Feed on

Have I the right

The Honeycombs:

Protect the yet-to-be-born

I like the way she thinks:

(Newser) – Georgia state Rep. Yasmin Neal introduced a tongue-in-cheek bill today that would ban all vasectomies in the state, except when medically necessary. “It is patently unfair that men avoid the rewards of unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly,” the bill reads.

The bill comes as Georgia’s legislature is considering banning abortions for women after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

“It is the purpose of the General Assembly to assert an invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men,” Neal’s bill asserts. Of course, Neal tells CNN, she doesn’t actually oppose vasectomies; she’s just making a point. Her bill cribs some language directly from the abortion bill. “If we legislate women’s bodies, it’s only fair that we legislate men’s,” she reasons. But the abortion bill’s author chided Democrats for not taking the abortion debate seriously, calling it “a poor attempt at humor.”

Then and now

Russ Baker wonders how far Bill O’Reilly will go with his new book on the Kennedy assassination:

Let’s compare the nature of O’Reilly’s current bestseller fare, and the media’s receptivity to it, with journalism done some years back, again on the JFK assassination—by the very same Bill O’Reilly. The earlier work had some major, groundbreaking revelations—and legitimate, very hot content, based on reporting conducted in the early 1990s. It will come as a surprise, because most of us never heard about the show’s revelations—not at the time, and not since. There’s a reason: the highly disturbing, even threatening evidence of a mostly unexplored link between Oswald and U.S. government agents.

Watch Bill O’Reilly below, back when he hosted the syndicated television show Inside Edition:

Key excerpts:

“O’REILLY: Living in Dallas, Oswald was befriended by Russian-born George de Mohrenschildt. Investigators determined he was a contract agent for the CIA in Central America and the Caribbean. In 1977, moments before he was to be interviewed by House investigators, de Mohrenschildt blew his brains out with a 20-gauge shotgun. House investigators believe he was a crucial link between the CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald.

There is no question that the sealed JFK Files are extremely embarrassing for the CIA. House investigators have told Inside Edition that the Agency did not fully cooperate in their investigation and that the CIA had final say in the final report that the House Assassinations Committee made public. Thus the public report makes no mention of the CIA’s links with Lee Harvey Oswald. But the secret documents are another story.

…House investigators uncovered evidence that the CIA planted nine agents inside the Garrison investigation to feed him false information and to report back to Langley what Garrison was finding out.

That was explosive content, and O’Reilly was prepared for major press interest in this scoop. That’s not, however, the way things played out.  Jerry Policoff, who interviewed O’Reilly back in those days for an article in the alternative  newsweekly The Village Voice remembers:

“He thought the piece was so important that he held a press conference to promote it.  Of course no mainstream media showed up.  He expressed his astonishment to USA Today, and I interviewed him as a follow-up.  He repeated to me that he could not understand how the media could not even show up at a press conference on such an important issue.

Ok –so that was Bill O’Reilly back then, in the 1990s, before he became a breakout star. Will O’Reilly’s new Kennedy book really tell us why he died?

Not likely, if we consider what it took for O’Reilly to make it big-time.

One pundit, who used to appear on Fox a lot in O’Reilly’s first years there. recalls a producer mentioning that O’Reilly wanted to continue doing JFK assassination reports, but that network chief Roger Ailes and other top management “kept stepping on the story.”

Years later, O’Reilly is on a roll that is likely to continue—provided he plays his cards right.

The lesson is this: Listen to the higher-ups, don’t step on the wrong toes, and you, too, can make it to the top.

Uh huh

No comment:

(CNN) — A self-proclaimed animal rights activist in Ohio has been charged with soliciting a hit man to kill a random person wearing fur, either by shooting the individual or slitting his or her throat.

Meredith Lowell, 27, of Cleveland Heights, is accused of creating a phony Facebook profile with the intention of contacting a would-be killer, according to the affidavit filed in an Ohio district court.
Lowell allegedly posted on the social media website the following request: “I would like to create an online community on facebook which would allow me to find someone who is willing to kill someone who is wearing fur toward the end of October 2011 or early November 2011 or possibly in January 2012 or February 2012 at the latest.”

An undercover FBI agent then contacted her, posing as a hit man after the agency subpoenaed Facebook to uncover details about her profile.

She then allegedly requested that the murder take place at a local library and that she be present so that she could then hand out documents about animal cruelty after the homicide.

“Bring a sharp knife that is at least 4 inches long, it should be sharp enough to stab someone with and/or to slit their throat to kill them,” Lowell allegedly wrote in an e-mail, according to the affidavit.

The individual should be at least 12 years old, but “preferably 14 years or older,” Lowell allegedly wrote.
“I want the person dead in less than 2 minutes (under 2 minutes or 1 minute or less would be better.)”

Moral high ground

Shorter David Pogue:

Hey, at least they don’t have to give blowjobs!

Boohunney is a longtime reader and commenter from the Great State of Georgia. She’ll be checking in occasionally.

Dear Cheryl:

I MUST respond to your social media rant that having a gas hog is an ‘merican right offline.

In the past, freedom was not free. And it wasn’t meant to fill cars up with gas or for commodities. It WAS about freedom. In WWII people had to recycle, grow victory gardens, men were DRAFTED (and BTW, I am FOR reinstating the draft), gas was rationed (OMG! In our lifetime they talked about it during the embargo in the 1970’s.) Textiles went to the military first, so dungarees were expensive and the patches that were on your own clothes were worn with pride. People volunteered. Women rolled bandages and were members of the Red Cross.

I could go on. But, it seems to me ‘mericans think being supportive of FREEDOM is buying a magnetic yellow ribbon from China for a huge old hunky gas hog and wars are fought to keep a few folks rolling in dough.
Just sayin’.

With all due respect,


P.S. Bowling with Sherri Stately Ayers next week? Call me!

Dancing with them what brung ’em

Dave Johnson continues to do incredibly good work. I wish someone would offer him a high-visibility job somewhere:

This new election-funding system has our candidates trolling for billionaire and corporate dollars instead of coming up with policies and positions that serve the people. Did you think Republicans were talking about billionaires as “job creators” because it would get them votes? No, it is because vain, wealthy, greedy billionaires like to be described that way, and those politicians are trying to get them to loosen their wallets. Even if they lose the election they are looking for rewards — lucrative jobs — later.

Even if they aren’t trolling for billionaire bucks, they still dare not offend. These super PACs are in the business of running nasty, negative ads, and lots of them. Politicians want them on their side and not on the other side. So they are much, much less likely to oppose policies that favor the billionaires and their big corporations.

Did you think the country needs an oil pipeline that runs from our northern border all the way across the country to Gulf Coast ports, to help Canadian oil companies sell to China? No, this is about politicians getting big checks from oil companies.

President Obama OK’d a super PAC. A week later he comes out with a proposal to cut corporate taxes from 35% to 25%. Coincidence? And Obama’s tax-reform plans pale in comparison to what billionaire-and-corporate-backed Republicans are proposing. Both parties are proposing rewriting the tax codes to favor the billionaires and their giant corporations.

Go read the whole thing.

The predictable president

Charlie Pierce sums up the compulsive compromising of the Obama administration:

There was never any doubt that, in a great many instances, Barack Obama was going to accommodate and compromise because that’s the way the man’s built. He took a dive on telecom immunity in July before he was elected. That should have been a caveat emptor moment for everyone.

While running for his first term as president, on a campaign speech in Columbus, Ohio, FDR said:

“It was the heyday of promoters, sloganeers, mushroom millionaires, opportunists, adventurers of all kinds. In this mad whirl was launched Mr. Hoover’s campaign. Perhaps foreseeing it, a shrewd man from New England, while in the cool detachment of the Dakota hills, on a narrow slip of paper wrote the historic words, ‘I do not choose to run.'”

I can’t recall Barack Obama’s ever saying anything that direct or harsh in 2008, either about the incumbent, or about the situation in which the incumbent was handing over the country to him. (I don’t recall him saying anything that harsh and direct about anything or anyone, ever.) The moment of that election desperately needed — hell, demanded — an FDR, but there was no FDR on offer. Anyone who was listening to Barack Obama and thought they heard FDR was tuned into his own private frequencies. Handed an economic catastrophe a month before his election, and then governing through the worst of it in the early days of his administration, he sought consensus because that’s the most basic instinct in him, and, alas, consensus was that claque of Wall Street Magi whom he brought aboard. Not good, but entirely predictable.

So what now? There are some signals that the president is realizing consensus is impossible with an opposition made up primarily of Bible-banging pyromaniacs, and that, anyway, consensus is not always a desirable goal in and of itself. (His reflexive proposal to cut the corporate tax today, however, is not a good sign. He’s bidding against Mitt Romney on Romney’s home turf, on an issue that will not resonate with any great mass of Democratic voters at all.) His chances of being re-elected are better than they were a year ago, but it’s still going to be a long pull up a dirt road to get to 270 electoral votes. Once in that dreary effort, I’d like to hear all the eloquence that made him a star edged with the faintest amount of vitriol, just a dollop of scorn to liven it up. The country deserves that. A little more consensus and we might all go down together.

I love this song!





And the foreclosure crisis.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »