.00(The cheapest cost of detectors from the above article.). A whopping total of $690,000,000.00 spent on just the detectors. So much for the above statement "...well worth the minor cost, right?" Love the "right?" at the end - like Mr. Brown is saying, "any imbassile can see it is worth the cost!" No Mr. Brown not everyone assumes it is "worth the cost." I surely don't think it is worth the cost when I divide the $690,000,000 by the 40 lives it will save and see it is costing: $17,250,000 to save each of these 40 lives. Geez with this kind of cost analysis and cost effectiveness the do-gooders are going to pass a law to - save the 350 children who die in car accidents from head trauma - all children 4 years old ( 4 years and older because younger toddler's neck will be broken by the weight of the helmet in an accident.) to 18 years old must wear crash helmets in the car at all times. Better still - all children to age 15 or 165 pounds, which ever comes first, will have to be strapped into a car seat and cannot ride in the front because we can save another 125 children from vehicle deaths (Most California parents will take their kids to McDonalds and supersize their kid's meals so they can become obese and go over the 165 pound limit earlier.). Absolutely not Mr. Brown. I don't think this is a very good idea. I think the housing market and the state economy cannot absorb 690 million dollars worthlessly spent on carbon monoxide detectors. This is like the state throwing $690,000,000 worth of taxes away. The
"ouch," Mr. Brown, is in this whole cockamamy idea to try and save 40 people.
The fine; for me, I am making an assumption about having to replace all my hard wired smoke detectors because assuming I sell my house and I have installed combination detectors where my smoke detectors were I cannot be held liable for incorrect installation when the new buyers die from carbon monoxide poisoning. I also assume, in my case, the cost of each is going to be above the $20.00 and more like $35.00 (Hard wired devices). So the cost, plus installation and risk of falling and killing myself (There is a risk they did not factor in - the number of deaths caused by people falling off ladders and killing themselves installing carbon monoxide detectors in place of smoke detectors. Probably 80 people will die.) I will pay the $200.00 fine or reduce the cost of my home $500.00 so the new buyer can install carbon monoxide devices.
As a political person this is obviously a quid-pro-quo law lobbied for by the 2, or 3 manufacturers of smoke alarms/carbon monoxide detectors who's business has tanked with the crashing of the housing market. What a better way to create new business. Rather than businesses depending on the free market and advertising to convince consumers of the need for carbon monoxide detectors, they lobby some state do-gooder legislator to introduce a law, have it passed by the lock-step do-gooders at the California Capitol and signed by Moonbeam do-gooder Jerry Brown, or is it do-gooder Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhrnold - Girlie Boy - Schwarzenegger which requires all "single family dwellings" be required to install carbon monoxide detectors or replace older smoke detectors with newer smoke detectors with carbon monoxide detectors. I guess this is a prime example of follow the money, or (Estimated) $640,000,000. Which leads me to the next scam. Aren't most carbon monoxide producing devices in California "single family units" required to have a permit and inspection when installed? The only ones I am aware of which do not require such an inspection are gas stoves, gas driers and space heaters using kerosene or natural gas. So how are those 40 "avoidable deaths" dieing? Now if they are dieing from permitted and inspected installations should not the law address engineers and inspectors being held liable rather than assuming they did not investigate, approve and inspect the installation and there is a need for detectors to protect citizens from their incompetence? And if the deaths are caused by the improper use, or installation of fireplaces, stoves, space heaters and driers maybe the law should only apply to those who purchase such devices - like a mandatory carbon monoxide device sold with each of these devices; or better yet a carbon monoxide detector built into each of these devices to sound when they malfunction! What am I doing! It doesn't matter we don't need any of this the likely hood you are going to die from carbon monoxide poisoning is .00000108220236 as a percentage of the population; nothing, nada, zilch.!
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Leahy urges Apple, Google to testify at Senate privacy hearing - The Hill's Hillicon Valley
Operative quotes:
"The incidents come as bipartisan momentum builds on the Hill for new legislation that lays out how companies must use and protect consumers' personal information. Lawmakers from both parties and both chambers have recently introduced privacy legislation, while consumer advocates have pressed for the creation of a Do Not Track list for consumers.
"The collection and storage of sensitive location information has serious implications regarding the privacy rights and personal safety of American consumers," Leahy said.
"While there are many benefits to innovative technologies like the [Android Phone/iPhone], American consumers deserve to know the potential risks that these new technologies pose to their privacy and security.""
Ah, another Boozo caught in Googles web and forever trapped by his own words! The federal government - represented by Mr. Leahy - shoving it's oversized bulbous alcoholic nose into the affairs of private corporations and declaring: "The collection and storage of sensitive location information has serious implications regarding the privacy rights and personal safety of American consumers," Leahy said." Oh really? What overreaching, massive, unaccountable, law busting, inconsistent, irresponsible organization overshadows all others in it's lackadaisical behaviors with secretly investigating, securing and it's dissemination of citizens private communications, documents and personal information? "What is that saying, hummm, something about healing and thyself - oh yeah right - physician heal thyself!" Better yet, Mr. Leahy - take the log out of the Federal Governments eye before addressing the sliver in Google's and Apples' eyes!
Mr. Leahy if you would like credibility, open a hearing on testimony about The Federal Government and it's attack on citizens 4th Amendment Rights, mainly: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"The incidents come as bipartisan momentum builds on the Hill for new legislation that lays out how companies must use and protect consumers' personal information. Lawmakers from both parties and both chambers have recently introduced privacy legislation, while consumer advocates have pressed for the creation of a Do Not Track list for consumers.
"The collection and storage of sensitive location information has serious implications regarding the privacy rights and personal safety of American consumers," Leahy said.
"While there are many benefits to innovative technologies like the [Android Phone/iPhone], American consumers deserve to know the potential risks that these new technologies pose to their privacy and security.""
Ah, another Boozo caught in Googles web and forever trapped by his own words! The federal government - represented by Mr. Leahy - shoving it's oversized bulbous alcoholic nose into the affairs of private corporations and declaring: "The collection and storage of sensitive location information has serious implications regarding the privacy rights and personal safety of American consumers," Leahy said." Oh really? What overreaching, massive, unaccountable, law busting, inconsistent, irresponsible organization overshadows all others in it's lackadaisical behaviors with secretly investigating, securing and it's dissemination of citizens private communications, documents and personal information? "What is that saying, hummm, something about healing and thyself - oh yeah right - physician heal thyself!" Better yet, Mr. Leahy - take the log out of the Federal Governments eye before addressing the sliver in Google's and Apples' eyes!
Mr. Leahy if you would like credibility, open a hearing on testimony about The Federal Government and it's attack on citizens 4th Amendment Rights, mainly: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Obama releases birth certificate; condemns ‘carnival barkers’ - TheHill.com
The operative quotes:
"President Obama said Wednesday that he released his long-form birth certificate to end the distraction and return the debate in Washington to fiscal matters.
Obama, appearing in the White House briefing room shortly after senior administration officials distributed the document to reporters, blasted the “sideshows and carnival barkers” who have pushed the birther conspiracy instead of focusing on important issues"
I have been a Birther from the beginning, but not for the fact of whether he was, or was not a citizen, or whether the “sideshows and carnival barkers” (Birthers) were right or wrong to press this issue. No my point of view is about the president himself and his behavior. I know for myself as a patriotic American the first and foremost desire is to establish myself as an American Citizen so I can be afforded all my inalienable rights. If someone asks me for proof - I pull out.... my birth certificate! I raise it high and say, "Here it is, anything else?" If I was an American Citizen in far off lands and I was in some sort of trouble - I would wave it - or my passport - and say, "I am an American Cirizen, I have inalienable rights guaranteed by this document." (95% of the rest of the world's population do not. So being American means you are in an exclusive group.) It also used to be if you were mistreated, the perpetrators could be held accountable by the full wrath and power of the US Government in the form of a squad, or company of US Marines and nobody desired that. So declaring you were an American citizen brought about a change in peoples behavior.
So if this is the normal, expected behavior - and don't take my anecdotal evidence as proof - see how new legal citizens declare their allegiance and display their Certificate of Citizenship - not with dower looks, but with joy, happiness and enthusiasm at being declared a Citizen of The United States of America. This is what we expect from patriotic Americans - an allegiance to this country which all are proud to declare and prove through birth certificate, passport, or documents issued to legalize citizens. Why is it the president did not behave in this manner and fashion for all these years? What does it say about his thinking and his American Citizenship? Is he embarrassed to be American? Does he not know the first step to declaring your patriotism; is he just thumbing his nose at the rest of us who stand up to show and declare we were born here and declare our inalienable rights? Maybe he believes it is beneath him to be an American, or he does not want to be counted among the masses?
No, I will declare here and now - he is an American Citizen by birthright, but he has declared he is not American by his unwillingness, to enthusiastically declare - the first time his birth certificate became an issue - "Here it is, I am an American! Nan, nan, nan, nan, nan, nah! Now I am taking my girls for ice cream!" This would be the normal behavior from all us birthed here in America - a joy, peace, happiness, assuredness and righteousness about our birthright. President Obama's behavior should bring great consternation about the standard he brings as the POTUS - do we really want the leader of The United States of America lukewarm about citizenship and allegiance to this country - "hell no!" We want a leader who is all in for this country and sees himself as part of the whole. As Dennis Prager declares - "The Trinity of American values" - of which one is - "E Pluribus Unum." This behavior is revealing in relation to Mr. Obama's thinking and goes a long way explaining much of his policies, politics and official actions and behaviors.
"President Obama said Wednesday that he released his long-form birth certificate to end the distraction and return the debate in Washington to fiscal matters.
Obama, appearing in the White House briefing room shortly after senior administration officials distributed the document to reporters, blasted the “sideshows and carnival barkers” who have pushed the birther conspiracy instead of focusing on important issues"
I have been a Birther from the beginning, but not for the fact of whether he was, or was not a citizen, or whether the “sideshows and carnival barkers” (Birthers) were right or wrong to press this issue. No my point of view is about the president himself and his behavior. I know for myself as a patriotic American the first and foremost desire is to establish myself as an American Citizen so I can be afforded all my inalienable rights. If someone asks me for proof - I pull out.... my birth certificate! I raise it high and say, "Here it is, anything else?" If I was an American Citizen in far off lands and I was in some sort of trouble - I would wave it - or my passport - and say, "I am an American Cirizen, I have inalienable rights guaranteed by this document." (95% of the rest of the world's population do not. So being American means you are in an exclusive group.) It also used to be if you were mistreated, the perpetrators could be held accountable by the full wrath and power of the US Government in the form of a squad, or company of US Marines and nobody desired that. So declaring you were an American citizen brought about a change in peoples behavior.
So if this is the normal, expected behavior - and don't take my anecdotal evidence as proof - see how new legal citizens declare their allegiance and display their Certificate of Citizenship - not with dower looks, but with joy, happiness and enthusiasm at being declared a Citizen of The United States of America. This is what we expect from patriotic Americans - an allegiance to this country which all are proud to declare and prove through birth certificate, passport, or documents issued to legalize citizens. Why is it the president did not behave in this manner and fashion for all these years? What does it say about his thinking and his American Citizenship? Is he embarrassed to be American? Does he not know the first step to declaring your patriotism; is he just thumbing his nose at the rest of us who stand up to show and declare we were born here and declare our inalienable rights? Maybe he believes it is beneath him to be an American, or he does not want to be counted among the masses?
No, I will declare here and now - he is an American Citizen by birthright, but he has declared he is not American by his unwillingness, to enthusiastically declare - the first time his birth certificate became an issue - "Here it is, I am an American! Nan, nan, nan, nan, nan, nah! Now I am taking my girls for ice cream!" This would be the normal behavior from all us birthed here in America - a joy, peace, happiness, assuredness and righteousness about our birthright. President Obama's behavior should bring great consternation about the standard he brings as the POTUS - do we really want the leader of The United States of America lukewarm about citizenship and allegiance to this country - "hell no!" We want a leader who is all in for this country and sees himself as part of the whole. As Dennis Prager declares - "The Trinity of American values" - of which one is - "E Pluribus Unum." This behavior is revealing in relation to Mr. Obama's thinking and goes a long way explaining much of his policies, politics and official actions and behaviors.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Re: Vaughn Walker’s Continuing Defiance on Prop 8 Trial Recordings - By Ed Whelan - Bench Memos - National Review Online
One operative quote:
"Walker submitted a letter yesterday in response to the motion. In his letter, Walker acknowledges that he took a full set of the video recordings with him when he retired from the court and re-entered private life. He also acknowledges that he used a three-minute excerpt of the recordings, consisting of cross-examination of an expert witness for the Prop 8 proponents, in one public presentation before he retired (on February 28)—the University of Arizona speech that he knew was videotaped by C-SPAN for broadcast—and that he has already used the same excerpt in two public presentations since his retirement (with a third planned use scheduled for next week).
Walker has thus confirmed the factual basis for Prop 8 proponents’ charge that he has violated his own order placing the video recordings under seal, that he has violated the Northern District of California’s local rules barring transmission of trial proceedings beyond “the confines of the courthouse,” and that he has acted in defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling barring broadcast of the trial proceedings—a ruling that weighed heavily, in its balance of equities, the threat of harm and harassment that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would face from broadcast.
What legal defense does Walker offer? Walker simply asserts that he “decided that in the presentation on February 18 at the University of Arizona it would be permissible and appropriate to use the actual cross-examination,” but he does not accompany that assertion with any explanatory reasoning."
Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial
Second operative quote:
""There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being an interesting factor, will in any way bias his view," said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is supporting the lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8.
As evidence, she cites the judge's conservative - albeit libertarian - reputation, and says, "There wasn't anyone who thought (overturning Prop. 8) was a cakewalk given his sexual orientation."
State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who has sponsored two bills to authorize same-sex marriage that were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said that as far as he's concerned, Walker's background is a nonissue. "It seems curious to me," he said, that when the state Supreme Court heard a challenge to Prop. 8, the justices' sexual orientation "was never discussed."
Leno added, "I have great respect for Judge Walker, professionally and personally.""
This is preposterous! A group of people who want justice and fairness and to be recognized as wanting and being normal people have attached themselves to a case presided over by a nut of a judge, who should have refused the case on the grounds he had no authority to question the California State Constitutional process, who should have never taken the case because of his own sexual orientation, who couldn't come up with a legal reason to overturn Prop 9 other than all 7 million voters were Christian bigots and therefore their decision was discounted accordingly, who recorded the case even though the Supreme Court said. "no" and then after giving his word to proponents the recording was for his review and would not reveal it outside the court - goes back on his word and does so.
The opponents of Prop 8 are the laughing stock of the Judicial world - they did not win on merit they won on a circus act; on the lunatic behavior and illogic of a gay judge; on the ruling of a egomaniac; on a magic trick! This case not only discredited the opponents it discredited the whole Federal Court System as kooky, unreliable and down right thuggish. So why would normal citizens believe and take stock in such a system and not be as defiant as this retired judge? Have not a clue - it is what I probable will do. I will never again vote for a California Constitutional proposition knowing some idiotic federal judge is going to stick their nose in the decision and void it by judicial fiat.
Again if I could bend the opponents ear I would suggest - this is not how you want this to go down. With all this kookiness and attempts at shuffling justice their way the likelyhood the Supreme Court is going to put their stamp of approval to this ruling is getting slimmer and slimmer as ex-judge (Thank God) Egomaniac Walker crashes around in his little world trying to appear as a little Napolean. Cut your loses and ask for the ruling to be voided because of all this shenanigans so you can proceed judicially somewhere else in one of the other Fifty States (Retreat to fight another day.) - if not you are reliant on just 3 -4 Supreme Court justices to hold their nose and agree with with ex-judge (Thank God) Egomaniac Walker and go to their graves forever tagged with this horrendous episode of Judicial quackery.
If I could bend the ear of the Federal Court System - just void the ex-judge (Thank God) Egomaniac Walker's decision because of the above messiness. Avoid making yourselves even more irrelevant, stupid, illogical, laughable, dumb - i.e. add whatever negative quality you can think of - than you already are. This will be another albatross along with Rowe v Wade around the Supreme Court justices necks
"Walker submitted a letter yesterday in response to the motion. In his letter, Walker acknowledges that he took a full set of the video recordings with him when he retired from the court and re-entered private life. He also acknowledges that he used a three-minute excerpt of the recordings, consisting of cross-examination of an expert witness for the Prop 8 proponents, in one public presentation before he retired (on February 28)—the University of Arizona speech that he knew was videotaped by C-SPAN for broadcast—and that he has already used the same excerpt in two public presentations since his retirement (with a third planned use scheduled for next week).
Walker has thus confirmed the factual basis for Prop 8 proponents’ charge that he has violated his own order placing the video recordings under seal, that he has violated the Northern District of California’s local rules barring transmission of trial proceedings beyond “the confines of the courthouse,” and that he has acted in defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling barring broadcast of the trial proceedings—a ruling that weighed heavily, in its balance of equities, the threat of harm and harassment that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would face from broadcast.
What legal defense does Walker offer? Walker simply asserts that he “decided that in the presentation on February 18 at the University of Arizona it would be permissible and appropriate to use the actual cross-examination,” but he does not accompany that assertion with any explanatory reasoning."
Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial
Second operative quote:
""There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being an interesting factor, will in any way bias his view," said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is supporting the lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8.
As evidence, she cites the judge's conservative - albeit libertarian - reputation, and says, "There wasn't anyone who thought (overturning Prop. 8) was a cakewalk given his sexual orientation."
State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who has sponsored two bills to authorize same-sex marriage that were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said that as far as he's concerned, Walker's background is a nonissue. "It seems curious to me," he said, that when the state Supreme Court heard a challenge to Prop. 8, the justices' sexual orientation "was never discussed."
Leno added, "I have great respect for Judge Walker, professionally and personally.""
This is preposterous! A group of people who want justice and fairness and to be recognized as wanting and being normal people have attached themselves to a case presided over by a nut of a judge, who should have refused the case on the grounds he had no authority to question the California State Constitutional process, who should have never taken the case because of his own sexual orientation, who couldn't come up with a legal reason to overturn Prop 9 other than all 7 million voters were Christian bigots and therefore their decision was discounted accordingly, who recorded the case even though the Supreme Court said. "no" and then after giving his word to proponents the recording was for his review and would not reveal it outside the court - goes back on his word and does so.
The opponents of Prop 8 are the laughing stock of the Judicial world - they did not win on merit they won on a circus act; on the lunatic behavior and illogic of a gay judge; on the ruling of a egomaniac; on a magic trick! This case not only discredited the opponents it discredited the whole Federal Court System as kooky, unreliable and down right thuggish. So why would normal citizens believe and take stock in such a system and not be as defiant as this retired judge? Have not a clue - it is what I probable will do. I will never again vote for a California Constitutional proposition knowing some idiotic federal judge is going to stick their nose in the decision and void it by judicial fiat.
Again if I could bend the opponents ear I would suggest - this is not how you want this to go down. With all this kookiness and attempts at shuffling justice their way the likelyhood the Supreme Court is going to put their stamp of approval to this ruling is getting slimmer and slimmer as ex-judge (Thank God) Egomaniac Walker crashes around in his little world trying to appear as a little Napolean. Cut your loses and ask for the ruling to be voided because of all this shenanigans so you can proceed judicially somewhere else in one of the other Fifty States (Retreat to fight another day.) - if not you are reliant on just 3 -4 Supreme Court justices to hold their nose and agree with with ex-judge (Thank God) Egomaniac Walker and go to their graves forever tagged with this horrendous episode of Judicial quackery.
If I could bend the ear of the Federal Court System - just void the ex-judge (Thank God) Egomaniac Walker's decision because of the above messiness. Avoid making yourselves even more irrelevant, stupid, illogical, laughable, dumb - i.e. add whatever negative quality you can think of - than you already are. This will be another albatross along with Rowe v Wade around the Supreme Court justices necks
Friday, April 22, 2011
Trump Hints at Presidential Run - By Katrina Trinko - The Corner - National Review Online
Some operative quotes:
"He also continued his criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan, saying that Ryan had “put himself too far out in front.”
“I’m not for doing anything at all negative to senior citizens,” Trump said. “I want to make the country strong so that we don’t have to do the kind of cutting that a lot of people are talking about doing.”
“I don’t want to hurt senior citizens with Medicare or Medicaid. I don’t want to be involved in big cutting or any cutting at all in terms of those things. … The greatest way to solve the problems, the deficits, is to have the country roaring,” he added.
Trump also lashed out at Karl Rove, after a clip was aired of Rove dismissing Trump’s birther promotion as a “losing strategy.”
“I don’t have to listen to Karl Rove,” Trump said. “[Rove] gave us Obama because he gave Bush advice and look what happened. Abraham Lincoln couldn’t have beaten Obama or any other Democrat after what happened with Karl Rove. So he doesn’t have to give me advice.”"
I just grabbed a bunch of stuff to post because, if I was a political hack and could bend some ears I would suggest to some candidates - i.e. Sarah, "Drill Baby Drill," to jump in right after he announced. What better way for someone big media, "Country Club Rebuplicans" and the party elite have labeled foolish, unbalanced and out-of-touch with the American voters to appear wise, rational and on track with American voters than follow Donald Trump and his flappying attention getting mouth and his poorly thought out policies and political views. "The Donald", in my opinion, is in the same general category as The President, you can just shoot from the hip and you are going to do a whole lot of damage.
Another perspective might be - if I was a political hack and could bend some ears I would suggest all Republican candidates hold off announcing. The greatest weapon Republican's have against the President is... none other than The President! The longer time goes on and Barack Obama's ineptitude, ignorance, inability to lead and poor decision making is on display - American voters will continue to abandon his "Hope and Change." Making the target of Barack Obama even a greater size (Exponentially) to hit and the campaign about him.
Finally - watch out! Some journalist is actually going to have a brain fart, do some work and investigate Mr. Trumps voting record. Mr. Trump is going to end up in the wealthy Country Club Republican non-voting clubhouse with Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorinna.
"He also continued his criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan, saying that Ryan had “put himself too far out in front.”
“I’m not for doing anything at all negative to senior citizens,” Trump said. “I want to make the country strong so that we don’t have to do the kind of cutting that a lot of people are talking about doing.”
“I don’t want to hurt senior citizens with Medicare or Medicaid. I don’t want to be involved in big cutting or any cutting at all in terms of those things. … The greatest way to solve the problems, the deficits, is to have the country roaring,” he added.
Trump also lashed out at Karl Rove, after a clip was aired of Rove dismissing Trump’s birther promotion as a “losing strategy.”
“I don’t have to listen to Karl Rove,” Trump said. “[Rove] gave us Obama because he gave Bush advice and look what happened. Abraham Lincoln couldn’t have beaten Obama or any other Democrat after what happened with Karl Rove. So he doesn’t have to give me advice.”"
I just grabbed a bunch of stuff to post because, if I was a political hack and could bend some ears I would suggest to some candidates - i.e. Sarah, "Drill Baby Drill," to jump in right after he announced. What better way for someone big media, "Country Club Rebuplicans" and the party elite have labeled foolish, unbalanced and out-of-touch with the American voters to appear wise, rational and on track with American voters than follow Donald Trump and his flappying attention getting mouth and his poorly thought out policies and political views. "The Donald", in my opinion, is in the same general category as The President, you can just shoot from the hip and you are going to do a whole lot of damage.
Another perspective might be - if I was a political hack and could bend some ears I would suggest all Republican candidates hold off announcing. The greatest weapon Republican's have against the President is... none other than The President! The longer time goes on and Barack Obama's ineptitude, ignorance, inability to lead and poor decision making is on display - American voters will continue to abandon his "Hope and Change." Making the target of Barack Obama even a greater size (Exponentially) to hit and the campaign about him.
Finally - watch out! Some journalist is actually going to have a brain fart, do some work and investigate Mr. Trumps voting record. Mr. Trump is going to end up in the wealthy Country Club Republican non-voting clubhouse with Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorinna.
Graham Takes on Bill Daley, NLRB - By Robert Costa - The Corner - National Review Online
Yes I am back. I could not pass up yours and my old friend RINO, yes our old time RINO Lindsey Graham! (Music) Dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah (Think Circus music.).
The operative quote:
"“Unelected bureaucrats are doing the bidding of special-interest groups,” Graham says. “This is going to play out badly for the NLRB and the unions pushing this. The NLRB is trying to have veto power over business decisions.”"
How long has he been a political elite in Washington? And he just discovered: “Unelected bureaucrats are doing the bidding of special-interest groups,...” This is, no let me change that, he is why the Republican Party is known as the "Party of Stupid." Lindsey, please, please, please don't say your Republican! Do us all a favor and change your party affiliation to Independent so the party elite cannot run you anymore as a Republican.
It is most funny that as long as the NLRB was screwing with companies in other states, The Honorable Mr. Graham was pleased with it. But screw with Boeing in South Carolina and the wrath of The Honorable Mr. Graham suddenly erupts with indignation and empty threats of defunding a bureaucracy. Dear Honorable Mr. Graham, have you ever met a bureaucracy you did not fund? Honorable Mr. Graham, if you occasionally had whined and lamented about the size and scope of Washington bureaucracy instead of happily voting to enlarge and concede power to every bureaucratic agency we might have taken you seriously. But alas your words are hollow and daft.
The operative quote:
"“Unelected bureaucrats are doing the bidding of special-interest groups,” Graham says. “This is going to play out badly for the NLRB and the unions pushing this. The NLRB is trying to have veto power over business decisions.”"
How long has he been a political elite in Washington? And he just discovered: “Unelected bureaucrats are doing the bidding of special-interest groups,...” This is, no let me change that, he is why the Republican Party is known as the "Party of Stupid." Lindsey, please, please, please don't say your Republican! Do us all a favor and change your party affiliation to Independent so the party elite cannot run you anymore as a Republican.
It is most funny that as long as the NLRB was screwing with companies in other states, The Honorable Mr. Graham was pleased with it. But screw with Boeing in South Carolina and the wrath of The Honorable Mr. Graham suddenly erupts with indignation and empty threats of defunding a bureaucracy. Dear Honorable Mr. Graham, have you ever met a bureaucracy you did not fund? Honorable Mr. Graham, if you occasionally had whined and lamented about the size and scope of Washington bureaucracy instead of happily voting to enlarge and concede power to every bureaucratic agency we might have taken you seriously. But alas your words are hollow and daft.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)