add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

In Mason, Ohio, a couple of moonbats have taken the war on Christmas to a whole new level.



It's no wonder they want to take Jesus out of nativity scenes, because look who they want to put in:




Now tell me they don't think he's "The Messiah".

Edit: Right Wing News also has a war on christmas story here.

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

Gov. Jindal also spoke very highly of the man he was there to support Attorney General Bob McDonnell. They both talked about McDonnell’s recent trip to Louisiana and Jindal specifically spoke about McDonnell’s commitment to public safety and fiscal responsibility.

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

Paul Nawrocki, aka the Sandwich Board man, aka Anti-Joe the Plumber seems to think that walking around the streets of Manhattan with a sign that says "Almost Homeless" will net him an executive position. How's that working out for you, Paul? How about taking an example from James Williamson.

All he wants is a job, but James Williamson and his fresh MBA diploma aren't having any luck. So the 25-year-old is taking advantage of a captive audience - the one in the back of his yellow cab.

He's posted his résumé on the divider behind the front seats, in the hope that one of his customers might be the employer of his dreams.

"I was hoping the economy would be better by the time I got out," he said. "I was hoping for an entry-level job. I was just trying to get my foot in the door. I was confident with my degree, and then after the first month I started saying, 'Oh, maybe I'll take customer-service jobs.' "

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

BusinessWeek, on December 8, named Paul Nawrocki, aka the Sandwich Board Sign Man, the "Face of the Unemployed". In case you are new here, I called that one on December 6. Here is what I said:

"This guy is the anti-Joe the Plumber. His name is Paul Nawrocki, the Sandwich Board Man, and he is the face of Unemployed America."

"I couldn’t help feeling a proprietorial sense of pride when BusinessWeek selected Nawrocki to illustrate its latest cover story, “Is the Jobs Panic Justified?” You can see a stark black-and-white photo of Nawrocki here. He has become the face of the unemployed."

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

We've all read the news by now. Rod Blagojevich has been indicted to sell Barack Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder. The full text of the indictment is found here. Below are just some of the charges Blagojevich is facing:

89. On November 3, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Deputy Governor A. This discussion occurred the day before the United States Presidential election. ROD BLAGOJEVICH and Deputy Governor A discussed the potential Senate seat vacancy. During the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Deputy Governor A that if he is not going to get anything of value for the open Senate seat, then ROD BLAGOJEVICH will take the Senate seat himself: “if . . . they’re not going to offer anything of any value, then I might just take it.”

90. Later on November 3, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke with Advisor A. By this time, media reports indicated that Senate Candidate 1, an advisor to the President elect, was interested in the Senate seat if it became vacant, and was likely to be supported by the President-elect. During the call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated, “unless I get something real good for [Senate Candidate 1], sh*t, I’ll just send myself, you know what I’m saying.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH later stated, “I’m going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain. You hear what I’m saying. And if I don’t get what I want and I’m not satisfied with it, then I’ll just take the Senate seat myself.” Later, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that the Senate seat “is a f***ing valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.”

94. On November 5, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke with JOHN HARRIS regarding what ROD BLAGOJEVICH could obtain for the Senate seat. After discussing various federal governmental positions that ROD BLAGOJEVICH would trade the Senate seat for, ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked about “the private sector” and whether the Presidentelect could “put something together there. . . .Something big.” Thereafter, HARRIS suggested that the President-elect could make ROD BLAGOJEVICH the head of a private foundation. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told HARRIS that he should do “homework” on private foundations “right away.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked whether he could get a high-ranking position at the Red Cross. HARRIS stated that “it’s got to be a group that is dependent on [the President-elect],” and that a President probably could not influence the Red Cross. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told HARRIS to “look into all of those.”

95. On November 5, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with JOHN HARRIS and Deputy Governor A. They discussed potential private foundations with which ROD BLAGOJEVICH might be able to get a position in exchange for filling the Senate seat and, in particular, those foundations that are “heavily dependent on federal aid” and which, therefore, the White House would have the most “influence” on. ROD BLAGOJEVICH wanted to know how much the positions being discussed pay.

96. On November 5, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Advisor A about the Senate seat. During the phone call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that the President-elect can remove somebody from a foundation and give the spot to ROD BLAGOJEVICH. In regards to the Senate seat, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated “I’ve got this thing and it’s f***ing golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for f***in’ nothing. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there.”

97. On November 6, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Spokesman. ROD

BLAGOJEVICH told Spokesman to leak to a particular columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, that Senate Candidate 2 is in the running for the vacant Senate seat. According to ROD BLAGOJEVICH, by doing this, he wanted “to send a message to the [President-elect’s] people,” but did not want it known that the message was from ROD BLAGOJEVICH. Thereafter, ROD BLAGOJEVICH and Spokesman discussed specific language that shouldcbe used in the Sun Times column and arguments as to why Senate Candidate 2 made sense for the vacant Senate seat. A review of this particular Sun Times column on November 7,

2008, indicates references to the specific language and arguments regarding Senate Candidate 2 as a potential candidate for the Senate seat, as discussed by ROD BLAGOJEVICH and Spokesman.

98. On November 7, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Advisor A about

the Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he is willing to “trade” the Senate seat to Senate Candidate 1 in exchange for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services in the President-elect’s cabinet.

99. Later on November 7, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH discussed the open Senate seat in a three-way call with JOHN HARRIS and Advisor B, a Washington D.C.-based consultant. ROD BLAGOJEVICH indicated in the call that if he was appointed as Secretary of Health and Human Services by the President-elect, then ROD BLAGOJEVICH would appoint Senate Candidate 1 to the open Senate seat. HARRIS stated “we wanted our ask to be reasonable and rather than. . .make it look like some sort of selfish grab for a quid pro quo.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he needs to consider his family and that he is “financially” hurting. HARRIS said that they are considering what will help the “financial security” of the Blagojevich family and what will keep ROD BLAGOJEVICH “politically viable.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated, “I want to make money.” During the call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH, HARRIS, and Advisor B discussed the prospect of working a three-waycdeal for the open Senate seat. HARRIS noted that ROD BLAGOJEVICH is interested in taking a high-paying position with an organization called “Change to Win,” which is connected to Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”).22 HARRIS suggested that SEIU Official make ROD BLAGOJEVICH the head of Change to Win and, in exchange, the President-elect could help Change to Win with its legislative agenda on a national level.

"Did you have any contact with or were you aware at all of what was happening with your Senate seat?" asked a reporter, the Wall Street's Journal Jonathan Weisman.

"I had no contact with the Governor or his office," Obama said, "and so we were, I was not aware of what was happening."

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

The ordinance will take effect Dec. 17. The fire marshal and city police officers will enforce the local law, which includes $100 fine for the “retail sale, offer of retail sale, gift or distribution of any novelty lighter within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of New London.”

In July, U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd introduced legislation with two other senators to ban novelty lighters nationwide. In a statement at the time, Dodd said, “While they may appear to be harmless toys, novelty lighters can be incredibly dangerous to young children.” Dodd plans to reintroduce the legislation in January.

You have probably seen a novelty lighter before, though you might not have known it. Displayed in the checkout lane at your local convenience store or at a gas station with the racks of sunglasses and key chains, you may not recognize them if you saw them, because they look like small toys. And it’s due to this misleading appearance that they pose such a threat to our kids, and should be pulled off the market.

Novelty lighters can look like almost anything but a fire-starting device. They appear in the form of small cars or motorcycles. They can be musical instruments, tiny rubber animals, shoes, cell phones, or even fire hydrants. They come with sound affects, flashing lights, and may even play music.

But while these novelty lighters are still for sale and can easily fall into the wrong hands, they will continue to undermine our efforts as adults to keep our kids out of harm’s way. It’s time that we put a stop to selling dangerous and deceptive toy-like lighters.

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

I have been trying to stay out of the Prop 8 conversation because I have several co-workers, whom I consider good friends, who are gay. However, a lot of them just don't get what their community is doing in California.

The following is a clip of Donna Ryu, clinical professor of law at UC Hastings. In the clip she explains that there are two ways of changing the California State Constitution. The document can be 'amended' or 'revised'. She goes on to explain that 'amendments' are brought about for insignificant changes to the constitution, and are brought about by propositions. 'Revisions' are for major changes to the constitution and are brought about by the legislature.

The definitions of the words are:

Amend - to alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from(a motion,bill, constitution, etc.) by formal procedure

Revise - to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.
to alter something already written or printed, in order to
make corrections, improve, or update

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

But why, exactly, was the Pearl Harbor attack "infamous"? The Japanese planes attacked strictly military targets and there were relatively few civilian casualties.[2] The battle was a terrible blow for the American forces, which were taken completely by surprise. But a surprise attack is not infamous in wartime; every military commander would like to attack by surprise if possible. Nor did the bitter facts of U.S. defeat and heavy losses make the raid criminal. President Roosevelt used the word "infamy" because the raid was an act of military aggression. Until that moment Japan and the United States were not at war, although their conflicting interests had been threatening to boil over. The attack turned a dispute into a war; Pearl Harbor was a crime because the Japanese struck first.

Sixty years after Pearl Harbor, the administration of G. W. Bush has made "preemption" an official part of U.S. policy. According to this so-called "Bush Doctrine," the United States claims the right to use military force whenever it determines that its security or economic interests may be threatened by another nation in the future. The Bush National Security Strategy of 2002 states that "The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."[3] In other words, if it is to our advantage, we will strike first - begin a war - when we see a potential threat.

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

I was watching the local news with my wife, when an innocent enough story comes on about Frosty the Snowman coming to visit a Big Brothers and Big Sisters holiday party. I begin to smirk a little at the story, but say nothing.

My wife, however, who has great empathy, said, "Don't you think that the kids would have rather had Santa Claus show up?"

I replied, "They can't do Santa, honey, you should know that."

"Why not?!?"

"Because Santa is part of Christmas." I tell her.

"Well, Frosty's part of Christmas, isn't he"

"We-e-e-ll," I say. "You see, the thing is, Frosty is more related to winter than to Christmas. They can use Frosty more safely than Santa. Frosty is less likely to offend."

"You see, Frosty is not a legend handed down generation after generation about a Christian saint who actually made a difference in the world."

"Well, that's not fair," she said. "I'm willing to bet that even the non-christian kids would have rather had Santa Claus than Frosty the Snowman

"That's not all," I tell her. "The University of North Carolina has anned Christmas trees from anywhere on their campus."

"Won't that offend the Christians there?"