EFL from WMD - OT but good for a chuckle. Could go under 5th Column or Culture War but really is Peshawar
What if you broke the law to make a point and no one arrested you? Thatâs what happened Tuesday to four pastors who defied Arizona law by marrying same-sex couples over the weekend. With about 100 sign-toting supporters in tow, the ministers marched to the Maricopa County Superior Court complex to turn over evidence of the illegal marriages. But court officials refused to accept it.Local law enforcement officials also refused to cite the ministers who, according to state law, committed a Class 2 misdemeanor by marrying the couples. The Sheriffâs and the County Attorneyâs offices deferred jurisdiction to the city of Phoenix. "We had to look at what was the best use of our resources here," said Kathy Lubay-Johnson, Phoenixâs chief assistant city prosecutor. "Itâs not something weâre going to prosecute." Nor did the Phoenix Police Department want to get involved. "We have better things to do," Detective Tony Morales said.
On Friday, dozens of same-sex couples rode a bus from court to court across the Valley, applying for marriage licenses. They were turned down. Despite that, on Saturday pastors Brad Wishon, Charlotte Strayhorne, Dan Spencer and Katie Cassidy, solemnized 41 marriages for gay and lesbian couples. On Tuesday, the four pastors went to the offices of Michael Jeanes, clerk of the Superior Court. They were met by Public Affairs Director Cari Gerchick, who refused to accept documentation of the illegal weddings. "Arizona law only authorizes us to record licenses we issue," Gerchick told them. Spencer was undeterred: "Weâre going to keep marrying couples and weâre going to keep seeking marriage licenses," he said. And we will continue to donating tickets for honeymoon trips to fictitious time-shares so that these couples will be able to celebrate their make-believe marriages properly. Weâll toss in some Parker Brothers cash from the Monopoly board game to cover expenses.
On Monday, thousands turned out to protest same-sex marriages at the state Capitol in a rally organized by the Scottsdale-based Center for Arizona Policy. "There are good reasons for only allowing marriages to be solemnized that are OK under the marriage laws," said Peter Gentala, legal counsel for the center.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/21/2004 10:49:29 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Note: it's only 4 pastors- how many pastors are there in the US?
And these people aren't married.- but if they want to go and delude themselves into thinking that they are, they can go right ahead.
If gays think that homosexual marriage is acceptable, then they can also decide that they don't need a law to determine whether or not their marriage is real. - after all, they love each other, don't they?
In which case, why are they trying to push their concept of marriage on the US government? I say: go do your business elsewhere- if you want to be a perv, do it on your own time-not my tax dollars.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/21/2004 04:10 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ladies and Gentlemen, the lowest common denominator:
Mourners bidding adieu to their loved ones will no longer face the tribulation of striking funeral workers cheering as the departed is lifted into a hearse.
In the wake of such antics displayed by disgruntled unionized workers at Urgel Bourgie funeral homes, a judge has granted an injunction banning the practice.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/21/2004 04:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I find this absolutely hilarious for some reason. Maybe it's because I have a friend who's completely blind, but still manages to impress. But even he couldn't wave to me in the street . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
05/21/2004 9:37 Comments ||
Top||
New evidence that thousands of Britons may be harbouring the human form of mad cow disease has emerged from government-funded research. Scientists who examined 12,674 stored appendix and tonsil samples said they had identified three bearing signs of the agent that causes variant CJD (vCJD). Applying the findings to the whole population, they estimate that about 3,800 people in the UK would test positive. Not all may be destined to die from the fatal brain disease, however. Scientists think the findings - which at first sight seem at odds with declining rates of vCJD - might indicate that people can carry the disease without developing symptoms. They would still be able to spread the disease to others via contaminated surgical instruments, blood transfusions or organ donation. Steps have already been taken to reduce the chances of such transmission as far as possible. But, while being careful not to exaggerate the implications, the scientists say their results should be taken seriously. Study leader Dr David Hilton, from the Department of Histopathology at Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, said: "Our findings need to be interpreted with caution, but cannot be discounted." The research, published in the Journal of Pathology, involved examining thousands of appendix and tonsil samples removed during routine operations and stored at hospitals. Most were from people aged 20 to 29 who belonged to the highest risk group for vCJD.
Posted by: The Screaming Nun ||
05/21/2004 9:04:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
if they have vegan diet this would never have happen.
Posted by: The Screaming Nun ||
05/21/2004 9:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
You know, this might explain an awful lot.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
05/21/2004 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mad cow is an environmental disease not an infectious disease. People who eat hamburgers are more likely to die of it, in the same way people who play golf are more likely to get struck by lightning. BTW playing golf is a lot more dangerous.
Posted by: Phil B ||
05/21/2004 10:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
explains Hook Boy's condition
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/21/2004 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
#6
and if man always ate vegan we would still be monkeys on the savanna....
have seen how vegans look like they were victims of hitler...
Posted by: Dan ||
05/21/2004 11:54 Comments ||
Top||
Bashing rival China might be a good way to get elected in Taiwan, but President Chen Shui-bian sent a strong message to Beijing on Thursday that he's ready for friendlier relations during his second term. Chen loaded up his inauguration speech with conciliatory language aimed at soothing Beijing and assuring the United States that he wasn't a reckless leader seeking to spark a war with his communist neighbor. "The Beijing authorities must understand the deep conviction held by the people of Taiwan to strive for democracy, to love peace," said the 53-year-old president, a former Taipei mayor and lawyer. But China's state-run media slammed Chen with criticism on Friday, questioning the sincerity of his inaugural speech and branding him a "slippery politician" intent on independence. An editorial in the China Daily proclaimed: "Chen Shui-bian's latest offer of 'goodwill' turns out to be another sham." "Chen Shui-bian's speech cannot cover up true intent of Taiwan independence," read a headline in the Beijing News.
Son of a gun, they got that one right.
Chen jangled nerves in Washington by campaigning on an anti-China platform that kept Chinese leaders fuming. The message played well with Chen's core supporters, who oppose unification. But keeping friendly U.S. ties is vital to Taiwan, and after his narrow March 20 re-election, Chen got to work repairing frayed relations. Taiwanese officials acknowledged that his speech was vetted by Washington for provocative rhetoric. U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher congratulated Chen on Thursday, but he made it clear that Washington wouldn't back any move by Taiwan - or China - to unilateral try altering the status quo. "We do not support Taiwan independence and we oppose attempts by either side to unilaterally alter the status quo," he said.
"Don't make us come in there!"
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Chen's address "creates an opportunity for Taipei and Beijing to restore dialogue across the Strait." Despite Chen's reassuring tone, China warned Taiwan in a commentary published Thursday in state-run media not to pursue independence, saying the island should not "gamble on the mainland's tolerance." China fears that Chen would use a new constitution to enshrine Taiwan's independent status.
But Chen promised that the constitutional changes wouldn't touch on the sensitive sovereignty issues because Taiwanese weren't ready to take them up. "I am fully aware that consensus has yet to be reached on issues related to national sovereignty, territory and the subject of unification and independence," he said. He said the revisions would focus on streamlining the government and legislature so that Taiwan can keep up in an increasingly competitive world. Chen got high marks from the leader of the visiting U.S. delegation at the ceremony: senior Republican Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa, who heads the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs for the House Committee on International Relations. "I thought it was an extraordinary, personal statement of moderation," Leach told reporters. "Clearly he is seeking the consensus of the Taiwanese people and just as clearly he is seeking not to be too confrontational with the mainland," Leach said. "I think he very artfully made a very profound statement." The speech was also praised by Richard Bush, who recently served as one of Washington's top envoys for Taiwan relations. "I think his approach to the revision of the constitution is a very constructive one, and I hope the other side will be able to tolerate it and accept it," Bush told reporters in Taipei.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/21/2004 12:23:20 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Germanyâs ruling party and Jewish groups have criticised the conservative oppositionâs selection of a Nazi-era judge to help elect a new president. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) chose Hans Filbinger to sit on the assembly selecting the next president. The 90-year-old is a former military judge accused of ordering the execution of German deserters in World War II. Chancellor Gerhard Schroederâs Social Democrats and the leaders of Germanyâs Jewish groups criticised the CDU move. "This is a tasteless act," said Klaus Uwe Benneter, a deputy leader of the Social Democrats, on German TV. "No-one will ever forget his past as a terrible judge..." said government spokesman Thomas Steg.
âPuzzlingâ
"I cannot understand why the CDU has decided to send him," said Paul Spiegel, a Germany Jewish community leader also sitting on the special federal assembly. "There are surely other worthy candidates without a past like this." The Nazi-hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center in America launched an online petition calling for his removal as an elector. But CDU leader Angela Merkel said she found the outcry "puzzling". "I donât understand why heâs being criticised," she said, adding that he had been on a number of previous federal assemblies. Mr Filbinger was forced to resign as the premier of Baden-Wuerttemberg state in 1978 after he was quoted as saying of Hitlerâs dictatorship, "what was right then cannot be wrong now". What the hell this sort of maggot is doing in German (or any sort of) politics goes beyond imagination and into the realm of pure outrage. That, even today, Germany is unable to make a total dosconnect from its Nazi past is symptomatic of much more significant issues, not the least of which are persistent anti-Semitism and institutionalized discrimination against Muslim "guest workers." This level of denial properly justifies extreme concern that Europe in general may be breeding up terrorist resentment in ways that affect the entire west.
The comments sparked a furore, but he claims they were taken out of context. Itâs pretty d@mn difficult to take something like, "what was right then cannot be wrong now" as being "out of context."
He also insisted he never actively sentenced anyone to death, and in fact saved lives by handing out mild verdicts. Collaboration with Nazis is just that, collaboration with Nazis.
The federal assembly, which selects the president, is made up of 1,205 people. Around half are from the Bundestag lower house of parliament, and the rest are chosen by state parliaments. It was the CDU in Baden-Wuerttemberg who chose him to sit on the assembly. Despite the row, CDU candidate Horst Koehler is expected to beat Mr Schroederâs nominee Gesine Swan as the CDU and its allies have a majority of seats. Are they handing out stupid pills in Germany these days? I donât recall appropriate cututral tolerance ever being extended to include Nazi members or collaborators. As Muslim resentment brews up more Euro-terror, one need only look to incidents like this for its sources. People in my motherâs family died at the hands of the Nazis during the occupation of Denmark. Others in her family actively fought in the resistance. Iâll be triple-d@mned-in-hell if Iâm going to let this one slide under radar. Naziism, like terrorism, is one of those things that you cannot simply "forgive and forget."
#1
I don't think the CDU was thinking this one out. Filbinger should have been left in retirement, and someone could have been chosen who didn't have the baggage.
As Muslim resentment brews up more Euro-terror, one need only look to incidents like this for its sources.
However, I don't think one proto-Alzheimer Nazi is any more a source for Muslim terror in Germany than an unsafe Autobahn lane change.
#2
I'm rather upset about this and I DID let the CDU know. Since I have been sitting in that assembly in former elections, I had one reason more to do it.
If I were sitting there this time I would leave.
#3
This guy is 90 years old. Even if the Christian Democrats weren't aware of his NAZI past you would think they might go for someone a bit younger to help elect a new president wouldn't you?
#6
I think they'd approve, actually. The Arabic translation of Mein Jihad is said to be quite popular.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
05/21/2004 20:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I don't think the Muslims would care about this at all.
TGA, are you saying that all the skinhead attacks on gastarbeiters do not play any part in generating resentment among Muslims in Germany? However much Islamists might applaud the Nazis for their determined effort to eradicate all Jews, I do not see where they would have the least compunctions about simultaneously decrying racist violence against them as a cause for jihad. Even if that persecution came from those that they applaud.
Such duplicity has never seemed to deter them in the past. Why now?
Schadenfreude at its finest. Link via Drudge. Streisand Hit With $177,000 Legal Bill
Putting an end to Barbra Streisandâs stalling tactics, a California judge has ordered the singer to cough up $177,000 to cover the legal fees of her victorious opponent in a recent privacy invasion lawsuit. Last May, Streisand sued when a California coastal preservation group posted on its web site an aerial photo showing the singerâs oceanfront Malibu estate. Picture was taken off her property. Babâs suit is clearly an intimidation tactic. Almost makes me wish for some soil erosion.
But her complaint was later dismissed by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Allan J. Goodman, who awarded legal fees to the California Coastal Records Project and the groupâs founder Kenneth Adelman. Likely because Babâs suit was frivolous. I wish Loser Pays was the law of the land.
Streisand, though, balked at paying and filed motions challenging the $220,000 being sought by her legal vanquishers. In the below ruling, Goodman just ordered Babs to fork over exactly $177,107.54. This appears to end the Malibu saga--unless the 62-year-old singer has an appeal in mind. (9 pages) I doubt that - why get your head handed to yourself twice, and pay more to boot?
#3
Wonder if her lawyers received less than $43,000-differ between what plaintiffs asked for and Judge ordered.
Posted by: Stephen ||
05/21/2004 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Stephen - I'm pretty sure that those are two separate things; 1) the judge orders Babs to reimburse the defendants $177K instead of the $220K the defendants were originally looking for, and 2) her lawyers bill her for additional time to boot. It's a lose-lose!
#5
What kills me is her arrogance that people would cross-index a find the stars map with an obscure aerial photo series of soil errosions in order to invade her privacy.
I'm thinking your average stalker would just hop the fence and make it up as they go. This isn't Oceans 11 or Italian Job, this is real life.
John Kerry is considering delaying his acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination at the partyâs July convention so that he can keep spending the millions of dollars that he raised during the primaries, The Associated Press has learned. If Kerry were to delay acceptance of his nomination for a month, he would even the playing field with President Bush, who is planning to accept the nomination at the Republican National Convention five weeks later. The party convention would still be held at the end of July, but Kerry would officially accept the nomination at a later date under such a plan. Kerry and Bush are expected to use federal funding for their general election campaign and will be limited to spending the roughly $75 million in federal funds given to each candidate once they accept the nomination. At that point, neither candidate would be able to raise or spend private funds. "We are looking at this and many other options very seriously because we wonât fight with one hand behind our back," Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Friday. More at the link. All sorts of conspiracy theories abound now (involving Hillery, as you might imagine), but even at face value, it looks like another Democrat attempt at changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
05/21/2004 4:07:25 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
05/21/2004 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
LOTR, I think it's worse than changing rules in the middle of the game. It's more like conveniently ignoring laws that don't benefit himself or his fellow DemocRATS. I don't think Kerry has the ability to to unilaterally delay accepting the nomination, maybe he does; shouldn't he have consulted the UN & France before doing this?
Remember the Lautenberg bait & switch? This is just more of the same sad legacy left by Clinton - win at all costs.
#3
This is pretty crummy but perhaps it does point out a flaw in the law - that is that it favors the incumbent by giving him/her a longer time to use primary funds. Perhaps a hard date cutoff? This sort of thing cuts both ways.
Still, as long as it's the law, if you're going to be the chief executive of the law, you might demonstrate an intent to, you know, carry it out by actually acknowledging its existence. Like TR and the Sunday alcohol ban in NY.
#4
Haven't checked, but I'll bet that McCain-Feingold CFR was actually one of the things Sen. Ketchup voted for...
No matter, because the rest of his fellow Dimocrats couldn't wait to pass it.
Now that they have to obey it, they have other plans.
Typical.
Posted by: Jen ||
05/21/2004 17:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
They don't have to follow McCain-Feingold. They are special. Its the ADA. When you are idea challenged the ADA trumps McC-F. Its a handicap thing.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/21/2004 18:41 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Lemee See :
Democrat Convention - July 26-July 29
Olympics - Aug 13-Aug 29
Republican Convention - Aug 30-Sep 2
Labor Day Sep 6
OK: Kerry doesn't accept nomination July 29th
Then when does he do it. No speech. No Acceptance. or Speech commenting on the heatwave in his city (Boston)
He is so stupid that if he tries to pull it off he may be able to get the FEC to let him slide.
A anti-Kerry decision will claim that Bush is {BAAAW} unfair. But people will look at the legal pretzelization and say, "Reminds me of Clinton."
If he tries that, he will be ridiculed.
However if he does accept the nomination after Aug 13th?
Person 1 : "Kerry accepted the Democrat's nomination!"
Person 2 : "Yeah? Who cares. We just got a gold medal in women's wrestling."
#8
Personally, I think the riots and violence in Boston's and NY's streets will overwhelm the convention coverage....especially the NYTCBSNBCPBSABC coverage of the Republican convention...call me a cynic, but the opportunity to vent hate and stupidity by clueless trustfundbabies will be too hard to pass up. Think 20,000 Al Frankens and Janeane Garofalos.... oh, and giant paper-mache puppets: Bushitler, etc ...gotta have those
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/21/2004 19:13 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Fred Barnes on the Hewitt show just had an interesting thought. If the public funds the nominating convention at $14,000,000 each, and Kerry doesn't accept immediately, the DNC may be liable for the $14M.
#10
I don't understand the process here ( or much else about American politics) Surely the party nominates the candidate. If you doesnt say then and there "I accept" is he nominated or not? And how to word the "I accept in 6 weeks but not right now" speech? I cant wait for that one. It will be the anti-climax of all time. How will he even be able to call himself the candidate, if he hasn't accepted the nomination? How dumb are these people, anyway?
#15
So he could actually wait until November before he accepted to nomination? Maybe he could just put his name on the ballot a a proposed candidate and continue to raise money even after the election.
Posted by: john ||
05/21/2004 22:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I will grant her one thing. She is doing what she probably considers to be her best effort to represent the community she comes from. Only I didn't know that we had any citizens on planet Moonbeam
#2
Ah, there ain't nothing like Rantburg to propel soda onto the keyboard.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
05/21/2004 11:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I second that, LotR. Twice in the past week at least for me . . .
Could they come up with any more terrible a double entendre? The naked truth is - er, uh, this title needs to be dropped - um . . . maybe we should take a poll - oh, never mind.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
05/21/2004 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#4
You know, somebody I once worked with commented (while thoroughly drunk) that porno is always better under Democratic presidential administrations. It seems he gathered a lot of data on this question.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
05/21/2004 12:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Sorry - I'm usually not like that. I guess it's just that it is Friday. If Fred wants to dump the comment #1, I won't be offended.
#10
Put yourself in the shoes of a 'gentleman's club' customer.
You own your own business, are probably single or divorced at least once and a nubile young woman promises one free lap dance in exchange for your solemn promise to vote for Kerry.
I don't know about anyone else, I would sure promise to vote for Kerry, and promise it right up to the point I get into that booth; then I vote for Bush.
It's that secret ballot thing many, many of my fellow Americans are risking life and limb to defend before and even after Iraq, and to give to the Iraqis: but then I guess I could always complain I never felt like the dancer lived up to her 'end' of the deal.
#11
I am not certain that the club owners have done their demographic homework. Those big rollers entertaining clients on the expense accounts look a little more 'publican to me than say, prone to be chatting about gay marriage with Rosie O'Donnal, but then what do I know???
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/21/2004 22:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Here's a sample of the good news:
"A shortage of detention space and resources has foiled attempts by federal prosecutors to build a case against three alleged smugglers accused of holding 110 illegal immigrants at a "drop house" in Watts.
The number of immigrants overwhelmed the system and made it impossible for federal officials to comply with a judge's order to make them available to defense attorneys, officials with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said.
Because the government could not comply, smuggling charges against the alleged "coyotes" were dropped.
Since then, many of the 88 immigrants apprehended in the raid have been released because of a shortage of beds, making it hard for prosecutors to work the case further. "
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/22/2004 2:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
as a political commentator, he's a poor theater critic
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/21/2004 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal is so bad that it may turn out to be "the new Watergate" that drives President Bush from office.
Only elections can do that, Frank
At least that's what New York Times columnist Frank Rich is hoping.
Ooooh, NY Times writer. 'Nuff said. NY Times: Fooling ourselves about Bush since 2000
"I think for the next few months we're going to be watching this thing move up through the Pentagon and Washington," Rich told radio host Don Imus on Friday. "You know, it may be the new Watergate in that sense."
That assumes Bush moves to suppress the story: Unfortunately for Frank that is not the case. And if the socialists the NY Times think Americans view this as anything more than US soldiers getting out of hand, they are in for one helluva surprise.
"We have to know how this was allowed to happen," the Bush-bashing columnist insisted. "Because the people who allowed it to happen in our government, in my view, have jeopardized Americans."
The concept that the US military can't investigate itself is the only concept that makes anything you just said valid.
However, I would wager that 90 percent of servicefolks in Iraq coud state without equivocating socialist news outlets, like yours, Frank, have done more to harm to Americans in the field than the alleged crimes in Abu Ghraib.
Of the prison abuse itself, said Rich, "It's horrible. We've lost the hearts and minds [of the Iraqi people], we've lost our allies and, of course, it's undermined support for the war within the United States."
You been there, Frank? You ask the average Iraq who probably has lost at least one relative under Saddam if they give a f*ck if prisonsers were humiliated, Frank?
He called complaints that that media's obsession over Abu Ghraib was hurting the troops "nonsense."
"It's exactly cause people, I think, care about the troops and care about them being endangered that people want this done right and not done with this kind of arrogance and carelessness," Rich claimed.
Arrogance and carelessness: sorta like the stories your comrades at the NY Times, CNN, etc do with their sloppy writing, reporting and fact checking.
Oh, and I guess that little zinger that only the brave socialists at the NY Times can investigate crimes in a warzone and not the military helps your case too, huh, Frank?
Frank, you are a worse polemicist than Goebbels; but I don't means to insult Goebbels. At least he probably did't believe his own bullsh*t like you and your leftwing comrades do.
#11
to explain my comment- Frank R was the theater critic for the NYT - this made him qualified to comment on Foreign Policy, Economics, Politics, Social Structure...nuff said for the NYT?
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/21/2004 19:17 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Frank G - No explanation necessary. He's probably reviewed enough Michael Moore and Oliver Stone films to be a top expert on foreign policy.
The Schadenfreude Express keeps rolling... Air America Desperately Seeking $8 Million
Air America Radio, the new leftwing syndicated radio network, is desperate for a cash infusion, Reuters reported Thursday evening. So desperate that sources close to the company say that "Democratic heavyweights as Sen. Hillary Clinton, her husband, former President Bill Clinton and billionaire investor George Soros have been appraised of the money-raising efforts." "Please, pretty please, we need Moâ Money!"
The network has been floundering almost from the get-go, with the business hemorrhaging cash and debts growing. Translation - no advertising revenue, coupled with the fact theyâre paying radio stations to carry them = stunning, but predictable, market failure. I can see the keel of this landlocked version of the Kursk all the way from here!
Air Americaâs woes became evident just weeks ago when CEO Evan Cohen was ousted. "This venture is not dead and itâs not going to die," Mike Papantonio, a backer of Air America who also co-hosts a talk show with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., told Reuters. "I am a businessman and I see this as a great business opportunity." "Tis but a flesh wound!"
The wire service reported that the backers include trial attorney Papantonio, Chicago businessman Sheldon Drobny, and Rob Glaser, chairman of RealNetworks Inc. -- all of whom have promised to invest more funds to keep the company afloat. Uh, guys? Remember that quote from Will Rogers: "Iâm not so much interested in the return on my investment as I am the return of my investment."
The company says its business plan calls for $8 million in new capital and that fundraising is underway. Fundraising sounds different from investing, doesnât it? I read it as a tacit admission that this $8 million, if they manage to get it, is going to be pissed away as well.
Air America shows include Young O'Frakenstein the OâFranken Factor, with comedian Al OâFranken, and another program with activist and actress Janeane ["I have no bosom but I don't need one because I wear birth control glasses"] Garofalo. Question - are you still a comedian if youâve stopped being funny ten years ago?
As for their financial woes, company insiders wonât blame bad management or lack of market interest. Itâs not âbad management or lack of market interestâ. Itâs âbad management and lack of market interestâ!
Instead they have a right-wing conspiracy right in their roost. Classic leftists - blame everyone but your own piss-poor decisions. Like Iâm surprised...
Reuters reported: "Papantonio and others attributed the companyâs troubles thus far to mismanagement by Cohen, a former Republican political operative in Guam. Sorry, Iâm out of time right now to check on Evan Cohenâs background. Any diggers that can give me an assist out there?
#1
Great thinkers have produced lengthy essays on "Why LLL's Hate Capitalism", but I think we have the answer right here: They hate it because they can't do it very well.
#2
They also apparently love featherbedding. My understanding is that this "network" has 100 employees! My radio friends tell me that this is an incredible number of people for the programming they offer.
#3
hey! dont be dis janeane! money a litle tite right now but things picking up they telling us. i have suggest several time we have fund raising festival and i say i volunteer make some bead jewlry help raise cash for the cause. merchandise shuld help. im also hear cohen actualy part of conspiracy trying to make this endeavor fail from the get go. they lots of publicans in guam.
#4
On Evan Cohen from a Guam Pacific Daily News article about AAR:
Montvel-Cohen, who also worked as chief of staff for former Republican Sen. Tommy Tanaka, has been involved in several political issues on Guam, according to Pacific Daily News files.
In 1999, he testified in Superior Court during the legal challenge to the 1998 gubernatorial election. Montvel-Cohen had been hired by attorney Randall Cunliffe to dig deeper into a list of alleged illegal voters that had been presented as evidence by attorneys for losing candidate Joseph Ada.
A year later, Montvel-Cohen was chairman of "Concerned Citizens for Honesty and Integrity in Government," which collected and spent nearly $15,000 for several negative television and print ads about Democratic Sen. Ben Pangelinan and several Republican candidates.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
05/21/2004 17:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Whoa! How'd the tab get up to $8 million?!?
(Is that for primo pot and snacks?)
And to think some Lib supposedly gave David Brock $2 million to waste on a Dim Lib website!
Posted by: Jen ||
05/21/2004 17:33 Comments ||
Top||
#6
First, why did they hire a Republican operative to run a left wing radio network in the first place? If true they are dumber than I thought.
Second, the $8 Million is because they need donut money to entice Michael Moore to be a guest.
#8
Ed, I get my DemonRAT stoolies mixed up--it may be David Broder doing the website.
Same thing, different names.
Posted by: Jen ||
05/21/2004 17:48 Comments ||
Top||
#9
So desperate that sources close to the company say that "Democratic heavyweights as Sen. Hillary Clinton, her husband, former President Bill Clinton and billionaire investor George Soros have been appraised of the money-raising efforts."
have "been appraised" LOL! In other words, they asked them for money but they said NO!
Posted by: B ||
05/21/2004 18:14 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Ms. Jen - I have the same problem sometimes :
Can't tell the Media Jackasses without a scorecard
#18
Air America forgot to put the wings on. You can't fly without wings. Also, they forgot the engines, propellers, and most important, the pilot. Their pilot, Al Frankendj, washed out.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
05/21/2004 21:03 Comments ||
Top||
#19
So in the span of ?four? months they have de-evolved into PBS? Next ehy will DEMAND public funding!
#20
They're blaming this on a guy who worked with the GOP in...GUAM?! Did I read that right, or did a coconut bonk me on the noggin?
Posted by: Edward ||
05/21/2004 23:43 Comments ||
Top||
#21
If Soros ponies up, how quick do you think that Al and Jeanie can smoke all that $8M with their 98 friends? They suck up cash fast. Is the UN involved in this?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/22/2004 3:43 Comments ||
Top||
Justice Rustam Ali Malik of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday asked a petitioner to file a fresh application if he wanted a murder case registered against the parents of his wife after they told the court that their daughter, who had married without their consent, was electrocuted.
"It was just a freak accident, y'r honor! Y'see, she was bathing the toaster, and..."
On the last hearing, the court had ordered the station house officer of Bhana Police Station in Jhang districtâs Chiniot tehsil to find the girl, Nazia Shaheen, and produce her in the court for her statement. However, Ms Shaheenâs parents informed the court that their daughter had died the previous day from electrocution. In his habeas corpus petition, petitioner Naveed Ahmed had expressed the fear that his wifeâ parents might kill her if she was not removed from their custody.
Well, boy howdy! Ain't that a coincidence?
When informed about his wifeâs death, the petitioner started shouting and accused Ms Shaheenâs parents of bumping her off killing her. He asked the court to order a criminal case against his wifeâs parents. However, the judge said that such orders could not be made in a habeas corpus petition and advised him to file a fresh writ petition to seek the registration of a murder case. The petitioner informed the court that he married Ms Shaheen on January 19, 2004 without her parentsâ consent. He said his spouse later fell ill and was admitted to Ittefaq Hospital from where her parents took her away and refused to send her with him. He said his wife unsuccessfully tried to escape from her parentsâ custody and he had to file a writ petition to seek her recovery.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/21/2004 12:38:03 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Can anybody find the retired electric chair from Florida, "Old Sparky", and send it to this poor grieving husband? I am sure someone there can be paid to round up the parents, and they can be "Sent to Allah", eventually, in an inefficient manner.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/21/2004 04:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I wonder, would they complain about Muslims being elected to office on the grounds that a true Muslim's loyalty is supposed to be first and foremost to the umma, and not to his country? Or would that be "racist"?
Or are they just scared because their public positions clash with the beliefs of their professed religion? Personally, I think that if the Church wants to deny them communion, the Church has that right. The time is past when disagreements led to excommunication by a temporally powerful Pope. And if they don't like being Catholic, there are plenty of other branches. No one's going to kill them if they switch. I myself am not Catholic, but I would be very dismayed to see the Church reverse its stance because of a bunch of politicians who want to both have religion and take whatever positions they like. Either show that you believe what you profess to, or pick another denomination.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
05/21/2004 9:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So here we have some elected officials trying to tell the Catholic Church what to do. Isn't that against the seperation of Church and State? Where is the ACLU?
This is typical Democratic BS. Pick and choose which laws to enforce (we will enforce affirmitive action but not immigration). Somehow I don't think they will be allowed to pick-and-choose which laws of God you follow like they are allowed to choose which laws of Man to follow.
#3
I'm Catholic & I like being Catholic and while I don't personally condone abortion, I would not vote to abolish it across the board. I guess the church could withhold the sacrament from me as well. I agree that the church should stick to its convictions and deny him communion if they wish as it is their right. The crux comes to public office, if Kerry wants to support ideas the church is against he should be man enough to accept the consequences of those beliefs - that's called being a stand up guy. Pitching a fit and having Catholic politicos sending lame letters to the church is silly imho. I'd respect these people more if they gave the JFK line about not speaking for the church and the church not speaking for them. At that point, the church can make it's own decision regarding who gets communion or whatever. Separation of church and state works two ways. That's what I'd say, but personally, I'd rather keep my religion personal and out of politics - a mistake I think Kerry made when he started this "I'm a huge Catholic look at me" and now is getting called on it.
#4
In my CCD Classes tha taught us about people who were Catholic but did follow church doctrine. I think they are called PROTESTANTS. If they want to pick/choose which to follow then I suggest these Senators go that route.
#6
Putting some of the more contradictory positions of the church in the past, consider this:
I think it's great that the church is putting it's foot down on this issue. I've always believed that the church is the church and they should NEVER change to "suit the times" or to bring the young people to their services.
The Catholics don't do it very often, but the non-Catholics do. For every new style of rock music (for example), some churchy musical group steals that style and replaces the word "baby" with "Jesus", and WHAMMO! - contemporary-sounding music being used to bring in modern worshippers, with a secondary emphasis on the "message".
How is it that, only 50-100 years ago, people were taught by the church elders that "secular revelry" (aka anything not approved by the church) was a mortal sin and you would be going straight to Hell with a brief stopover in Purgatory for enjoying that pagan lifestyle? What about all those millions of people who believed these things and were told by the "higher authority" not to enjoy evil rock music or those blasphemous "novels" that became so popular since the end of the 1800s?
The church should NEVER change. They ask that people believe that the teachings of Christ are unchangeable and that they have been the same for 2000 years. How then can they remain consistent in this regard if they try to make the church "modern"? Answer: they can't.
The recent pronouncements by the church are a very welcome return to their core beliefs in my opinion, even though the church isn't always a paragon of consistancy.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled Rantburg.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
05/21/2004 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The dems have no shame. They think their bully boy tactics can work on everyone. Ultimately there is only one way to stand up to a bully, so what will the bishops do?
Posted by: Douglas De Bono ||
05/21/2004 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Chris, that is admirable, but ultimately unattainable. I agree that the Church should not compromise, but if it is to survive in the modern world, it must adapt to the modern world. Core values are one thing that should never be altered or played with, and there's a lot to be said for tradition (and I'll agree with you about that rock music - I really cannot stand it; two of my roommates this past semester listened to it and it nearly drove me out of my mind!), but if the Church does not remain open to new interpretations based on logical approaches, if it does not try and evolve as the world evolves, its message will be marginalized, regarded as anachronistic, and lost. See Islam's current situation for an example of a religion that remains stuck in the 7th century.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
05/21/2004 12:19 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The Catholic Church is being unreasonable. They should let the Democrats in Congress promote killing unborn babies.
Posted by: Rock ||
05/21/2004 14:17 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Rep. James R. Langevin (R.I.), said that "while I agree with [the bishops] on the pro-life issue, I don't agree with them on denying Communion to those who in good conscience have come to a different position. . . .
Would someone explain to me how you come to the position of murdering babies, "....in good conscience"?
The problem here is that demoNcrats HAVE NO CONSCIENCE..OR MORALS..PERIOD!
demoNcrats eat shit.....and bark at the moon.
Posted by: Halfass Pete ||
05/21/2004 15:27 Comments ||
Top||
#11
A pro-Life Catholic is like a vegan how eats hot dogs - i.e. not really a vegan.
The Hose - user of NFP (Natural Family Planning)
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/21/2004 15:31 Comments ||
Top||
#12
user of NFP (Natural Family Planning)
Geez, how many kids do you have??
Posted by: Rafael ||
05/21/2004 15:34 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Jarhead, good point but there is a VAST difference from wearing a condom (non mortal sin) than taking the life of a baby (very mortal sin). I don't think we should live in a theocracy but how different is the Bishops position from an Iman that tells the faithful to vote one way or the other. There is a separation of church/state INSIDE the state house but not OUTSIDE. The Bishops are trying to influence outside the state house and they have every right to do so. Again if the Dems feel that strongly about it they should switch faiths because the faith isn't going to change for them.
#14
Cyber Sarge - aren't you taking that a little far. You make it sound like religious organizations like the church have a right of free speech.
Posted by: Sam ||
05/21/2004 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
#15
As a lapsed but originally authentic "Protestant" (Baptised Lutheran), could someone explain the difference in the level of "sin" as the Catholic Bishops see it. It seems they aren't threatening no communion over laws allowing condoms e.g., just abortion. It seems its a matter that the other forms of birth control in their mind "aren't destroying life".
I ask this coming from an esentially pro-choice perspective, but would ban partial-brth abortions, and not fund any abortion with tax money.
#16
Seems like a reasonable distinction to treat the two situations differently. Condoms prevent pregnancy, abortions kill babies.
Posted by: Sam ||
05/21/2004 21:04 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Sarge> agreed. I'm not disputing the role of our church vs moskkk tomfoolery w/regards to 1st Amendment. I also do not wish to live in a theocracy. I also don't want the religion (doesn't matter which) of my elected officials from Michigan getting into his voting on the behalf of *all* his constituents. IMO there are not just Catholics among are fellow Americans - our belief system also doesn't always flow w/other christians, etc. Too that end, a politician needs to do his best to represent what's best for all Americans, if that means he votes his consience and it goes to the letter w/his church teachings - then so be it. If not, then that's fine to. Let's not be naive, the Catholic Church sees things through it's own prizm, and that's to be expected. On the same token, they don't take into account all Americans as all Americans are obviously not Catholic, thus, many American don't buy into *our* Catholic beliefs. As my first post said, the church has every right to deny communion. I don't take issue w/that. The issue for me comes in when statements are made that Catholics who don't follow church doctrine to the letter are not really Catholic and should find another church. Too broad of a statement imho and prolly one reason we have so many fallen away Catholics.
In regards to Kerry, he should have expected being so openly pro-choice and now playing 'the big Catholic' would cause tension w/the clergy. I think the church's original letter to him was along the lines "if you continue to vote for pro-choice measures we will withold the sacrament of communion from you". He was already warned, if he goes against their beliefs then they have the right to do what they have to do and he should respect that.
BigEd & Sam>Depends on the diocese one belongs to and if your a politician - how openly you disagree w/whatever aspect of church doctrine. According to Vatican II (afaik) openly promoting contraception & having voluntary sterilization (i.e. tubule ligation or vasectomy, I know a bunch of Catholic Marines who are in deep sh*t w/that one) are big no-nos. Definitely not the same as abortion as that is considered a mortal sin as Sarge noted above. Though a Jones Study on Catholics in 2002 found that 53% of Catholics were actually pro-choice, another 90% support contraception, & I believe 60% or so viewed divorce differently from the church - for whatever that's worth. Personally I think the church will have to modernize to some degree or face losing more congregational members. For the record, my wife & I are Catholic and so is my son, I have my own beliefs that do not coincide w/the church & I'm man enough to stand up for them, but overall the Catholic church does a good job imho (minus the sex scandal) and they will always have my support in the big picture. If anyone was to tell me they bought everything any religion taught hook, line, and sinker I'd say good for them but good or bad & based on the shit I've seen go down in my own life and in the military that ain't for me.
#18
Raf - three in 15 years of marriage all intetional except the first. It was our honeymoon, the Pocanos are expensive. I wanted my money's worth.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/22/2004 3:53 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Jarhead, let me clarify. I am a convert after all so I am often confused by my fellow Catholics. I am not calling for the excommunication of all sinners or persons who disagree with the Church on various issues. I don't understand why many Catholic politicians are publically telling their Bishops and the Pope to jam it.
Wouldn't it be more sensible to arrange a meeting with the Bishop and iron the issue out. It seems as if they are trying to make political hay out of thumbing their nose at the Catholic Church. Why are they inviting the press to accompany them to church for a photo op?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/22/2004 4:01 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
