Image source metamerist
Found at Bad Astronomy Blog

PART I:The Audacity.

PART II:Osama's Endorsement.

Aides told reporters that, yes, Bush meant Obama. He addressed the Israeli Knesset as the head of state, and broke the unwritten rule that domestic politics stops

There’s more of this brilliant post available! CLICK HERE!!!!

Therefore, Adam decided to read a bit more widely and came across an article from Matt McCarten discussed below, which on many elements seems to be directly at variance with articles by Audrey Young, NZ Herald Political Editor. Initially Adam saw the article as more of an adjunct to the Immigration Scandal, rather than as containing the seeds of a major new issue.

Then at the end of the McCarten piece Adam thought that McCarten did in fact raise a very serious issue, which we will come to later. This issue seriously broadens the whole affair, beyond the Immigration Scandal and the question of qualifications..

A somewhat bizarre article , on the face of it, from Matt McCarten in the Herald on Sunday, about Mary Anne Thompson, SIS vetting, the fact that her parents came from Romania, and her supposed influence over Jenny Shipley and Winston Peters.

McCarten seems to think the issue over Thompson's credentials is getting less prominence than the Davy case involving Maori Television some 3 years ago. he seems on the surface to think the media are giving Thompson an easy ride.

Perhaps the credentials issue is getting less prominence, but that is probably because it sits within a welter of other issues, which arguably are of much greater concern than whether Thompson had a PhD from the LSE.

McCarten states that Thompson played a key role in 9 National budgets, this Adam finds very hard to believe. Thompson did not enter government employ until 1990 and was first employed in Maori Affairs. She did work for Peters at Treasury in 1996 and joined the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet in 1998. Adam thinks on his reading of various articles this is not the case. Consequently, Adam thinks McCarten is mistaken in some of what he says in his article.

Indeed, his article is directly at variance with this one in Saturday's NZ Herald by Audrey Young on Thompson's career and some of the people that she worked for. Based on Young's article it does not seem likely that she was Jenny Shipley's right hand, for she was working for Simon Murdoch at the time in DPMC at the time.

Adam initially thought this was an attempt to make this all National's fault, but he thinks that MCCarten perhaps was suffering a memory lapse, or was confused.

Audrey Young in another piece said:-

She has operated at the epicentre of the political process and been highly respected. She was Helen Clark's chief policy adviser in the Department of Prime Minister and the one on whom Clark relied when she wanted a bomb put under Government departments dragging their feet over Closing the Gaps policy.

She played a pivotal role in the development of the very tangled and complex Foreshore and Seabed policy.

Earlier in the same piece Young wrote:-

There is a sense of disbelief and sadness among those of us who know Mary Anne Thompson that her outstanding public service career has ended in such disgrace.

Her resignation as head of the Immigration Service was inevitable after revelations that she helped family members from Kiribati to gain visa waivers and then to successfully apply for residency against immigration policy.

Once that became public, her credibility was shot. Nothing could have been more guaranteed than that to undermine the reputation of the service that she was helping to restore after years of being hammered - quite legitimately - remember Lying in Unison, the resignation of Lianne Dalziel, policy upheavals and staff failings, a Saddam henchman living in New Zealand, Phillip Field's record. It seemed endless.

Thompson's appointment in 2004 was part of the circuit-breaker to rebuild the competence and reputation of an important arm of the public service.

If anything it would seem that her influence was at it's zenith under Helen Clark and Labour, not under National.

McCarten does make some interesting comments about vetting or lack of vetting of senior officials which if correct suggest that the SIS is another department where policy, process and outcomes may leave something to be desired.

He does seem somewhat hung up with a view that the SIS were more interested in keeping files on Alliance politicians than actually protecting the country.

Adam did enjoy this titbit though:-

The SIS would send a weekly ultra-top-secret round-up of intelligence news that only the minister was allowed to read. Staffers would, of course, take a peek and find that it was mainly a precis of the latest Economist and Jane's Defence Weekly.

Maybe we could have saved a fortune by taking out a subscription for ministers to these two publications and installing CNN in their offices. And maybe employing some kid after school to check qualifications help to protect our national interests.

Adam thinks that the checking of qualifications is an HR matter not an SIS matter. In that regard McCarten is wrong.

There is perhaps one point that McCarten may well be right on. There are many highly placed people with whom Mary Anne Thompson worked or came into contact with. A number of these may be involved in aspects of this whole mess that they would rather did not become public.

He is right when he asks:-

How does someone get into a position in which they have access to all our country's economic secrets, access to all Cabinet papers and are involved in probably every major Government decision for a decade without a basic employment check?

Those who let that happen have much to answer for and should and must be brought to account!

McCarten touches on a major new issue,if he is correct in his assertion that there are many who have not been vetted who should have been, then the issues surrounding our public service are far worse than might previously have been thought. This is vetting not as regards qualifications, but for security purposes, a whole different matter.

As McCarten writes:-

Maybe Thompson's case was an isolated lapse, but several mates who worked in Parliament at a senior level and have derided the SIS vetting system. Some people worked for two finance ministers and had access to all budget materials but were never checked because they refused to authorise the SIS to do so. Duh!

It is with that remark that Adam thinks there may be a major new aspect to this whole affair, not of itself directly related, but casting light upon what is perhaps another murky issue.

On what conceivable basis can someone who is the subject of vetting refuse to be vetted and still retain their position. A truly Alice in Wonderland scenario.

Richard Griffin, the silver fox himself, was chief press officer to Jim Bolger and one of his closest colleagues. Yet he has said he was never vetted by the SIS, despite having access to all defence, foreign affairs and trade information.

Therefore, if McCarten's assertions are true Adam thinks that yet another major issue has come to light, though he would prefer to think that the vetting was done in such a way that the subjects were not necessarily aware of it:-

On the basis that vetting is considered desirable and given the need for many in the public service to have security clearances that would appear to be a given, The Inquiring Mind asks:-

• What are the vetting procedures and policies in force as regards public service appointments?
• Have they been varied over the last 18 years and in what respect?
• How often are staff vetted?
• Why are staff asked to give their permission for vetting?
• If permission is refused, why are staff allowed to remain in sensitive positions?
• Are the vettings updated?
• If so how frequently?
• If not updated, why is that not done?
• Are there various grades of vetting?
• Who decides who is vetted and to what level of vetting?
• Have all senior officials with access to sensitive material been vetted, within say the last 3 years?
• Have they been subject to substantive vetting, or some more cursory level?
• Are the vetting policies and processes benchmarked against those of allies such as Australia, UK and USA for example?
• If not, why not?

It is worth remembering that the SIS is apparently responsible for vetting.

The Minister responsible for the SIS is the Prime Minister.

What accountability exists for any failure by the SIS to properly perform in respect of ensuring those personnel who should be vetted are vetted and to a satisfactory standard?

Who is accountable?

In this instance Adam would prefer that it could be clearly demonstrated that his questions on this matter of vetting all have clear, logical answers and that he has been misled by Matt McCarten's assertions.

******************************************

Posts on the Immigration Scandal by adamsmith1922 at The Inquiring Mind

Immigration Scandal

Update 1

Update 2

Update 3

Update 4

Update 5

Update 6 (essentially a note of an event - not a detailed comment)

Update 7

Update 8 - similar to Number 6

Update 9

Update 10

Update 11

Update 12

Update 13

Update 14

]]> http://humanrightsamerica.wordpress.com/?p=1126 Sun, 18 May 2008 01:58:50 +0000 Curt http://humanrightsamerica.wordpress.com/?p=1126

I didn't have to get very far before I found a passage that is relevant to the controversial debate of "negotiating with terrorists". President Bush chose to use his visit to Israel to imply that those who negotiate with our enemies are appeasers. He went as far as labeling our enemies as "terrorists" a term he likes to use to confuse and scare Americans who have been scarred for life by the September 11th tragedy.

In his book, Ullman, while explaining George HW Bush's foreign policy credentials writes of two Republican presidents who chose to negotiate with the enemy:

«In June 1985, Reagan's third national security adviser, Robert (Bud) McFarlane, attempted to create a strategic opening to Iran. In a draft National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) titled "U.S. Policy toward Iran", McFarlane proposed a dialogue with Iran. To demonstrate American intent, a transfer of U.S. arms was part of the package. McFarlane, a veteran of NSC service when Henry Kissinger held the job, envisaged the Nixon administration's opening to China as a strategic model for dealing with Iran. Secretary of State George Schultz and Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger strongly objected, to the point of condemning the idea. After all, Iran was a terrorist state. And Reagan had pledged never to deal with terrorists. Despite these warnings and contradictory policy aims, the White House proceeded with the overture."» (pages 15-16)

So, in a book foreworded by the current Republic Nominee there is direct evidence that both Nixon and conservative diety Reagan have participated in highly difficult negotiations with governments considered "enemies" and "terrorists".

Both Democrats and Republican leaders have to do this from time to time whether they like it or not. The comments made by George W. Bush and echoed recently by McCain are just another way of swiftboating Obama and painting him out to be some sleeper agent for our enemies. Only I don't think Americans are going to fall for their lies and distortions again.

As the NYT has it:-

The bill includes the usual favors like the tax break for racehorse breeders pushed by Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader. But the greater and more embarrassing defect is that the bill perpetuates the old subsidies for agriculture at a time when the prices that farmers are getting for big row crops like corn, soybeans and wheat have never been better. Net farm income is up 50 percent.

The legislation preserves an indefensible program of direct payments amounting to about $5 billion a year that flow in good times and bad. It raises support levels for wheat and soybeans, while adding several new crops to the list in a way that will make it easier for farmers to raid the federal Treasury even when prices go up.

Why did McCain choose the year 2013? Because it means that he can go through his first term without having any commitment to ending the Iraq War before running for a second term in 2012.

That is why I think John McCain's 2013 remark is pure bullshit.

John McCain interview is here.

-- Big Brown crossing the finish line and winning the second leg of the Triple Crown at the Preakness Stakes. Big Brown is the first horse to do so since 2004. Article HERE.  Big Brown is best known for beating Eight Belles, the horse Hillary Clinton had bet on, after the mare broke both ankles and was euthanized on the track. Eight Belles became an ironic symbol of Hillary's failed campaign and Big Brown came to represent Obama.  I'm going to keep rooting for this horse!! :)

Within minutes of the current article being posted Obama supporters posted the following on a blog that I simply refuse to promote.  What is even more interesting is that this same post was removed from theiir blog almost as fast as it went up, but as they say, a screen shot saves the day.

I have two things to say on this and then you can decide if in fact the Chicago Police Department has given any such statement to a washed up comic named Paul Day.

The claim that any number I provided the CPD has not been active for one to two years is priceless, because all the numbers I provided the CPD were in fact activated between July and December of 2007.  And no matter how much they claim these numbers are "Public Record" they are full of it.

Second, These idiots continue to claim to talk to the CPD, and make statements on their blogs about "after Sinclairs interview with CPD Detective" I ask them to a) name the Chicago Police Department employee they spoke with; and b) tell of when the interview between myself and CPD detectives took place.  I promise you they will not be able to do either. 

I have immediately forward this information to the Chicago Police Department and I am forwarding it to the US Attorney as it appears these people are indeed now knowingly and intentionally attempting to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE.

It seems Larry’s “leads” were investigated and found to be baseless. In fact, we were told one or two of the “numbers” Larry provided had not been active numbers for two or more years (apparently this information is available by public record and Lard-Ass was too stupid to check). The other(s) were found to be insignificant and in no way related to Donald Young or the Obama Campaign.

The officer was then asked if Barack Obama, David Axelrod or anyone associated with the Obama Campaign were under investigation or suspicion in ANY murder in Chicago or the Greater Chicago Area. He/she replied: ”I don’t like the guy’s politics, but that is preposterous”. Unsolicited, we were then told “I wish people like that Sinclair guy would stop causing us to waste time and resources and let us do out job….but we all know, the world is full of nuts”.

I then explained to HIM/HER that Larry would now claim the CPD was part of a cover-up on behalf of Barack Obama and his campaign. The response was timeless and an instant classic on The Mitch and Nan Show:

In my cooperation with the Chicago Police Department, I provided them with all the phone numbers I had provided the Obama Campaign as requested.  I was told by the CPD that once they had received the numbers from me, then the CPD would obtain a Grand Jury Subpoena to obtain the phone records directly from the cell Phone company.

Now that leads me to the question: Will the Chicago Police Department subpoena the records of Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright in the investigation of the murder of Donald Young?

Yesterday I attempted to contact the CPD Detective whom I had provided the phone numbers to.  The Detective was in Court and therefor not in his office.  I left a message for him to return my call.  If he has not returned my call by Monday afternoon I will call him again.

I do not know if the CPD is beholden to Barack Obama in any way.  I am sure that on the upper levels of Chicago City Administration the answer to that is most assuredly, at least in respect to Mayor Daley.  I do want to hope that the CPD Detective I have spoken with and dealt with, is in fact sincere and honest and is dedicated to investigating the death of Donald Young.  I also know that there are things in an on-going investigation that must be held close to the vest.

 Jody Weis, CPD Superintendent

Never-the-less I ask, will the Chicago Police subpoena the phone records of Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright in their investigation into the Donald Young murder?  If the answer to this question is YES, then the CPD are to be applauded, if the answer turns out to be NO, then I, (as do many others I think) begin to question the motives and sincerity of the CPD investigation into the Donald Young murder.

(pic-All American Patriots)

He appears to be doing okay after suffering a seizure. Let's hope he's back in the saddle soon.! We need him right now. :-)

One of the most poignant moments today while canvassing neighborhoods was when I went into a group home for the elderly. There was only one woman who was a registered Democrat according to our records (there could have been more, but as a home like this goes, people come and people go) at this house. Her name is Marjorie and when I knocked on the door, I heard @ 12 voices saying, "Come in!". I did and I asked for Marjorie and being thrilled to have a "young person" in their midst a few of them took me up to her room which was on the top floor.

I entered Marjorie's room, introduced myself, and then told her why I was there. Throughout our conversation she kept saying, "I'm a Democrat", and I would reply, "I know and that's why I'm here, Marjorie. Are you a proud Democrat, Marjorie?", and she, of course, would tell me 'yes'. So sweet this woman was!

Well, during the middle of our conversation, she said to me, "Did you hear about Ted Kennedy?", and I said, "No. What's going on with him?", and she said, "He was airlifted out of Cape Cod today and they think he may have suffered a stroke. She looked at me quietly with tears in her eyes. OMG! I've seen those tears before too, because my grandmother LOVED the Kennedy's with all her heart. Marjorie, who appeared to be in her mid to late 80's, seemed devastated to me. I spent some extra time with her talking about the Kennedy's and what they meant to her and how awful it would be to lose Ted right now.

I told her about how just a few days ago Ted Kennedy was on the floor of the Senate screaming because the republicans were playing another one of their dirty tricks, and Ted being Ted, he was not about to let the assholes get away with it. I told Marjorie, "I thought when I was watching him that he's going to have a heart attack", and she said, "Nope. He had a stroke." LOL

From what I gathered on the radio today, Ted Kennedy was able to talk to family members, so that's a good sign. Hurry back Ted! We need you during this most historic time! :-)

I knocked on 50 doors today. Most of the people I spoke with were pretty darn nice. The Iraq occupation and healthcare seem to be on the minds of the Democrats that I spoke with. The economy too. Not surprising.

What did you do today? My son left an hour ago to spend the night at a friend's house and I spent some time outside working in the yard. Tomorrow if the weather is nice, I plan to do some more yard work. So much fun! I just put in some Dahlias, Peruvian Daffodils, and some Lilies. If they actually start to grow and bloom, I'll take a picture to show ya.

Kennedy is 76 years old. Last October he had arterial surgery to remove a blockage.

Edward Kennedy is the last surviving brother of former president JFK and his Robert Kennedy. The eldest of the four sons, Joe, died in WWII.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., applauds during a ceremony to award the Profile in Courage Awards, Monday, May 12, 2008 at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston. His wife Victoria Reggie Kennedy is behind him. Kennedy was hospitalized with apparent stroke-like symptoms, Saturday morning, May 17, 2008. (AP Photo/Lisa Poole)

TED KENNEDY HOSPITALIZED WITH SEIZURE

From the Associated Press

BOSTON (AP) — Sen. Edward M. Kennedy was airlifted to a hospital early today after suffering a seizure at his home, and did not appear to have had a stroke as initially suspected, his spokeswoman said.

The 76-year-old Democrat, the lone surviving son in a famed political family, was undergoing tests at Massachusetts General Hospital to determine the cause of the seizure, spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said.

"Senator Kennedy is resting comfortably, and it is unlikely we will know anything more for the next 48 hours," she said. Kennedy's wife, Victoria, was with him at the hospital, Cutter said.

Kennedy went to Cape Cod Hospital on Saturday morning "after feeling ill at his home," Cutter said. After discussion with his doctors in Boston, Kennedy was taken to Massachusetts General.

An official who declined to be identified by name, citing the sensitivity of the events, had earlier said that Kennedy had stroke-like symptoms. The hospital declined to comment on his condition.

In October, Kennedy had surgery to repair a nearly complete blockage in a major neck artery. The discovery was made during a routine examination of a decades-old back injury.

The hourlong procedure on his left carotid artery — a main supplier of blood to the face and brain — was performed at Massachusetts General. This type of operation is performed on more than 180,000 people a year to prevent a stroke.

The doctor who operated on Kennedy said at the time that surgery is reserved for those with more than 70 percent blockage, and Kennedy had "a very high-grade blockage."

On Saturday, Hyannis Fire Lt. Bill Rex said a 911 call came in from the Kennedy family compound at 8:19 a.m. A man was transported to Cape Cod Hospital and transferred by air at 10:10 a.m. from Barnstable Municipal Airport to Boston.

David Reilly, a spokesman for Cape Cod Hospital, said that Kennedy was brought to the hospital around 9 a.m. and stayed for about an hour before being flown by helicopter to the Boston hospital.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts did not talk to reporters when he arrived at the hospital shortly after 1 p.m.

Kerry later issued a statement, saying that Kennedy "been a fighter who has overcome adversity again and again with courage, grit, and determination. Teresa and I are praying" for Kennedy's family.

Kennedy, 76, has been in the Senate since election in 1962, filling out the term won by his brother, John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy is the lone surviving son in a famed family. His eldest brother, Joseph, was killed in a World War II airplane crash. President John Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 and his brother Robert was assassinated in 1968.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, beginning a tour of hospitals in Eugene, Ore., told reporters that he had been in touch with the senator's family.

"Ted Kennedy is a giant in American political history. He's done more for health care than just about anybody in history. We are going to be rooting for him. I insist on being optimistic about how it's going to turn out," he said.

Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination, New York. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, also issued a statement.

"My thoughts and prayers are with Ted Kennedy and his family today," she said. "We all wish him well and a quick recovery."

Kennedy gave Obama's presidential campaign a big boost this year with his endorsement and has campaigned actively for the Illinois senator.

Kennedy was preparing to host the annual Best Buddies Challenge event on Saturday afternoon, a fundraiser for the Best Buddies organization founded by Anthony Kennedy Shriver that helps people with intellectual disabilities.

Hundreds are expected to participate in the event, which started with a 100-mile bicycle ride from the Kennedy Library in Boston to Hyannisport, and closes out with a concert at the Kennedy compound.

A man walking by Massachusetts General was startled by the news when he asked about the reason for the large media presence.

"Ted? Is he all right? Jeez, I'm taken aback. I just saw him on television yesterday," said Jerry Leonard, 76, a retired bartender.

"He's a Kennedy. His name is synonymous with this area. I'm a Bostonian, too, and he's done a lot for us around here and for the senior citizens in particular. I don't know him but I feel a connection."

My take on the four of them:

First, THE CONFLUENCE.

This is a modern feminist's dreamblog.  Women writers banded together under "Riverdaughter" and this is one of the biggest PRO-HILLARY places in the web.  You will find tremendous support for your own voice in the comments section, and grass roots support like an old fashioned quilting bee, except, no quilts!  Just cocktails...It's a little like a place for gossip, friends, strong women, working women, and DEEPLY DEMOCRATIC women.  Sometimes it's hilarious, other times deadly serious.  There are straight and gay and lesbian people supporting this blog as well.  Which makes it democratic!  You can also get inside information about the election here.  Some of them are heavily involved in politics, and you can trust the opinions here.  I just love who they are, and what they stand for.  Also, Riverdaughter has many links off this blog to other great writers and sites for Hillary Clinton you may not know about.  I check in with their writing daily, sometimes even before the newspaper!

Second, TAYLOR MARSH.

What I like about Taylor is her truthfulness.  She always gets emotional about her husband, and I really like her Jackson Pollack style signature.  You can feel Taylor's heart in her words.  This place is like grand central station there are so many comments when she writes/rights things.  She has even met Hillary Clinton in person.  You can also listen to her, live.  She is just a straight up Democrat, and she isn't afraid to be honest or probe things she sees as issues in this election.  (I learned about her from Riverdaughter, by the way!) Taylor is a feminist in action, from what we call the "Second Wave."  If you need a role model for what feminism looks like?  Taylor is a great place to start.

Third, NO QUARTER.

I love these people too.  The two main people are Larry and Susan UnPC, but they have a host of other writers as well that you can get to know and love.  No Quarter is about National Security, no holds barred.  These are deep thinkers who can also crack jokes and write at levels all Americans can understand.  They come from all kinds of various fields, and they are some of the most informed commentators as well.  No Quarter is also supportive of gay and lesbian issues, as is Hillary Clinton.  They are BOLD, INTELLIGENT and informed.  They will get the facts, or get at the facts that you need to read about.  They welcome comments from all kinds of people, and millions read them.  (I learned about Flineo from them.  Flineo makes great political videos.  My favorite thing about NO QUARTER, they know what is RIGHT and what is WRONG, and they are going to inform you about that.

Fourth, SAVAGE POLITICS.

Savage Politics is just plain SMART.  In fact, they are so SMART over there that they leave no stone unturned when it comes to deep intellectual editorials.  The two main writers are Lin Farley and J. Cifre.  When I want the truth about something I didn't know, I look to J. C.  When I want deeply moving, deeply truthful editorials I look to Lin Farley.  Damn can she write.  The night I found their site I was exhausted by the blogosphere's lack of informed journalism.  When I first read them, they were music to my ears.  Anyone who wants "real" journalists, go to Savage Politics.  They also have very intelligent comments, and the people who comment there oftentimes have additional, important links and feedback.  J. C. goes deep to find out the truths about Obama.  I have learned more from Savage Politics than from any of the other blogs because they are doing investigative reporting.  Savage Politics goes where mainstream media fears to tread.  Like No Quarter, they reveal the TRUTH. In a word, penetrating journalism.

Those are my main four reads, all great, different flavors, different audiences, different topics.  I am beyond grateful for these four blogs.  I feel like I have made friends with Democratic thinkers when I read them.  All four have tremendous integrity, and I didn't list them in order of importance to me because in my mind they are all equal.  Don't miss them.

What is executive branch experience? Governor of a state, Vice President, various Presidential appointments (such as Secretary of State) are examples of executive branch positions. Senator and House Rep are not.

I wanted to go back and find the last time a presidential election was held that featured two non executive branch candidates. I had to go all the way back to 1852 (Franklin Pierce Def. Winfield Scott). Now that's going back a ways! It's probably not even relevant; the Whigs were still a party! So if you think 2008 offers us lousy choices, yer right! And this may be the reason.

In my cooperation with the Chicago Police Department, I provided them with all the phone numbers I had provided the Obama Campaign as requested.  I was told by the CPD that once they had received the numbers from me, then the CPD would obtain a Grand Jury Subpoena to obtain the phone records directly from the cell Phone company.

Now that leads me to the question: Will the Chicago Police Department subpoena the records of Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright in the investigation of the murder of Donald Young?

Yesterday I attempted to contact the CPD Detective whom I had provided the phone numbers to.  The Detective was in Court and therefor not in his office.  I left a message for him to return my call.  If he has not returned my call by Monday afternoon I will call him again.

I do not know if the CPD is beholden to Barack Obama in any way.  I am sure that on the upper levels of Chicago City Administration the answer to that is most assuredly, at least in respect to Mayor Daley.  I do want to hope that the CPD Detective I have spoken with and dealt with, is in fact sincere and honest and is dedicated to investigating the death of Donald Young.  I also know that there are things in an on-going investigation that must be held close to the vest.

 Jody Weis, CPD Superintendent

Never-the-less I ask, will the Chicago Police subpoena the phone records of Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright in their investigation into the Donald Young murder?  If the answer to this question is YES, then the CPD are to be applauded, if the answer turns out to be NO, then I, (as do many others I think) begin to question the motives and sincerity of the CPD investigation into the Donald Young murder. 

WE ARE FAMILY

Despite his penchant for saying "sweetie" to shut women up, Barack Obama does seem more likable than Hillary Clinton. But so what?

The press loved frat boy George W. Bush and hated nerdy Al Gore eight years ago. And look what we got? Endless war, economic meltdown, torture, a bigoted Supreme Court, the destruction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, a desecrated planet. Will Americans never learn that who they think is a "nice guy" is no reason to elect a president? Apparently not.

The lack of any substantive logic to get from "sweetie" to George W. is worthy of the Lee Atwater school of politics. I don't understand how Clinton surrogates can tout change when their tactics are straight out of Karl Rove's political handbook.

But as if that wasn't bad enough, Ms. Jong continues:

So here we go again. NARAL loves the new boy on the block -- even if HRC was there at its founding. So does John Edwards. And Ted Kennedy. The fact that Barack has little experience makes him the hot new ingénue, whereas Hillary is old like your mother.

The truth is we know about her -- and we know very little about Obama. That alone makes her detractors scream: Get Out! Off the stage with you! Give us that hot new boy! Give us that sepia Brad Pitt! Old women are so over!

OK sweetie, we'll step aside. Watch your own cauldron bubble. You're in a heap of trouble -- and you don't even know it.

Oh no you didn't. You did not just refer to the first African American presidential candidate as "boy", not once but twice. And the veiled threat...how very unifying for the Democratic party.

Ms. Jong sounds like a spoiled kid who didn't get her way. The entire post is a temper tantrum, ending with taking her ball and going home.

half & half, but twice the pounds

i've been bouncing around three separate discussions at three popular Christian websites over the past few days.

at Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed blog, we've been discussing various views on hell, and in the course of the discussion we've talked about Calvinism, and election, and how/if God determines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. you can view that thread here.

at Justin Taylor's Between Two Worlds (what a great title, by the way, in light of this post and the scenarios prompting it), where he posted a link to an article he had written entitled, "One More Way To God Than I Deserve".  as usual, at this site and others like it (Pyros, Triablogue, challies, etc.), i'm the lone wolf among well-toothed sheep arguing mike's view of God's grace versus their view of God's justice.  the exchanges underneath that post can be viewed here.

finally, at the Leadership Magazine Out of Ur blog, we've been voicing opinions on the Evangelical Manifesto that was released a week or so ago.  if you've made it this far and are still playing along, you can look at that exchange here.  (as an unexpected bit of irony, a subsequent post addresses the old MTV show, "Celebrity Deathmatch;" somehow, CD seems to be an odd but perfect embodiment of all three of these discussions...)

all slightly different subjects, but in the end resulting in (at least) two opposing views, with each side completely convinced in its ability to:

1. justify its own position to its own satisfaction;
2. relegate its opponent's points to the trashbin of blindness, ignorance, and / or a mindset that's either too open or too closed; and,
3. return to its own camp when all is said and done to express exasperation at how those other idiots...

...couldn't find their butts with both hands;
...wouldn't know a logical argument if it kicked them in the behind; and,
...are, for some unidentifiable reason, unable to grasp something that anyone should be able to see is clearly spelled out in Scripture.

at JT's site, one guy stepped up yesterday responding to a comment i'd left, and said this:

Rucker:

I'd be open to a 5-question exchange on my DebateBlog on [your statement]:

God obviously saw us as deserving and His very nature pointed him toward reconciliation, not judgment.

My thesis is that this is not God's motivation for saving anyone -- that God doesn't save anyone who deserves saving (because that's a class of ZERO members), and that God's "nature" is not to "reconcile".

You can read the general terms of a D-Blog exchange there.

of course, i hate confrontation, rarely venturing out in the open to give anyone my opinions or thoughts on any given idea, so i replied:

I'd be open to a 5-question exchange on my DebateBlog on [your statement], God obviously saw us as deserving and His very nature pointed him toward reconciliation, not judgment.

i sent this reply to the email address at the blog you pointed me to as well.

your position (actually 2):
(1) God doesn't save anyone who deserves saving (because that's a class of ZERO members), and that
(2) God's "nature" is not to "reconcile".

i'm game. if i read your rules correctly, it starts with a question to you - is that right? so based on your position, you can answer why you believe either of those.

and then i reflected on the three conversations i've been in at the three blogs mentioned above.  everything seems to be following the same script, in a way, it seems.  in a nutshell, the brain that has served me well in IT for 25 years is one that, oddly enough, helps me understand the discord we see today in so many diverse places:

1s and 0s are answers that work fine in computer circuitry, but are messy when it comes to real life. 

why? because real life almost always says the correct answer is one half.

ergo, our problem: it's still digital logic.  "one half" may be right, but it's conveniently not an answer we have available to us.

we have to round up - to 1 - and write "1" on the answer sheet.

or, we round down - to 0 - and write "0" on the answer sheet.

it's like the vote we're casting this coming november: in the booth, we have to punch the hole next to Politician A, Mr. You-can't-trust-him-as-far-as-you-can-throw-him, or the one next Politician B, Ms. I-wouldn't-trust-her-to-give-me-the-time-of-day.

we really want a "C" option, truth be told.

or maybe A-and-a-half...

"Sorry," we're told, "it is what it is." 

coke or pepsi.  hamburger or cheeseburger.  fries or chips.

and then a mental image came into my mind, and i posted a response at JT's blog to the guy who asked for a civil exchange of open-minded ideas (my words):

frank, one caveat, call it mike's rule...

if frank presents a bunch of verses and passages, perhaps a few life experiences, such that a good-intentioned, well-reasoning person would nod their head and say, "you know, frank makes a good point";

and if, in reply, mike presents a bunch of verses and passages, perhaps a few life experiences, such that a good-intentioned, well-reasoning person would nod their head and say, "it seems mike makes a good point, too";

then that round isn't a tie, frank.

it goes to me. :)

because my point in all of these back-and-forths we get into is that no one wins when each side stays camped out at the ends.

everything reduces to this:
(a) let him who is without sin cast the first stone; and,
(b) go and sin no more.

somehow the events of our lives cause each of us to wind up more frequently in (a) or (b) - perhaps it's personality, perhaps it's being profoundly touched by something very deeply, or maybe it's just gas. and where we wind up is we have grace and truth having to exist side by side.

in the real world.

where we both live.

and i offered him, like i'm offering you, the reader, this mental image:

frank on one side, pointing to his bible,
me on the other, pointing at my bible,
in between us, the figure of Jesus,
one arm outstretched to frank's shoulder,
the other outstretched to mine,
the vague picture of a cross behind him,
saying, "relax - i'll take care of this."

and before i could get this post up here, a guy with the moniker fools4christ posted this at JT's blog - a response to my invitation to him to define what his sentence (in italics) really means:

God killed His Son to prove that He is righteous for forgiving scumbags like me.

God said no to murder. David (for instance) murdered. God chose to forgive David despite His justice, seemingly. God must be unjust...but wait...God killed His Son so that David's penalty could be justly satisfied. God far exceeds the requirement of His own law in order to prove that mercy isn't scandalous.

It's my affinity for that Romans 3 thing showing here. You might want to reconsider your haughty take on Paul eventually...

well, i obviously couldn't let him have the last word (could i?), so i took a sarcasm pill and offered:

fools4christ wrote,
You might want to reconsider your haughty take on Paul eventually...

i suppose i could stoop to your approach and offer, "does your mother know you're playing with the computer again?".

i have no problem discussing these comments with you if you can put aside the name calling and the dymo label-maker for a bit.

but since you got me started, here's another: "to honor paul, maybe you should change your username to 'clangingcymbal' "... call it zinger #2.

rest assured that i can trade you punch for punch in the smart-a--ed-comments department. or we can talk like adults. perhaps even as Christian adults, though you might not give me the benefit of the doubt on that part; but you can decide that for yourself.

as if you haven't already...

(that was zinger #3 - i guess that's 3-1 now, isn't it. hmmm... seems i only have to worry about tie-scores with frank...)

((uh, that was #4, if you missed it - makes it 4-1, if you're keeping score...))

:)

a pastor at a church i attended years back had various paintings and sketchings of Jesus on his wall. his favorite was one called, "Jesus Laughing."

we'd all do better if we kept a mental image of that thought in mind...

stay tuned.  as we like to say around here, we'll keep you posted...

I recall seeing on Politico, an article about how the GOP can save itself. This year, it can't. And basically that article stated that the GOP needed to keep up the fear mongering .. I think that'll work great these days.

I'd prefer an Obama presidency with a GOP Congress, but that seems unlikely. Some estimates show a few dozen more seats being lost to the Democrats. The hold on southern states is falling apart, all the donors don't want anything to do with them. They're right to think that.

The GOP is sometimes at its finest when in the opposition role. Take a look at the Clinton years for example, Republicans were willing to ask the tough questions. They aren't anymore, because they've been dumbed down by being in Washington. They had some principles, like how the budget was balanced, and people give Clinton the credit, but it was Congress that did it. Blind loyalty to the Bush Republicanism will cost them dearly.

So now that it seems almost impossible for an Obama/GOP Congress mix, what is there left to do? All that is left to root for now is the bloodiest, most embarrassing loss the Republicans will ever have in November 2008. McCain needs to lose 40+ states (and might at this rate), while the House GOP takes 50-70 more losses from the already bad 2006 elections.

Most Republicans are a bunch of phonies, and perhaps ironically, there is a phony leading the parties national ticket this year in John McCain. He is sacrificing the party's base to get independents. He spits in his bases face by endorsing global warming mania, speaking with La Raza, and reaching out to liberals. Sure, he has a record of cross-party legislation, but those also happened to be the worst legislation in recent memory.

A lot of them will be staying home in early November, if I had to make a guess. So I guess McCain might as well run as a liberal Democrat since he apparently doesn't care about the base. A big loss will show that the next GOP nominee can't take them for granted.

Republicans have also managed to scare off most young upcoming voters (to Obama), are having trouble fund raising, and don't utilize the internet very well. Though I know a certain someone .. who ran for the Republicans .. who didn't have those problems.

But it doesn't really matter at this point, the only way to truly save itself is to fully and completely reject the Bush Republicanism (Neoconservatism mixed with compassionate conservative .. mm, tasty). As for me, I will probably stay home. If I was forced into the voting booth with a gun to my head I 'might' pick the Libertarian, or Obama at worst. Then again, I might just take the bullet.

The Presidency in our country is a sacred thing.

Read all about it at No Quarter, in New Hampster's piece.

"Obama is a registered trademark and Hope and Change are Trademarks of Obama for President Incorporated."

After watching the fantastic PBS documentary on FDR, one of our greatest Democrats and Presidents ever, and contrasting it with this?  This is the most revolting, disgusting, lowly, cheap shot I have ever seen in my life.  The FEC, and President Bush should have something to say about all of this to our country.  The American Presidency is the highest office in the land.  It is not a set of "trademarked" words, nor is it for sale.

President, Incorporated?  You should be ashamed of tarnishing the legacy of FDR and every American President who has ever held office.  Were you planning to trademark his Fireside Chats, too?  Were you planning to sell them, as you are selling your speech on Race?

Here are all of our American Presidents.  Not one of them trademarked themselves, or the Office of the Presidency.

The Brand Called Obama®

By New HampstercloseAuthor: New Hampster Name: New Hampster
Email: susanunpc@gmail.com
Site:
About: See Authors Posts (7) on May 16, 2008 at 8:58 AM in Bamboozling, Barack Obama, David Axelrod, Deval Patrick, Fast Company, Hoodwinking, Marketing, Media