Good thing Dick Cheney wasn't with her or Santa would be dead too...
Filed under The Public Square
Tagged as blogging, common man, communication, free thinking, Populists, Progressives
Once possible way to do a little good in the world?
If old people ran the internet —
I’m a Jayhawk fan. I like this. 🙂
Recently, there have been comments on the Opinion Line regarding Sarah Palin’s cruelty to animals. One person went so far as to say God gave humans dominion over the animals – so it is okay to kill them.
One person went so far as to ask the question – where do people think that wrapped meat in the grocery store comes from?
What I want to know is this – when Sarah Palin shot and killed those wolves from the helicopter – was she just hunting for her supper that night or did that wolf meat wind up in some grocery store all wrapped up in a nice saran package?
An interesting article on some Einsenhower papers that were found in some remote cabin after all these years.
Somehow it is prophetic as to how Eisenhower was concerned about the military industrial complex during his time and our current military industrail complex. I suspect Eisenhower would not be too pleased.
It seems Ambassador Holbrooke’s final words were about the need to stop the Afghanistan war.
I wonder how our current military industrial complex feels about that?
Why wasn’t this guy fired from his job? If I intentionally tripped one of my coworkers or a customer, I would be fired on the spot (and appropriately deserved).
This is one of the reasons we have such bullies in our society. So what, this guy gets a fine and a suspension. Big deal – he gets a big fat paycheck so money is no object for him.
Effectively, Alosi was fired. It doesn’t excuse the Jets for not actually firing him, but that is the Jets MO. Suspended without pay for the balance of the season and playoffs, fined $25K and no contact with the team or at the facilities pretty much means gone.
My issue with this situation is not so much with Alosi, however, it is with the Head Coach. If you look at the replay, you’ll see four or five non-players lined up along the sideline, shoulder to shoulder. That is no accident, as it has been seen on other punt plays.
On a punt, only the two outside defenders are allowed down the field until the ball is kicked. They are called “gunners” and are generally the fastest players on the punt team. The receiving team will try to push these guys out of bounds as they run down the field. That line-up on the sideline is meant to imped the return to the field of the gunners after they are pushed out. Alosi and company were there for a reason – illegal and unsportsman-like – but it was no accident or coincidence.
The Jets, and several other teams, have been filmed doing this. Now the league is cracking down, but Alosi is just the first to take it beyond the intent and actually try to injure the opponent.
Football is a violent sports, but “intent to injure” does not belong in the game.
Is effectively fired anything like Bill Clinton trying to redefine the word ‘is’?
I think the entire situatin stinks up to high heaven. And you brought up an excellent point – look at the entire team and the head coach.
But this is what is expected when that much money flows in and out like it does football.
My concern is – what message does this send to all those kids that are growing up to think it is okay to trip somebody – as long as the rest of your team stands by you and wink-wink you’re suspended but not fired?
It is a term that I first heard used about the Vietnam war, “a stalling War”.
There is no intent to win it is to continue it until the enemy finally grow too tired or runs out of assets to continue.
It does mean that American soldiers will continue to die and the drain on the economy too.
But also that the Military/industrial complex will continue to profit.
Amoral yes, an abuse of the people yes.
I copied and pasted this section from the Holbrooke link I posted above. I think the last paragraph sums up all the wars since Vietnam – they have been political wars for profit. We are in the business of nation building and not our national defense – in my opinion.
“Holbrooke was a young provincial representative for the U.S. Agency for International Development in South Vietnam and then an aide to two U.S. ambassadors in Saigon. At the Johnson White House, he wrote one volume of the Pentagon Papers, an internal government study of U.S. involvement in Vietnam that was completed in 1967.
The study, leaked in 1971 by a former Defense Department aide, had many damaging revelations, including a memo that stated the reason for fighting in Vietnam was based far more on preserving U.S. prestige than preventing communism or helping the Vietnamese”
Jon Stewart has a new rule for Republicans: block health care for 9/11 first responders, and you don’t get to exploit 9/11 for political gain anymore. Period. End of story.
Oh, oh…..does that mean Rudy Guliani cannot run for president this time?
And speaking of Pentagon Papers and that infamous leaker – did you all see/hear the news about Julian Assange being granted bail?
Things could get interesting if anything happens to Assange while he is out on bail.
I heard $300,000 was raised by his supporters for the bail and he has been given the offer to live at some Journalism Club while out on bail. Of course, that was reportedly where Assange was living for those weeks he was on the run and nowhere to be found. Hmmmmm…
Just out of curiosity, how many women go hunting wearing full makeup and with their hair done?
Only in Alaska?
THe only person I knew that would have, had she gone hunting, was my maternal grandmother. She hardly left the bedroom first thing in the morning, without being completely dressed, and that meant hair done, nylons on, and a modicum of makeup.
Other than that, only on TV
The only difference between my reply and that of itoldyouso is that it would have been my paternal grandmother.
Are you asking in general or just women?
And how many women who go hunting has a camera crew with them?
Only those women pandering to the Right to Bear Arms Righties.
Is it only a coincidence Palin was also in Haiti with that humanity mission? And didn’t Palin call for a US military airlift while there? Where is that in the Constitution to use our military for anything but our national defense?
If you’re going to proclaim to be a Purist Constitutionalist – then at least try to be one.
This is the link talking about the US military airlift to Haiti. How telling is it that she was with Franklin Graham, the televangelist who should have his own resources to get Haiti the much needed supplies Palin feels is needed.
I am not suggesting Haiti does not need help, but first I would like to know what happened to those millions that Haiti was given last January when the earthquake hit?
Oh – oh.. here we go again with the Religious Right bound to go ape over this news.
On one hand you’ve got AIDS and then the other hand you’ve got STEM CELL treatment. Those are two of the major issues the Religious Right are notorious for hating so much…
I still rememer an Opinion Line comment on World AIDS Day that was less than kind and, of course, blamed the victims for their disease. After all, it was due to their sinful behavior, you know.
That is another thing Ronald Reagan handled wrong. If he would have been a real president instead of some man pandering to the Religioius Right, our country’s reaction and proactive response to the AIDS episdemic would have had an entirely different result. Instead, Reagan bowed to the Religious Right and kep the hateful judgemental rheteoric as the mantra of the day.
Looks like this was using adult stem cells, which I don;t believe the “religious right” care about
Actually, the Religious Right lost their credibility on anything scientific because if they truly don’t believe in messing with stem cells – then they would never use fertility treatment clinics and then allow their frozen embryos to be thrown out in the garbage rather than using them for research.
But, again, those RR’s like to cherry pick the things they want and demonize all others.
Robert Reich, saying what I’ve been thinking, much more articulately than I ever could:
David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director, was just on Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC and said we cannot afford the tax cuts because family-paying wage jobs are not being created. We have created alot of low-paying, part time jobs – but the better jobs, which actually pay to feed, house and clothe a family are not being created.
BTW – Stockman also talked about the wealth of today is not exactly real wealth – it only looks good on paper.
Kinda like those home prices during the housing bubble – just because a market-driven push to inflate prices does not mean the houses are worth that much money.
It is all a big shell game. And then we bailed out the Wall Streeters that invented the shell game.
Doesn’t look good for the the future of America when we keep repeating the same mistakes.
It is why I knew the economy would collapse the vast majority of it was nothing but numbers on a piece of paper. Very little real and tangible value behind it, more like if you sold this is would be bring this much on the market. Of course that market fluctuated and the real value solely depended on the given day and sometimes on the time of day it would be sold?
but it was treated as a solid price with no variance on paper. It is how someone’s worth is said if they sold everything this is how much money they would have.
The value of those bundled loan was based on everyone of them being good and what their pay off would be. Of course the problem was that not all of them would mature so there would be some loss.
You would bet on how many would mature and buy based on that figure.
Will so many of those who would gamble also borrowing against what they owned.
The end result is that their actual worth was not solely theirs and if as it did all fall at once there would be a vacuum left.
Too many were borrowing using their thought of wealth several times on the gamble that all could be paid back. Meanwhile they actually had only one piece of collateral for all those loans.
So when called, there were several outstand loans would end up with nothing to use or sell to recover the money out.
The economy was acting as if it was impossible to fail.
I would accuse the President of also falling victim to the same financial faulted thinking.
Its creation happened so long ago that if you took economic in college you would have been taught the faulted theory of tickle down and supply side economics.
That all wealth and the cause and flow comes from the top down such as Wall street.
While the real cause and flow comes from the bottom up, that is what supports the economy.
I heard an analogy recently that is fitting about watering a tree.
The prevailing concept was watering from the top down while it is actually the roots of the tree that is what supports the top. So that water should have been poured to the bottom instead of to Wall street and the likes of AIG.
Your analogy of the tree roots is so good. When has nature ever produced something that is sustainable from the top down?
But, that trickle down theory sounds good to those on top – and they aim to keep it that way!
Trickle down had the same failing as did the idea of Socialism and Communism.
On paper it sounds good, but when you add in the human factor it brings out the worst in people.
In right thinking, the better a company does the more it should pass down to those that actually make it possible for the company to produce and prosper.
The CEO of Boeing can set in his office all day shoving papers from one side of his desk to the other.
Look at pie charts till his eyes go red, but none of it is what makes one red cent for the company.
It is the worker that puts in the five rabbets in the left wing, the worker who strings the wiring harness from the control panel to the rear of the cable. They are the one who enable the company to make a profit.
They should see and receive benefits from any profit the company shows.
But then the human factor slips in, the most money the company can show the more success it can demonstrate. This means it is not in the company’s interest to share any more money out of the corporate bank account.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Sign me up!