Ewww and hahaha

Richter Reminder
 

Small rumbles and an earthquake predicting cat that remind me I live in earthquake country, and someday may own ocean front property. :cigar2:

Region: GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIF.
Geographic coordinates: 33.783N, 118.131W
Magnitude: 3.7 Ml
Depth: 21 km
Universal Time (UTC): 5 Nov 2010 16:06:37
Time near the Epicenter: 5 Nov 2010 09:06:37


Location with respect to nearby cities:
3 km (2 miles) SE (133 degrees) of Long Beach, CA
4 km (3 miles) ESE (119 degrees) of Signal Hill, CA
5 km (3 miles) WNW (301 degrees) of Seal Beach, CA
32 km (20 miles) SSE (160 degrees) of Los Angeles Civic Center, CA

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/...cbaKV/610x.jpg

Sabine:

I think that there is as little chance of your responding to this as there was you admitting you were wrong about the Shirley Sherrod blow-up over the Summer but I'm going to put this out there at any rate.

Why did you post a lie? Because what you posted was a lie. This isn't a matter of interpretation and it isn't a matter of being off by a few thousand dollars. What you posted was a lie and I'm curious as to why you did so. It took me all of about 15 minutes to debunk your lie so I'm curious were you simply too lazy to do the research yourself, figuring that someone like me would do your homework for you, did you not even have a moment of "that figure seems a bit high" or were you SO gleeful at being handed a stick with which you could poke liberals that it never even occurred to you to actually fact-check this? I ask because this behavior is genuinely perplexing to me.

It seems as if you do not CARE if something is empirically true. Or perhaps you do not realize that, all the rhetoric you may have learned in humanities classes at university to the contrary, there IS such a thing as reality. EITHER this trip is going to cost $200 million per day or it is not. EITHER there will be 34 warships off the coast of India or there will not. These are matters subject to empirical verification. You do not get to interpret that 10 warships that are on station in the Indian Ocean as part of a the normal deployment of the 7th fleet is somehow 34 warships that are being sent to the region for the purpose of Mr. Obama's trip. Either they are there on normal deployment or they are there because of this trip. Either there are 34 ships or there is a number other than 34.

Now, the chances are that you will do what you did with the Shirley Sherrod incident and just pretend that you never posted a lie--and it was a lie that Ms Sherrod's speech was racist gloating. If so, I'm curious why you want us to think that you are either dishonest, gullible or lazy. Because it has to be one of those three. If you knew what you were posting was inaccurate but posted it anyway, you're deliberately posting a lie which makes you mendacious. If you didn't realize that what you were posting was a lie but posted it anyway, that means you were gullible. If you weren't sure about the veracity of the claim but didn't take the time to verify it before posting it, you were lazy. There are no OTHER generous interpretations of your actions. I suppose you might rejoin that you just don't give a damn but if that is the case that really puts you in the category of dishonest. At which point why should we take ANYTHING you say as having any weight what-so-ever?

Like I said, it's highly unlikely that you will respond to this because you seem to lack the courage of your convictions but I would be fascinated to know by what core conservative belief do you base your posting of lies--and whether you knew it or not what you posted was a lie--and why you would consider dishonesty an honorable thing.

And if you feel you must report me for saying you posted a lie, so be it. When you can demonstrate that this $200 million figure is anywhere NEAR close then I will stop calling it a lie but until such time as you do so, I'm not going to pretend that you get to have an opinion about WHAT amount is being spent. You don't, I don't. An actual dollar amount is being spent, that dollar amount is a matter of empirical fact and not subject to opinion. You have every right to an opinion, you have no right to your own set of facts.

Cheers
Aj

Country's first out transgender judge.
 

California voters elect country's first transgender judge

NEWS
Published 11/04/2010

Transgender judicial candidate Victoria Kolakowski made history Tuesday night, becoming the country's first out transgender judge.

According to unofficial returns Wednesday morning, Kolakowski had garnered 115,570 votes or 50 percent of the total, giving her a 3,329-vote lead over her opponent, Alameda County Deputy District Attorney John Creighton, for the Alameda County Superior Court's Office #9.

With an unknown number of ballots remaining to be counted, Creighton has yet to concede the race and a final count isn't expected until Friday at the earliest. But Kolakowski was cautiously optimistic that her lead would hold and she would be sworn into office in early January.

"I've got the lead and it looks really good, but it is not 100 percent. It is not in the bag yet," Kolakowski told the Bay Area Reporter early Wednesday morning. "When the final votes are counted, I think I will have won."

Yet the congratulatory calls were already coming in and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which helped Kolakowski raise money for her campaign, featured her on a call with its major donors Wednesday.

Her campaign had attracted national attention, with the mainstream media playing up the history-making potential of her campaign. But Kolakowski said voters paid little attention to her transgender status and were more focused on her resume. Victoria (Vicky) is married to Cynthia Laird, the news editor of the Bay Area Reporter newspaper.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plu...suspended.html

Keith Olbermann has been suspended “indefinitely without pay” for making campaign donations to three Democratic candidates. In a statement, network president Phil Griffin said, “I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.” According to a report in Politico, the host of Countdown gave the maximum legal contribution ($2,400) to Arizona congressman Raul Grijalva, Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and Kentucky attorney general Jack Conway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-pf..._b_779496.html

Here's an article talking about how the whole "Obama's trips are costing a Bazillion Farillion dollars!!!!!" thing is "not based on any kind of factual evidence whatsoever.

I enjoyed Rachel Maddow's little rant on her show regarding this. Basically she said that it's now impossible to debunk lies and rumours started by the crazies at Fox News and their friends - because they are all confirming the lies and rumours FOR EACH OTHER to such a degree that it becomes as good as fact.

linkarinkaroo

Second video down (at this moment, anyway) titled: Echoing falsehoods still don't ring true.

See, I just don't know how I feel about this.

I'm bummed out, for sure. I enjoy his show and I will be sad without it.

OTOH....well. If it is in fact in their rules and in his contract that they not donate to any political campaigns without permission...then what could he expect? If I break the rules at my job, even ones that I think are stupid, I get fired. That's just how having a job and having a contract that you sign works.

It still really sucks, though.

Cops Wife Doesn't Remain Silent
 

Dear Mom, There is another one just like you. What a nice link a friend sent me and I wanted to post is somewhere. It touched my heart, and I want to share with those that know. I had a Mom just like Boo's.

In your honor :fastdraq:, your lil cowboy

RIP Mom
Nov. 2, 1990:rose:


""Nerdy Apple Bottom says My Son's Gay""

Or he’s not. I don’t care. He is still my son. And he is 5. And I am his mother. And if you have a problem with anything mentioned above, I don’t want to know you.

I have gone back and forth on whether I wanted to post something more in-depth about my sweet boy and his choice of Halloween costume. Or more specifically, the reactions to it. I figure if I’m still irked by it a few days later, I may as well go ahead and post my thoughts.

Here are the facts that lead up to my rant:

1. My son is 5 and goes to a church preschool.
2. He has loved Scooby Doo since developing the ability and attention span to sit still long enough to watch it.
3. Halloween is a holiday and its main focus is wearing a costume.
4. My son’s school had the kids dress up, do a little parade, and then change out of costumes for the rest of the party.
5. Boo’s best friend is a little girl
6. Boo has an older sister
7. Boo spends most of his time with me.
8. I am a woman.
9. I am Boo’s mother, not you.

So a few weeks before Halloween, Boo decides he wants to be Daphne from Scooby Doo, along with his best friend E. He had dressed as Scooby a couple of years ago. I was hesitant to make the purchase, not because it was a cross gendered situation, but because 5 year olds have a tendency to change their minds. After requesting a couple of more times, I said sure and placed the order. He flipped out when it arrived. It was perfect.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...45_468x498.jpg
Then as we got closer to the actual day, he stared to hem and haw about it. After some discussion it comes out that he is afraid people will laugh at him. I pointed out that some people will because it is a cute and clever costume. He insists their laughter would be of the ‘making fun’ kind. I blow it off. Seriously, who would make fun of a child in costume?

And then the big day arrives. We get dressed up. We drop Squirt at his preschool and head over to his. Boo doesn’t want to get out of the car. He’s afraid of what people will say and do to him. I convince him to go inside. He halts at the door. He’s visibly nervous. I chalk it up to him being a bit of a worrier in general. Seriously, WHO WOULD MAKE FUN OF A CHILD IN A COSTUME ON HALLOWEEN? So he walks in. And there were several friends of mine that knew what he was wearing that smiled and waved and gave him high-fives. We walk down the hall to where his classroom is.

And that’s where things went wrong. Two mothers went wide-eyed and made faces as if they smelled decomp. And I realize that my son is seeing the same thing I am. So I say, “Doesn’t he look great?” And Mom A says in disgust, “Did he ask to be that?!” I say that he sure did as Halloween is the time of year that you can be whatever it is that you want to be. They continue with their nosy, probing questions as to how that was an option and didn’t I try to talk him out of it. Mom B mostly just stood there in shock and dismay.

And then Mom C approaches. She had been in the main room, saw us walk in, and followed us down the hall to let me know her thoughts. And they were that I should never have ‘allowed’ this and thank God it wasn’t next year when he was in Kindergarten since I would have had to put my foot down and ‘forbidden’ it. To which I calmly replied that I would do no such thing and couldn’t imagine what she was talking about. She continued on and on about how mean children could be and how he would be ridiculed.

My response to that: The only people that seem to have a problem with it is their mothers.

Another mom pointed out that high schools often have Spirit Days where girls dress like boys and vice versa. I mentioned Powderpuff Games where football players dress like cheerleaders and vice versa. Or every frat boy ever in college (Mom A said that her husband was a frat boy and NEVER dressed like a woman.)

But here’s the point, it is none of your damn business.

If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot. Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.

If my daughter had dressed as Batman, no one would have thought twice about it. No one.

But it also was heartbreaking to me that my sweet, kind-hearted five year old was right to be worried. He knew that there were people like A, B, and C. And he, at 5, was concerned about how they would perceive him and what would happen to him.

Just as it was heartbreaking to those parents that have lost their children recently due to bullying. IT IS NOT OK TO BULLY. Even if you wrap it up in a bow and call it ‘concern.’ Those women were trying to bully me. And my son. MY son.

It is obvious that I neither abuse nor neglect my children. They are not perfect, but they are learning how to navigate this big, and sometimes cruel, world. I hate that my son had to learn this lesson while standing in front of allegedly Christian women. I hate that those women thought those thoughts, and worse felt comfortable saying them out loud. I hate that ‘pink’ is still called a girl color and that my baby has to be so brave if he wants to be Daphne for Halloween.

And all I hope for my kids, and yours, and those of Moms ABC, are that they are happy. If a set of purple sparkly tights and a velvety dress is what makes my baby happy one night, then so be it. If he wants to carry a purse, or marry a man, or paint fingernails with his best girlfriend, then ok. My job as his mother is not to stifle that man that he will be, but to help him along his way. Mine is not to dictate what is ‘normal’ and what is not, but to help him become a good person.

I hope I am doing that.

And my little man worked that costume like no other. He rocked that wig, and I wouldn’t want it any other way.


IF you want to comment the site is below
http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2010/11/...#comment-30080

Anyone have any info on the employment contracts and political contributions at Fox? My guess is that it is just dandy for the likes of Beck to contribute to Palins' Pets, etc.

FOX News contributed a million dollars to the RNC over the summer. Herein lies a principle difference between FOX News and its fans and MSNBC News and its supporters: at FOX it is perfectly acceptable for a news organization to contribute to the political campaign of a party it covers, while at MSNBC that is unacceptable. With FOX News fans/watchers/adherents/partisans this kind of behavior is unquestionably correct. With MSNBC fans/watchers/adherents/partisans, at *best* that kind of behavior is questionable or up for debate.

For the record, while I do not wish to see Mr. Olbermann lose his job over this what he did WAS, in point of fact, a violation of journalistic ethics and he should be disciplined for it.

Cheers
Aj

Well sure, but that is kind of the point.

MSNBC is not Fox News. Some people have started describing them as being the Fox News of the Left (or something like that) so of course they are going to want to keep their political commentators from doing the sort of thing that is considered acceptable at Fox.

Exactly.

Glad it wasn't maddow

Seriously. I wouldn't be able to get out of bed for a week if it was Maddow. :)

It seems from that long post earlier that Aj is feeling rather polysyllabic today :giggle:

I'm quite fine with Olbermann's suspension. The news will hopefully start a conversation about the difference between MSNBC and Faux, between ethical and slimy. If I had a spare fifty bucks, I'd bet it on him having intentionally created this situation.

If the MSM picks up the story (I happened to see it mentioned on CNN, they'll cover it more detail once they generate some giant graphics and collect viewer tweets to read on-air), then perhaps someone will bother to look up this information for us.