Thursday, August 15, 2013

Cruising the Web

Jim Geraghty highlights the really demanding schedule that the President will be observing when he finishes his holiday. He's hosting the 1972 Dolphins at the White House to commemorate their undefeated season. Do you get the feeling that Obama is using his position just to meet up with as many athletes whom he has admired as possible?

For those upset by photo ID laws, here are 24 things that require a photo.

Obama never wanted to have to defend his surveillance policies. But, because of Edward Snowden, the President is having to enter into a debate he just wasn't interested in having.

Andy McCarthy highlights the hypocrisy of Obama getting all on his high horse about Russia's obnoxious anti-gay law, but staying silent about the laws in Islamic countries which call for the death of homosexuals. His administration has even worked with an Islamic jurist who speaks quite approvingly of such laws.

Why are we seeing leaks like this? Can't they keep anything quiet? Or do they just want to keep bragging?

For those who have their panties in a knot about a rodeo clown making fun of Obama, here are 10 images wishing death to George W. Bush. But mocking The One seems to bring out all those people who no longer believe that dissent or satire is the highest form of patriotism. That's only true when a Republican is president.

Ah, another law that Lois Lerner may have broken. And how convenient that this helps her hide some of what she was doing at the IRS.

The new Labor Secretary, Thomas Perez, is already throwing his weight around. This time he's messing with California Governor Jerry Brown's efforts to limit future pension benefits for for California's new-hire transportation workers. As worried before his confirmation was forced through during Harry Reid's grandstanding about filibusters, Perez is hard at work doing the work of unions even if it means taking on a Democratic governor dealing with huge budgetary problems because of promised pensions.

Here is an interesting look at Roger Bushell, the man who lead the escape from Stalag Luft III, which was made famous in the fantastic movie, The Great Escape. That's always been one of my favorite movies - its one of those movies that I'll stop and watch if I ever run into it on TV no matter the dozens of times I've already seen it.

There are dozens of ways to get around campaign finance reform. The NYT exposes one of the ways that the Clintons get around these laws by having people donate to the Clinton Foundation and then they do favors for those donors. As one Clinton acquaintance tells the Times, "Brilliant people get away with a lot in Clinton world." Dennis Miller tweets,
The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation makes Wyclef Jean's Haiti Fund look like The Little Sisters Of The Poor. #belovedgrifters

MSNBC fails geography. Did they just throw darts at a map?

Obama's geographic goof placing Charleston, Savannah, and Jacksonville on the Gulf Coast is just one of quite a few gaffes about geography and history that Obama has made.

The Democratic Party of San Diego knew back in 2011 about repeated and consistent allegations of sexual harassment against Representative Bob Filner, but they swept it under the table because they needed him to win the Mayor's race in 2012. They asked him and he denied the charges and the women weren't willing to come forward with complaints. So they ignored the allegations and went consulted with an attorney.
Despite their efforts to alert the party, SaldaƱa, Sullivan, and Diaz were scarcely able to grasp the extent of the situation. As Sullivan put it, "I did not understand or have a sense at the time that I expressed my concerns to Jess Durfee in 2011 that it was anything as prevalent as it seems to be by the accounts that have come forward." And none of them knew what was about to happen inside Filner's San Diego office after his successful mayoral bid, where his communications director has alleged he asked her to work without her underwear and subjected her to months of crude talk and proposals, some delivered while she was in a headlock.

But if Durfee and other party officials had spoken with a good lawyer, the San Diego Democrats might have had a better sense of what they were dealing with in 2011 -- and what the City of San Diego could very well face now. And if Durfee had pressed for names -- as an attorney might well have recommended, and as is standard practice during vetting for high-profile political campaigns -- and taken the initiative to call the women, he might have uncovered more about the scope of the problem.

Read the details of how one couple came under the detailed investigation of the FBI, OSHA, ATF, and IRS when the wife became involved in Tea Party politics. This is the result of the political intimidation implicit in the IRS scandal.

Explaining the ratings collapse of Meet the Press.

RIP Jack Germond. Andrew Ferguson writes a lovely obituary for Germond based on some fascinating anecdotes from Germond's memoirs.

Apparently, journalism graduate students don't read print newspapers. They also don't read magazines or books. This might be a clue to them about the job prospects for the career they're preparing for.


mark said...

What makes the voter id laws a sham are all the restrictions that have nothing to do with showing id.
Conservatives want to focus on the the identification because that is the only aspect of the bill they can possibly defend. What does curtailing early voting and ending pre-registration programs in high schools have to do with identification? How does raising the limits on contributions protect against fraud? Why are college IDs not sufficient? Why not try to crack down on fraud for absentee voting, which is certainly more prone to abuse?

I get it: Voter suppression benefits repubs, so many of you are for it. I'm sure dems would try it if it helped them. But, please, stop lying to yourselves. You can't honestly claim to respect our democracy while supporting the laws like the one passed in N.C.

Rick Caird said...

Mark, you drive me crazy with your continuing idiocy.

1. Early voting is an invitation to fraud as is same day registration. In fact, the lines for early voting are longer than the lines on election day. If you cannot see the invitation to fraud, there is no hope for you. It is, btw, the same with the motor voter bill. There is no verification of citizenship.

2. No one is against pre registration. In fact, we favor it. When I moved to Texas and then to Florida 15 years later, I went to the registration office and registered to vote. Then, they could send me my voter card at the address where I said I lived. I also like the 30 day before election deadline. I never found it to be a problem. I doubt anyone really just wakes up one day and thinks: "Gee, I think I will vote today even though I never voted before".

College id's are not sufficient because they do not show residency. Drivers licenses do. Duh, was that so hard to understand, Mark?

mark said...

Don't blame me for your muddled brain. Your confusion, lies, inane "analogies" and bizarre contradictions (govt. mandates?) are your deal.

1. Early voting is an invitation to fraud? How so? Evidence?

2. The NC law ends pre-registration programs in high schools. Anyone who wants to educate and cultivate interest in our democracy should be ashamed to support that. When you say "no one is against pre registration", you're lying. Read the law.

You're saying a Duke student who lives and registers in Durham should not be allowed to vote if they arrive at the polls with a Duke-issued photo ID?

You've already put politics above the Constitution (thanks again, Equitus). That you and others would put politics above our democracy is not surprising. Sad, but not surprising.
"Crazy"? Ok. That explains some of it.

Gahrie said...

You can't honestly claim to respect our democracy

1) We don't live in a democracy yet, thank God.

2) I'm with the Founding Fathers in thinking that democracy is a terrible thing.

3) Our government was designed deliberately to prevent democracy, and as our country has become more democratic, things have gotten worse. If I magically became president, the first thing I would do would be to push a Constitutional amendment to invalidate the rest of the progressive amendments.

mark said...

That you're against democracy is no surprise. May I assume that, if you "magically (tragically?) became president", you'd do away with the "progressive amendments" having to do with due process? I know people here have a special disdain for the right to defend oneself against false, anonymous (paid) "testimony".

And one more example of a disgraceful move to discourage students from voting:

Gahrie said...

That you're against democracy is no surprise

Phew. For a minute I was under the impression that you thought I was an idiot who thought democracy was a good thing.

May I assume that, if you "magically (tragically?) became president", you'd do away with the "progressive amendments" having to do with due process?

None of the Progressive Amendments had anything to do with due process. The Progressive amendments were the 16th (income tax), 17th (direct election of senators), and the 19th amendment (women's sufferage). The 18th amendment (prohibition) has already been repealed.

mark said...

Well, apparently, you're not too big on the 5th and 14th amendments either. How else to explain your silence when the conservative press and a person here continuously make a complete mockery of the Constitution?
Or perhaps you agree with equitus/lfm that the words of an anonymous accuser should be sufficient to destroy a person's life. Is that the type of govt. you'd be angling for if, "magically", you became president?

Dr Weevil said...

The only one here who thinks "that the words of an anonymous accuser should be sufficient to destroy a person's life" is 'mark', who insists that Menendez is innocent, despite multiple accusers, but was not ashamed to repeat (in this comment section) a vile accusation of sex crimes against George Zimmerman based on one anonymous accuser. It appears that his willingness to believe accusations of sex crimes has little to do with the amount of evidence, and everything to do with whether he considers the target of the accusation a political ally or enemy.

mark said...

Oh weevil, you make it so easy.
Yes, when many conservatives seemed to be making a hero of Zimmerman, I did write that there were accusations of abuse and assault. That's simply a fact. I did not say he was guilty.

I have never said that Menendez is innocent (in fact, I said that based on past transgressions, I wouldn't be surprised about the financial impropriety). I quite reasonably said that the sexual and financial charges should be investigated, and if charged, he should have due process. And you disagree with that? According to equitus/lfm, that qualified me as a "friend of rapists and pedophiles". Seemed just a bit harsh for simply bringing up due process, but perhaps you agree with him.
So once again, weevil, you've exposed yourself as a fool and a liar. On the plus side, I'm glad to see you've dropped the childish phallus references. It was very unbecoming for a man of your position as nanny and scold.

Dr Weevil said...

My previous comment was not, of course, addressed to 'mark', but to anyone else who might have missed this particular instance of his contemptible hypocrisy.

He is, of course, lying when he says that he only mentioned "accusations of abuse and assault" against GZ: he presented them as if they were facts. I'm not going to bother finding the particular comment from a few weeks ago, because last time he insisted I was wrong about something and I demonstrated (with a screen-shot) that he was in fact utterly wrong, he didn't apologize or reconsider his position at all, just stuck in a quick "yes, but" and kept on lying.

He is also lying when he said that I called him a "phallus". I called him a 'dork', in the usal contemporary sense of "social misfit, jerk, schmo", something like a "geek" or a "nerd" but without the brains. I was in fact unaware of any sexual meaning in 'dork', and I certainly would never compare him to so useful and necessary a thing as the male organ. So far from acting like he is one, he doesn't even act like he has one.

mark said...

Now that was a nice low blow, weevil. Almost literally. Good one.

Betsy Newmark said...

How old are you guys? Come on. Grow up, all of you.

Dr Weevil said...

Sorry, Betsy, I won't be back. 'mark' has succeeded in wrecking your comment section with his repeated lies, petty insults, and obscenities. I've asked half a dozen times whether that's his intention, and he has never bothered to deny it. It's been fun, but not for the last couple of years, since he drove most of your commenters away.

mark said...

My apologies, Betsy.

Rick Caird said...

Fortunately, Mark, I don't pay much attention to you any more. You can tell by the fact it has take 6 days to even notice you replied.

Same day registration is an invitation to fraud because there is no way to verify the accuracy of the registration information prior to voting. Once the vote is cast, it cannot be retrieved.

Perhaps we have a different definition of "pre registration". I am using it in the sense it always has been used: a requirement to register to vote 30 before an election. You may, however, be considering it as someone registering before they are eligible to actually vote. That would be wrong in that there is still no way to verify the information is valid on election day. For example, if someone in high school claims their birthday is a year earlier, how do you catch that?

And, yes, I am saying that any student who arrives with merely a school id has not proven residency. If that person has a drivers license that shows him living in Charlotte, how do we know where he is living and where he should be registered? That seems like a pretty understandable problem to me. In Florida, we have problems with snow birds being registered in multiple states and sometimes casting ballots in both states. I am sure you believe in one man, one vote and not in one man, two votes for some.

So, yes, I approve of the North Carolina law.