Open thread

128 Comments

  1. Posted February 16, 2007 at 1:20 am | Permalink

    Kansas Senate Tries to Improve Integrity of Kansas Elections

    What about the 100,000 Kansas voters without valid mailing addresses?

    An AP story in the Wichita Eagle today explained that the”Senate passes election ID bill over claims of ‘poll tax’.”http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/state/16708968.htm

    The Kansas Senate is proposing stricter rules for voting in Kansas. One would need to show an ID every time to vote, and proof of citizenship to register to vote. Is this a big deal?

    According to the Eagle, Senator Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, said”This bill doesn’t prevent any resident from casting a ballot even if they don’t have ID. The question is, will it count?”However, Senator David Haley, D-Kansas City, complained the new requirements would discourage voters.

    I don’t understand. I must show TWO IDs to get a job. Once when the company I worked for was sold, I had to show TWO IDs to keep the same job at the same desk because I had a “new” employer. If it takes two IDs to get a legal job in the United States, why is showing a single ID to vote too much to ask?

    The current voter registration system in Kansas is ripe for fraud. Because of Federal Laws, voters cannot be purged from voter registration lists until they miss voting in two presidential elections. Most counties mail voter registration cards to voters with a “do not forward” request to the post office. When these mailings are returned because voters have moved, most counties mark such voters as “inactive” — Federal Law prohibits removal of a voter simply because they don’t live at an address anymore. There is no way to contact these voters by mail, yet they can still vote until they miss two presidential elections. Unfortunately, there are no statewide “rules” about how to handle such “inactive” voters and each county does what they want.

    Using data from the Kansas Secretary of State from Sept 2006, there were 105,156 such “inactive” voters in Kansas. No one can contact these voters by mail, yet these 100,000+ voters can vote without an ID? In Sedgwick County, there were 29,884 such “inactive” in Sept 2006. This process is ripe for fraud yet politicians, especially Democrats, are ignoring the problem. If these 29,884 voters don’t live at their mailing address, there should be no check done before they vote in Sedgwick County elections?In 2004, a “Charles Brian Bradford” registered as a Democrat to vote at the SAME address as the then Johnson County Sheriff Currie Myers. Sheriff Myers complained to the then Johnson County District Attorney Paul Morrison. Morrison did NOTHING and this Democrat is still registered to vote at Myers’ home address. Should anyone be allowed to use your home address for voting purposes when they obviously don’t live in your house? If the Sheriff of Johnson County can’t get this problem fixed at his address, it’s likely the rest of us don’t have a chance. It’s troubling the now Attorney General Paul Morrison as District Attorney did NOTHING to fix this problem after it was reported to him.The Kansas Secretary of State, Ron Thornburgh, could do more to improve the correctness of voter registration data in the state. For example, according to the statewide database a certain voter in “Hill City” lives in Hawaii, likely because the state code for the voter is HI (someone probably started typing “Hill City” a second time) instead of KS. Secretary Thornburgh has done little to ensure data quality is uniform across the state and we have perhaps 105 different sets of rules about how voter data is handled.

    Will the Kansas House follow the lead of the Kansas Senate in trying to improve the integrity of the voting process in Kansas? The real question is whether Governor Sebelius will veto this bill. If she does veto this measure, fraudulent elections in Kansas could be common and we will never know. How do we know now?

  2. Posted February 16, 2007 at 4:51 am | Permalink

    Arizona is just the tip of the iceberg. They raised their minimum wage last month. Sure enough, as conservatives have warned - the job force took a hit.————————”Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they’re cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees.

    And teens are among the first workers to go.

    Companies maintain the new wage was raised to $6.75 per hour from $5.15 per hour to help the breadwinners in working-poor families. Teens typically have other means of support.

    Mark Messner, owner of Pepi’s Pizza in south Phoenix, estimates he has employed more than 2,000 high school students since 1990. But he plans to lay off three teenage workers and decrease hours worked by others. Of his 25-person workforce, roughly 75 percent are in high school.

    “I’ve had to go to some of my kids and say, ‘Look, my payroll just increased 13 percent,’ ” he said. ” ‘Sorry, I don’t have any hours for you.’ ”

    Messner’s monthly cost to train an employee has jumped from $440 to $580 as the turnover rate remains high.

    For years, economists have debated how minimum-wage increases impact the teenage workforce.”—————————http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0210biz-teenwork0210.html

    People losing jobs.

    Good economic planning.

    …..shrug….

  3. Posted February 16, 2007 at 4:54 am | Permalink

    Meadowlark - no one should be able to vote without a confirmed ID in this day and age.

    In some parts of the United States illegal aliens vote.

    That’s not too bright.

  4. Heckler
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 6:52 am | Permalink

    Cultural Marxism

    exerpt.Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class. The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a “long march through the culture.” Additionally, a new proletariat must be created. In his “Prison Notebooks,” he suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities.

    The new battleground, reasoned Gramsci, must become the culture, starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and history. All of these things must be radically transformed and the social and cultural order gradually turned upside-down with the new proletariat placed in power at the top.http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html

  5. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    I was reviewing what was posted last night on several threads.

    Wow.

    The wingnuts really are in full spin mode spiced up with a lot of denial about clear facts. Not just on the botched iraq adventure, but on ALL subjects.

    In fact, it really doesnt seem to matter what the subject is, they have a typical pattern in all their posts. As CF says, wash, spin, repeat.

    And the rational posters are getting angry, which I understand, when facts, reputable sources, and qualified experts are posted, and then ignored or denied by the wingnuts. Of course, the wingnuts think it is funny to post stupid and draw ever more outrageous responses to their denials.

    It is frustrating to post facts, and then have them flatly denied. For some of the newer posters, we call such mindless behavior “this is not a pipe” a phrase coined by the great Rage.

    He said, essentially, but I’m paraphrasing here, that wingnuts will argue all day long that there are no pipes lying on the ground, even though pipes are clearly visible.

    When the rational person walks over and picks up a pipe and SHOWS it to the wingnut, they scoff and say “well, in my mind, that is not a pipe” even though the pipe is two inches from his/her nose.

    Show them a fact, and they argue the semantics. Give them proof, and they flatly deny. Back them into a corner with facts, and they whine about rough language. Or they wrap themselves in the cross and say “god wants it that way”.

    And, like two year olds, the wingnuts think they win with their “god said so” or “bush said so” statements, so they do a little victory dance, taunt the other posters, and dance away until the next post, when their pattern of denial begins anew. (Wash, rinse, repeat)

    The wingnuts, rather than reading and thinking, wear down the more rational posters with their constant, blatent, and childish denial. If they cant win on facts, they just deny ’till they die.

    And expertise and credentials? hehehe. Forget it. If it wasnt said by rush or hannity or oreiley, it just isnt true!

    No wonder those on the “facts and figures” sides of these posts get angry. Such blatent stupidity and mindless denial could piss off jesus.

    Which, I suspect, the wingnuts, with their denial of reality, whether it is iraq or global warming or discrimination or evolution, do on a regular basis…..

  6. anonymous
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    “What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. The market gives people what the people want instead of what other people think they ought to want. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself.

    The essence of political freedom is the absence of coercion of one man by his fellow men. The fundamental danger to political freedom is the concentration of power. The existence of a large measure of power in the hands of a relatively few individuals enables them to use it to coerce their fellow men. Preservation of freedom requires either the elimination of power where that is possible, or its dispersal where it cannot be eliminated.”

  7. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    Great post anon. I like this:

    “What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. The market gives people what the people want instead of what other people think they ought to want.”

    You can see it all over in the wingnut response to the last election. “How DARE voters be against the war. How DARE voters think the republicans are corrupt. How DARE voters elect rational people to the KSBOE.”

    And clearly, “How DARE seventy percent of Americans support withdrawing our troops from iraq”.

    They love the free market. Except when the market doesnt want what THEY want. They love majority rules, unless THEY are in the minority.

    Sucks to be them right now!

  8. Heckler
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    KFG

    Talk about living an illusion.

    “seventy percent of Americans support withdrawing our troops from iraq”

    Yes Americans want the troops out of Iraq, when it’s stable.

    Your statement was technically accurate but incomplete.

  9. fleettwood
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    MIAMI (AFP) - Tim Hardaway, who spent 13 seasons in the NBA, was removed from league-related appearances, one day after an anti-gay tirade on a local radio program.

    Another victory for the PC/Lib crowd, another defeat for free speech.

  10. KSGolfnut
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    Straight from the liberal playbook: pick a small segment of a statement, then present it out of context as fact.

    I can’t help but notice that none of the liberals have commented on GSheridan’s facts regarding Arizona, minimum wage and the loss of jobs.

  11. fleettwood
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    MIAMI (AFP) - Tim Hardaway, who spent 13 seasons in the NBA, was removed from league-related appearances, one day after an anti-gay tirade on a local radio program.

    Another victory for the PC/Lib crowd, another defeat for free speech.

  12. KSGolfnut
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    When the Dixie Twits badmouth our president overseas during a time of war, it’s “Free Speech.”

    When an American voices his own personl preferences, it’s “hate.”

    Th-th-th-that’s liberal thinking, folks.

  13. delores
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    “Nobody in my office ever said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” Douglas Feith 2/12/07————————-”Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from early 1990s to 2003..according to top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by The Weekly Standard. The memo, dated October 27,2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts, and chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.” –The Weekly Standard–11/24/03

    These Republics need better memories.

  14. delores
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    KSGolfnut,

    There is a difference between “free” speech and “hate” speech.

  15. The Truth
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    Truth be told, Tim Hardaway did nothing but make himself look like an ignorant fool. It is his right as an American. Many of you do the same each day, allbeit with a more refined vocabulary.

  16. GMC70
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    Delores:

    Without defending hate speech, nor the hate that is expressed:

    Just in what way is “hate speech” not “free speech?” Are you saying that there are points of view not protected by the 1st Amendment?

  17. fleettwood
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    Hate speech, like hate crime is a silly thing the Libs thought up. Makes no sense.

  18. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    Nutz, your girl sherri has made such an ass of herself here that I guess it doesnt occur to you that maybe she is on ignore for many folks?

    She’s getting the phred phelps treatment. Dont give her the attention she craves, and maybe she will go away.

    Being ignored is the most cruel blow to those seeking attention. No one has a right to a response on this blog. Remember Ian? He was just largely ignored, except for newbies, who quickly learned not to respond to his outrageous posts.

    Besides, she’s boring, and we all see clearly that there is no point in posting facts or expert quotes to counter her bullshit. She’ll just ignore the facts and experts and repeat whatever she said before.

    BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Heheheheheh. Nutz, you might also find people not responding to you either. There is no conspiracy, just bloggers weary of bullshit.

  19. fleettwood
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    I think farmgirl is using hate speech. Where’s a cop when you need one?

  20. fleettwood
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    Has anybody else pulled their money out of Bank of America (aka: Bank of Mexico)?

  21. gster
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    KFG- Right on the money!

  22. Vaughn Tolle
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    fleet, would you not agree, as an abstract thought, that the actions of BoA were nothing more than a reaction to a market not being adequately served?

  23. political_mom
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    No, everyone has freedom of speech, it’s protected. However, there are reprocussions for using it as well there should be.

    If you engage in hateful speech there will be consequences! Imagine if I was at work and I said to the people who support my business loudly “I hate gays”.

    Should I be shocked that most people would turn away from my business? No.

  24. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Thanks gster! Back at ya.

    I thought of you when I was in Austin and listened to a band called the “Mother Truckers” heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh

  25. political_mom
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    Boycott Hershey:

    More outsourcing to line their shareholder’s pockets.

    http://www.modbee.com/business/story/13300376p-13929063c.html

  26. delores
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    You would have to be a victim of a hate crime to understand, Fleettwood.

    Like gays being attacked because their gay or muslims being attacked after 9/11 just because they were muslims.

    And GMC70, sorry I didn’t make my post clear. Of course “hate speech” is apart of “free” speech.

    KSGolfnut,

    I had never heard of the Dixie Chicks until I read in the news what one of them said about Bush. I considered that to be “free” speech that our constitution gives to all Americans. We are still Americans whether we are on our own soil or in a foreign soil.

    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” Excerpt from “Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star” May 7, 1918

    This singer didn’t criticize the war, didn’t criticize how Bush was handling the war, only”Just so you know, we’re ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.”Over on Opinion Line a poster wrote “Someone better check and make sure Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen. Sounds more like a terrorist. While what he wrote was “free” speech, I feel it’s “hate” speech as well.

  27. Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    Al-Qaeda “wing” issues threat to oil installationsdpa German Press AgencyPublished: Wednesday February 14, 2007

    Montreal (dpa)- The Saudi Arabian arm of Al-Qaeda has called for attacks on oil and natural gas facilities in Canada, Mexico and Venezuela, with the goal of destabilizing the US economy, according to a translation published by an American organization that monitors extremist websites. Canada’s National Post reported on the threat Wednesday.The threat was posted in Arabic last week by the Al-Qaeda Organization in the Arabian Peninsula, the group that claimed responsibility for the foiled suicide bombing of Saudi oil installations in Abqaiq last February.The threat was published in the group’s online magazine, called Sawt al-Jihad (Voice of Jihad), according to the US-based Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE) website that monitors such groups.”We should strike petroleum interests in all areas that supply the United States,” said the message translated by SITE.The 56-page magazine which contained the threat message is the group’s 30th issue, but the first to appear since April 2005.According to the US government, Canada is the largest exporter of oil to the United States at approximately 2 million barrels per day. Mexico is second at 1.5 million barrels a day in total exports and Venezuela is fourth at close to 1 million barrels per day.Canada and Mexico also have pipelines sending a constant stream of natural gas to the US.The major oil producing regions of Canada are found in the western provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and off the shores the Canadian Maritime provinces in the east.

    © 2006 dpa German Press Agency

  28. gster
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    KFG- Thanks for the thought.I was born in Texas, but have never made to Austin.

    Did you ever see the lyrics that JM Walker wrote for “that” song?

  29. Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    VT when you consider that all of the 911 terrorists used credit cards to finance the attack, it doesn’t make sense to make it even easier for illegals.

    I know this was directed at mostly Hispanics but it isn’t advertised as such. Anyone can obtain some credibility with a credit card.

    The market shouldn’t always drive businesses. Sometime common sense has to come in somewhere.

    GSheridan, the minimum wage debacle has already started to claim victims. It will only get worse. All senators and congressman should be required to take economics if they are going to make laws that regulate it.

  30. Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    Delores you are absolute right about what Natalie said. It was free speech but did go against what many of their fans believe. In a free market they voted in their own way by not attending concerts or buying their cds. That could be the reason they are ready to make nice now. Without fans a entertainer is unemployed.

    A lot of people, me included, enjoy being entertained but we don’t want it turned into a bully pulpit for the entertainers favorite cause.

  31. political_mom
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    Yes that is why the LIBERAL countries have the highest standard of living. Because of the brutal capitalist economics.

  32. political_mom
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    How do you figure the Dixie Chicks are ready to make nice now? They stuck to their guns and now are more popular than ever.

  33. fleettwood
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    vt-Yes, they serving an underserved market. The illegals. What’s diff between employers hiring them or issuing a credit card? None. It’s called enabling. If they want to issue illegals credit cards (it’s legal?) then fine for them. I have many choices on where to put my money. I have chosen not to put it into BOA.

  34. anonymous
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    I would be interested to learn of the liberal countries with the highest standards of living.

  35. fleettwood
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    pmom-Just how popular are the Dixie Chicks? They are nowhere to be seen on the country music charts. Their tour stunk up the place. Where is this popularity of which you speak?

  36. Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    Well, damn, ass-onymous, you can easily find that using google or wikipedia. The United States barely makes the top ten, btw.

    Here’s where ass-onymous got his latest cut and paste screed: Milton Freidman’s editorial, “The New Liberal’s Creed: Individual Freedom, Preserving Dissent Are Ultimate Goals,” in the Wall Street Journal, May 18, 1961.

  37. Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    Fleetwood, apparently you’ve been living under a rock for the last week or two - the Dixie Chicks just won a Grammy (might have been multiple, can’t quite remember) and are getting to be quite popular again. Although I disagree with some of their views, I still love their music just as I did years ago when they were new artists.

  38. Ben Huie
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    AFN - I think it was FIVE Grammys. And one was for their song (something like ‘not time to make nice’) striking back at the corporate media censors.

  39. delores
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    ksgrm,

    Their fans had every right to stop supporting them but it seemed to me that the radio stations and the talk radio personalities whip up the story into a feeding frenzy. Many of those stations are owned by Clear Channel and we all know that they are big supporters of President Bush.

  40. fleettwood
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    I do live under a rock and I do know of all the Grammys, but where are they on the charts? their tour/ticket sales? The answer is nowhere. I say again, just how popular are they? You know, with country music fans?Answer: Not so much.

  41. Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Here’s some studies attempting to measure either standard of living or quality of living:

    http://www.mercerhr.com/summary.jhtml?idContent=1173105

    World-wide quality of living surveyUnited KingdomLondon, 10 April 2006Zurich scores highest for quality of living, Baghdad ranks lowest

    Cities in Canada, Europe and Australia dominate the top of the rankings

    Honolulu is the highest ranking city in the US; Houston is the lowest

    London remains at position 39; Birmingham and Glasgow both climb one place to joint 55th position

    Zurich ranks as the world’s top city for quality of living, according to a survey by Mercer Human Resource Consulting. The city scores 108.2 and is only marginally ahead of Geneva, which scores 108.1, while Vancouver follows in third place with a score of 107.7. In contrast, Baghdad is the lowest ranking city in the survey, scoring just 14.5.

    The analysis is part of an annual World-wide Quality of Living Survey, covering more than 350 cities, to help governments and multinational companies place employees on international assignments. Each city is based on an evaluation of 39 criteria, including political, social, economic and environmental factors, personal safety and health, education, transport, and other public services. Cities are ranked against New York as the base city, which has an index score of 100.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States

    The standard of living in the United States is one of the top 15 in the world by the standard economist measure of standard of living. Per capita income is high but also less evenly distributed than in most other developed countries; as a result, the United States fares particularly well in measures of average material well being that do not place weight on equality aspects.

    On comprehensive measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States is always in the top ten, currently ranking number eight, though generally ranked lower than the Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Belgium, Canada, Australia, and (until recently) Japan; Canada and Norway have alternately held the top spot for some time. On the Human Poverty Index, however, the US is ranked worst among the selection of 17 wealthiest countries, scoring badly on all counts except for long term unemployment.

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.htmlhttp://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html

    The Human Development Index (HDI), published annually by the UN, ranks nations according to their citizens’ quality of life rather than strictly by a nation’s traditional economic figures. The criteria for calculating rankings include life expectancy, educational attainment, and adjusted real income. The 2006 index is based on 2004 figures.The US is ranked 8th after Scandanavian countries, Canada, Ireland, and Japan.

  42. fleettwood
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    mulva-Would Clear Channel be the same evil corporation that would do anything for a dollar?Want it both ways, again?

  43. RD
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    “I can’t help but notice that none of the liberals have commented on GSheridan’s facts regarding Arizona, minimum wage and the loss of jobs.”

    Aw, gee, sorry, Golf. You need a comment? Okay, but first a question.

    When was the last time you worked for minimum wage and how old were you?

  44. Steven Davis
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    “That could be the reason they are ready to make nice now.”

    Please note that they have a song titled _Not ready to make nice_ on their last album.

    “Where is this popularity of which you speak?”

    How about scooping up 5 grammys?http://www.cmt.com/artists/az/dixie_chicks/artist.jhtml

    Don’t you just love the smell of brain dead conservative fear in the morning. This is what KFG was talking about. By the way girl, you were spot on above.

  45. .morg
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    “I can’t help but notice that none of the liberals have commented on GSheridan’s facts regarding Arizona, minimum wage and the loss of jobs.”

    After 3 quarters of falling gdp it looks like we are entering a recession.gsheridan picks a blurb from some guy with high labor turnover and its the min. wage. What happen to the poor guy when gas went over three dollars a gallon? heat and cooling costs going up still business? need more info?

  46. Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    You can always count on the Blog’s Dumbest Poster Teetwood to substitute wishful thinking for fact.

    Here’s the simple fact from June 2006–

    http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2006-06-07-soundscan_x.htm

    “The Dixie Chicks seem to be proving, at least on the sales front, that controversy can substitute for radio airplay. The trio’s Taking the Long Way, with minimal airplay to boost it, reigns at No. 1 on the Billboard album chart for the second week, selling 271,000 copies, according to Nielsen SoundScan.”

  47. political_mom
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    And there was this little post yesterday:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401397.html

  48. Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    I hate to add to the multiple article links already posted about the Dixie Chicks but here is another:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/16/DDG9IO4RUH1.DTL

    Just because they haven’t gained back many of their original country fans doesn’t mean that they don’t have fans at all. There are people out there who listen to multiple types of music and bands don’t have to cater to just one genre.

  49. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    Aw shucks. Thanks Steven.

  50. RD
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    Fleetwood,

    After an initial setback in sales, the Dixie Chicks are selling strong again. I know that’s hard to take, but their albums are hitting #1.

    Granted, concert ticket sales in the U.S. aren’t as high as they were a few years ago, but they’re soaring in other countries, such as Canada, England, and Australia. (8/2006) Concert sales in the U.S. tend to go up and down with the economy, just like everything else.

  51. Steven Davis
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    This is an article sympathetic to Fleety’s points on the Chicks, but he’ll reject it given its source. Ohhhhh, it is fun to paradox brain dead conservatives in the morning.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/25/arts/music/25sann.html?ex=1306209600&en=646ff1909baf83d7&ei=5088

  52. delores
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    “mulva-Would Clear Channel be the same evil corporation that would do anything for a dollar?Want it both ways, again?”————————-”Many of those stations are owned by Clear Channel and we all know that they are big supporters of President Bush.”

    Ok Fleettwood where in that post did I say that Clear Channel was evil?

  53. delores
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    “mulva-Would Clear Channel be the same evil corporation that would do anything for a dollar?Want it both ways, again?”————————-”Many of those stations are owned by Clear Channel and we all know that they are big supporters of President Bush.”

    Ok Fleettwood where in that post did I say that Clear Channel was evil?

  54. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    Looks to me like it is country music’s loss. I seem to recall they had to cancel some concerts in the deep south, but their tours on both coasts, the northeast, and Canada were sold out within minutes and they had to add extra nights.

    I dont know if I can find the link, but I remember we had this discussion last fall when joe williams tried to make a case that the Dixie Chicks’ career was tanking.

    And, like usual, he was blown out of the water with the facts. And.. big surprise, he continued to deny it! heheheheheheheheheheeheh

  55. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    hee hee hee hee hee hee Delores!

    Apparantly fleetie made a logical jump there that bush supporters are evil. Fleeties post equates to

    CC is evil

    CC is a bush supporter

    All bush supporters are evil (missing piece there)

    THEREFORE: CC IS EVIL

    heheheheheheheh. Wanna bet even fleetie knows in his heart that all bush supporters are evil? To reach his conclusion requires one to assume that!

  56. Posted February 16, 2007 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    From the album “Taking The Long Way,” here are the lyrics to the Dixie Chicks tune, “Not Ready To Make Nice.”

    ———–Forgive, sounds good.Forget, I’m not sure I could.They say time heals everything,But I’m still waiting

    I’m through, with doubt,There’s nothing left for me to figure out,I’ve paid a price, and i’ll keep paying

    I’m not ready to make nice,I’m not ready to back down,I’m still mad as hellAnd I don’t have timeTo go round and round and roundIt’s too late to make it rightI probably wouldn’t if I couldCause I’m mad as hellCan’t bring myself to do what it isYou think I should

    I know you saidWhy can’t you just get over it,It turned my whole world aroundand i kind of like it

    I made by bed, and I sleep like a baby,With no regrets and I don’t mind saying,It’s a sad sad storyThat a mother will teach her daughterthat she ought to hate a perfect stranger.And how in the worldCan the words that I saidSend somebody so over the edgeThat they’d write me a letterSaying that I better shut up and singOr my life will be over

    I’m not ready to make nice,I’m not ready to back down,I’m still mad as hellAnd I don’t have timeTo go round and round and roundIt’s too late to make it rightI probably wouldn’t if I couldCause I’m mad as hellCan’t bring myself to do what it isYou think I should

    I’m not ready to make nice,I’m not ready to back down,I’m still mad as hellAnd I don’t have timeTo go round and round and roundIt’s too late to make it rightI probably wouldn’t if I couldCause I’m mad as hellCan’t bring myself to do what it isYou think I should

    Forgive, sounds good.Forget, I’m not sure I could.They say time heals everything,But I’m still waiting

    —————

  57. fleettwood
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    Billboard has the Chicks at 74.That’s lower than 1.

    mulva- come on. Everybody knows that all corporations are evil.

  58. RD
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    “gsheridan picks a blurb from some guy with high labor turnover and its the min. wage.”

    No kidding, morg. I noticed that, too.

    I’ll agree that the move to raise the minimum wage will hit two areas: teen employment and very small businesses. But I have to look at it this way: If the only way your business can survive is to pay your employees less than a living wage, maybe you should take a closer look at your business. Is it not making enough money? Could it be that the demand for your product or services isn’t as high as it could be? Should you be scaling back anyway?

    Employers had a clue this was going to happen. Before the minimum wage passed the House, several other states had already implemented it.

    Yes, it hurts, but low wages hurt just as much.

  59. delores
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Ricky Martin, who was a headliner at the 2001 inauguration ball for President George W. Bush, has a message for the American commander in chief about war.At a recent concert, the 35-year-old singer stuck up his middle finger when he sang the president’s name in his song “Asignatura Pendiente,” which includes the words, “a photo with Bush.” The gesture last Friday prompted cheers from thousands of fans in the San Juan stadium.”

    Is sticking up your middle finger free speech?

  60. Posted February 16, 2007 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    “Billboard has the Chicks at 74.That’s lower than 1.”

    First of all, that doesn’t mean their not popular. Second of all, after the slump they went through, that’s pretty damn good for any band on a comeback. Third of all, do you realize how many artists they are competing for for that 74? That’s like saying $999,000 isn’t that much money because it isn’t exactly $1 million.

  61. writerdog
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    Heckler, Leo Strauss who is a mentor and hero to many in the Bush cabinet. Taught that religion is a means to control the unwashed masses. But that the ruling class should not be religious as it would hamper them. Giving them a moral code that would prevent them from doing what ever is need to gain what they want.

    http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/commentaries/3024lar_show_strauss.html

  62. Posted February 16, 2007 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    Oops - “they’re” not their. Sorry!

  63. Posted February 16, 2007 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    GSheridan,

    Unlike you, I understand the water issue at Holcomb.

    I can understand that “Wheatland anticipates having about 29,000 acre-feet of water rights available for power plant and other uses” refers to meeting ANNUAL needs.

    8,000 x 3 = 24,000 for “power plants” + 5,000 for “other uses”.http://www.holcombstation.coop/Environmental/water.cfm

    And isn’t plant construction staggered on 1 year intervals? So it’d be 8,000 1st yr, 16,000 2nd yr, and 24,000 3rd thru next 40+ years.

    And I can read a DOE report.See the 7,000 gallons per minute of “Make-up Water” going to the cooling tower in Figure 3, page 3, (300 Kb PDF)http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/IEP_Power_Plant_Water_R&D_Final_1.pdf

    That’s about 11,300 acre-feet per year.

  64. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Facts and all cosmos. Yadda yadda yadda

  65. brian
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    I think it is delores

  66. Steven Davis
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    “It is DIFFICULT to get a man to understand something when his SALARY depends on him NOT UNDERSTANDING it.”

    Upton Sinclair (borrowed by Al Gore)

  67. Heckler
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    writerdog

    Do you reckon that the Founding Fathers would have agreed with Strauss?

    “Giving them a moral code that would prevent them from doing what ever is need to gain what they want.” Does this statement refer to the Ruling Class or the Unwashed?

  68. Posted February 16, 2007 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    It’s hard to know from which particular orifice Teetwood pulled his latest factoid about the Dixie Chicks from (since as a CONservative he don’ need no steekin’ hotlinks).

    But here’s a few more real facts to show how devastating the right wing’s boycott has been so far:

    Biggest one-day sale for tour in music history bringing in over $49 million (867,000 tickets) beating out acts like Madonna and the Rolling Stones.

    An Evening With The Dixie Chicks went gold, platinum, and double-platinum! First ever video sales award for the trio.

    “Landslide” was the most played country song for 2003 according to Broadcast Data System’s surveyThe Top of the World Tour is the #1 country tour of 2003!

    North Amercian leg of the 2003 tour generated $61 million in ticket sales.

    The “Top of the World: Live” concert video was certified platinum!

    From Rolling Stone magazine - The Chicks raked in $39.8 million to rank fourth on the list of 10 musicians who made the most money in 2003.

    Total record sales is over 27 million - more than any other Country group or female group in history for their first three studio releases.

    The first female group in chart history to have three albums debut at #1 (Fly, Home and Taking The Long Way).

    The group’s career total is up to 41 gold, platinum and multi-platinum certifications, including two RIAA Diamond Awards. - 2006

    Taking The Long Way has been America’s #1 Top Country Album for five weeks running and was the nation’s #1 Top Digital Album. - 2006

    http://www.dixiechicksfans.net/thegirls.html

  69. delores
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    “I think it is delores”

    brian,

    I’ll bite, what’s me?

  70. Joe Williams
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Maybe we should impose an Entertainment Windfall Profits Tax.

    Entertainers makes millions and tell us how to live, while we poor people struggle to make ends meat.

    ;)

    The only reason why conservatives attack the Dixie Chicks, because they are an easy target. It’s ridiculous. Conservatives need to grow some balls. They don’t attack Willie Nelson (who is coming to town) or other male entertainers that oppose the Iraq War and speak against Bush. Just the Dixie Chicks.

    As for me? I could care less about the Dixie Chicks. I don’t know any of their songs, I wouldn’t even reconize one song or a picture of any of them if they were seperated and not together, and I don’t listen to country music period. It’s not my musical taste.

  71. RD
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    “Is sticking up your middle finger free speech?”

    1. It certainly is for Dick Cheney.

    2. As long as you aren’t “speaking” to a police officer.

    3. As long as Dubya’s SS agents don’t see it.

    4. As long as your mother doesn’t catch you.

  72. brian
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    “Is sticking up your middle finger free speech?”

    I think it is, Delores.

    (punctuation added this time)

  73. delores
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    RD-thanks for your great reply!

  74. delores
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Ok brian, thanks

  75. writerdog
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    The ruling class, since they are the one in control of the power and with power come the need to be able to do what you want. He also advocated the use of the “Noble lie”, if it is need to accomplish what you want to accomplish. It is morally acceptable to lie if it will grant what you want. The ruling class should advocate religious believes to the unwashed masses, but not to actually believe in religion. It should just be used as a tool.

    Strauss divided people into three classes, “the Ruling class” which has all the real power and control the aspects of life. “the nobles” ( it has been some times since reading it, so it might have been some reference to knights. Sorry) their are not motivated by the gaining of wealth or power. But for the good of others. They feel the need to do the right thing. The last is the “Unwashed masses” which is the majority of people, the average citizen, they are easily entertained, shallow in their thoughts and in need of being controlled.

    For the last, religion is thought to be a way to control them and their actions. By installing a implied sense of right and wrong. That can be used to motivate them and control their actions.

  76. RD
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    WASHINGTON - Democrats pushed a measure critical of President Bush’s Iraq policy to the brink of House passage on Friday, the culmination of an extraordinary four-day debate over a war that has killed more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

    (snip)

    There was no doubt about the outcome of the vote, with nearly all Democrats in favor and as many as two dozen or so Republicans expected to break ranks.(sounds like even some Cons aren’t real pleased with GW.)

    (snip)

    Democrats say the votes are the first step toward forcing Bush to change course in a war that has killed more than 3,100 U.S. troops and lost favor with voters.(FIRST STEP Are ya listening, George?)

    (snip)

    Murtha’s proposal also might block the funding of military operations inside Iran — a measure intended to send a signal to Bush that he will need Congress’ blessing if he is planning another war.

    —-There’s more, but I’ll let y’all read it yourselves athttp://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AmhOCYbewV0FFq8Y4Un4IKEL1vAI/SIG=11vs479a3/**http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070216/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_97

  77. Posted February 16, 2007 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    ‘January Weather Hottest by Far’http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501232.html“Spurred on by unusually warm Siberia, Canada, northern Asia and Europe, the world’s land areas were 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than a normal January,…That didn’t just nudge past the old record set in 2002, but broke that mark by 0.81 degrees, which meteorologists said is a lot, since such records often are broken by hundredths of a degree at a time….The world’s temperature record was driven by northern latitudes.”

    Climate change predicts northern latitudes will warm more than mid-latitudes.

  78. Jed
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    Cosmos,Thanks! That makes me feel so much warmer!

  79. Heckler
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    writerdog

    Thanks for the info. If nothing else the “lite” reading I did on Strauss helped me to better understand the Lefts fixation with Neo-conservativism.

  80. fleettwood
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    rd-We on this side of the aisle are hoping that you people try to cut the funding. It’s a loser for you people, but your hatred for Bush is blinding.

  81. Posted February 16, 2007 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    BDP fleet,

    Your hatred of libs is blinding YOU.

  82. RD
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, Fleet. I stopped reading after ‘you people.’

    ::shrug::

  83. fleettwood
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    Make our day:#1) Cut the funding#2) Begin impeachment

    If you had the courage of your convictions, you would.

  84. gster
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    RD- you’re not alone. Those posts are becoming more like a form letter all the time.

  85. Vaughn Tolle
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    Just got done reading Anna Nicole Smith’s Will on cnn.com (seeing if there was anything worth appropriating in the 21 pages or so thereof). For all of you with nothing to do, go read it and then return, prepared to answer the following question: Given the fact that the only named beneficiary predeceased the decedent, who receives the estate and why. Assume the jurisdiction having probate of the will is the State of Green, the statutes of which are identical to those of the State of Kansas. You may have up to three hours to discuss.

  86. Posted February 16, 2007 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    It all goes to the baby. (2hrs, 59min and 27sec left. Next question)

    Hank

  87. rm6046
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    Hank: You lose! Next?

  88. Vaughn Tolle
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    Hank, you get to try again; my question, as posted, left out the following words: “of the trust established therein” after the word “beneficiary”. Sorry.

  89. Posted February 16, 2007 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    I didn’t read the will, but from the stories that I read before the question was even posted made it sound like the lawyer/companion/baby’s daddy might get it. But then again all of the legalese was really hard to understand so I’m really just guessing.

  90. Posted February 16, 2007 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    I didn’t read the will, but from the stories that I read before the question was even posted made it sound like the lawyer/companion/baby’s daddy might get it. But then again all of the legalese was really hard to understand so I’m really just guessing.

  91. Ben Huie
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    I would guess that it would go to the Grantor of the trust. Failing that I would look to her spouse and then the baby.

  92. rm6046
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    AFM: You didn’t read the will. You’re out!

    Ben: Read the Will. You’re a scientist that I respect. Examine the data before you draw any conclusions. Sorry, buddy, but you’ve missed the boat here.

    Her will was written in 1991, from a California form book, by what I can deem no less than an idiot. Her circumstances have changed radically since 1991. She was screwing a lawyer (apparently), and NOBODY asked whether it was appropriate to review her will/estate in view of the events of 16 years, including her marriage to Mr. Marshall, etc. What the hell is wrong with this picture?

  93. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    My understanding is she specifically excluded any future children or spouses. That means she died without heirs designated by will. So, it goes to next of kin, and because it must “go down” before it can “go up” to the mother, Dannielynn wins, just not through the will.

    Oh, and they appointed a guadian ad litum for the child, who likely could administer the funds until the child is of age. Or appoint someone else to do it.

  94. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    My understanding is she specifically excluded any future children or spouses. That means she died without heirs designated by will. So, it goes to next of kin, and because it must “go down” before it can “go up” to the mother, Dannielynn

    Oh, and they appointed a guadian ad litum for the child, who likely could administer the funds until the child is of age. Or appoint someone else to do it.

  95. Ben Huie
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    Obviously I have not read it. I can’t believe she used a drug-store form! With that kind of money involved …

    Legal malpractice?

  96. gster
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    KFG- If I chnge my name to Dannielynn, will you vouch for me?

    I’ll split it with you!

  97. Posted February 16, 2007 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    BDP Teetwood should look at a newspaper once in awhile.

    I he ever did, he’d see this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/world/middleeast/16cnd-cong.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    House Passes Iraq Resolution With 17 Votes From G.O.P.Sign In to E-Mail or Save ThisPrintReprintsShareDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

    By DAVID STOUTPublished: February 16, 2007WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 — After four days of emotional debate over the extent of presidential powers in wartime and the proper role of Congress, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution today denouncing President Bush’s plan to send more American troops to Iraq.

    The 246 to 182 vote in favor of the non-binding but nevertheless important measure set the stage for a crucial Senate debate on Saturday on how to debate the administration’s Iraq policy, or indeed whether it should be debated at all.

    There had been virtually no doubt about the outcome in the House today, given the Democratic majority in the chamber and the fact that a significant number of Republicans had also signaled their backing for the resolution, which expresses support for American troops but not for their commander-in-chief.

    *****

    Hating Bush–it’s not just for Democrats anymore . . .

  98. rm6046
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    Ben: Exactly what we’ve been talking about all afternoon. Unreal, ain’t it?

    Farmgrl: I understand you being for the “going down” part, but don’t try to explain things you don’t understand.

  99. Vaughn Tolle
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    OK, I cheated, and didn’t give 3 hours. Under the will, the property passes to Stern, as Trustee. Trustee for whom, you may ask? Well, that’s when the courts will get involved. As a testamentary trust (one created by Will), the provisions of the Probate Code will come into play, potentially altering the outcome which might have occurred if the trust was an inter vivos trust.

    First, did the son have any issue? The trust will need to continue for 21 years so that this may be ascertained. (”Rule Against Perpetuities; Failure of Issue; applicable provisions of the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted in Kansas; Kansas statutes on Descent and Distribution”) Assuming no provable issue come forward, then:

    2) To avoid the ‘lapse’ of the gift, the Kansas anti-lapse statute comes into the picture. Basically, this provides that if a named beneficiary under a will predeceases the testator, then the law looks to heirs “within the sixth degree of consanguinity”; in this case, Hank and others suggesting the daughter are somewhat correct, but her interest would remain in trust, I suspect, until the age and other contingencies set out in the instrument are right, as the Court would likely reform the trust to cause the daughter to be a beneficiary.

    But wait: is the Will even valid?

    3) Did the “commitment ceremony” of Stern and the decedent arise to a marriage? Or, in light of the conduct of the parties is there a common law marriage? And, if the two were “married”, was Stern the father of the daughter? If so, then the will is revoked. In that case, under the Kansas law of intestacy, one-half would go to Stern, the other one-half to Dannilynn, her share to be held, managed, administered, and distributed by a fiduciary: in Kansas, a Conservator, subject to the control and direction of the Court. She receives her share at age 18.

    There’s much, much more to a full analysis of the problem; I posted with a bit of the “tongue in cheek” to see if my colleagues would bite, and as a reminder that notwithstanding the headlines, it’s not all that simple. Of course, note that I stuck with Kansas law, as I am without knowledge of the probate law of California, Florida, Texas, or other states where the decedent may have been a resident; generally, however, Kansas law is consistent with most Anglo-American law in this area.

    Thanks to all who played.

  100. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    So how does it work RM? I was quoting the legal eagles on tv news today.

    What is your opinion?

  101. Vaughn Tolle
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    ksfg, you are correct; in determining “heirship”, one goes down the family tree, if possible, before one “goes up” the same.

  102. Posted February 16, 2007 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Did she die intestate? Both Stern and the other guy are claiming to be executors ….?

  103. rm6046
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    Farmgrl: Vaughn just gave you a great “supposition based on probability”, using Kansas statutes as a guidepost. I certainly could do no better. But, considering that we have other states involved, a possible “marriage”, an unexpected ( in 1991) kid, putative “fathers” of the unexpected child — Christ, it’s a first-class “cluster f**k”, if there ever was one. Frankly, dear, your guess is as good as anyone else’s … just remember that’s all it is … a shot in the dark.

  104. KSGolfnut
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Roxie,I don’t think I’ve ever worked for minimum wage.

  105. GMC70
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Vaughn:

    Just saw your “problem.” It gave me law school hives. No thanks.

    I didn’t involve the rule against perpetuities, did it???

    ;-)

  106. Vaughn Tolle
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    GMC, not directly; it does involve (potentially) indefinite failure of issue, however (how’s that for some hives).

    Have a good weekend.

  107. RD
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    Golf,

    Thanks for at least being honest. Now I forget why I asked, so I’ll have to go look. By the time I find it, I may not care anymore.

  108. Posted February 16, 2007 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    “AFM: You didn’t read the will. You’re out!”

    Hmm… RM, it looks like I did pretty darn well considering I hadn’t read the will, I have no knowledge of law (unless you count watching Law & Order), and considering the fact that this case is still open pretty wide with all of the extra surrounding details:)

  109. rm6046
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    AFM: No malice intended. My point is simply that this deal is so incredibly convaluted that no one, even having read the will, such as it is, can make any definitive statements.

    Ben: Malpractice? Drug store? Now that we have gotten through the courtesies and kind references … it’s almost unimaginable that SOMEONE didn’t step in and say, “I know you’re a blonde, but….”. We’re grinning about it, my friend, but it’s tragic. No wonder lawyers are right there next to used-car salesmen in public confidence. This situation is absolutely unconscionable, and this Lund, whoever the hell he is, should be called before the Bar for his actions.

  110. Posted February 16, 2007 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Steven Davis,

    Upton Sinclair’s quote is appropriate.

    This also applies — the “we” being those who deny human-caused GW, want to build new coal plants, etc…

    “Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us.” Henrik Tikkanen

  111. J R
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    The House has finally sent bush a message today. Anoyone wanna call the Senate vote on the resolution opposing bush’s “surge”? I’ll say…..54/46 approving the resolution.

  112. rm6046
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    JR: Right or wrong, it’s a non-binding resolution, which kinda’ rhymes with “Billary mental mastrubation”! So what?

  113. J R
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Hey it sends bush a message. He clearly isn’t connected to reality. Maybe this will be a wake up call for him.

    But I doubt it.

  114. Gene Raston
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    Ksfarmgirl, that must mean that when you hit someone with a pipe the liberal will tell you it is the victims fault for not “talking” to the agressor. The victim should let the agressor hit the victim several more times and the victim should try again to talk to the agressor. Let the agressor hit the victim a couple of more times and then give the agressor taxpayer funded alledged “help” as to why he is the agressor. Remember it is the fault of society that the agressor lashes out, NOT because the agressor knows he can get away with it.

  115. Gene Raston
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    I’d just like to hear what Al Quida and the Taliban and the PLO have to say about todays vote?

    I’m guessing it starts out with THANK YOU

  116. Gene Raston
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    OOOOPS, forgot Iran, Syria and N. Korea

  117. Hank Price
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    Hopefully the republican leadership in the Senate will stand their ground and make them get 60 votes for the vote.

    As of now, they don’t have it. We’ll see.

    Hank

  118. HardTruth
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    Truth be told, Syria, Iran, alQuada all owe a great debt of gratitude to George Bush. Truth be told, Saddam was their biggest enemy in the region. Truth be told, alQuada is based in Saudi Arabia. Truth be told, George Bush has given them a huge gift.

  119. J R
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    The Senators had best think very carefully.

    They endanger their own careers if they don’t pass the non binding resolution.

    The war is over and the American people are tired of bush’s misadventure.

  120. fleettwood
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps a WE blogger could please, please, provide the list of Repubs who voted for this non-binding piece of crap.

    And, I’m with Gene on this one. When you tell the enemy that we are getting weaker by the minute, that might be the definition of “embolden”. All they have to do is wait.

  121. Pedant
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    “Billboard has the Chicks at 74.That’s lower than 1.”

    First of all, that doesn’t mean their not popular. Second of all, after the slump they went through, that’s pretty damn good for any band on a comeback. Third of all, do you realize how many artists they are competing for for that 74? That’s like saying $999,000 isn’t that much money because it isn’t exactly $1 million.”Posted by: AFN | February 16, 2007 at 11:16 AM————————————-GREAT post by AFN.

    Just saying. :)

  122. Ben Huie
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    rm, VT - What happens when a newer will surfaces? One hand-written and signed in 2004? I’m referring to that one she wrote after our wild winter ski trip together …

    Can you guys take the case for me … on contigency?

  123. J R
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    B logs D umbest P oster fleetie? GLAD in this case to help! ONE of the Republicans who voted today to send a message to george bush was…… Ron Paul R Tx. Does that make any of you wingnuts’s head hurt? Heh heh

  124. rm6046
    Posted February 16, 2007 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

    You’re covered, Ben, but you must entertain us with the details. :)

  125. RD
    Posted February 17, 2007 at 1:02 am | Permalink

    “When you tell the enemy that we are getting weaker by the minute”

    Fleet, do you think they don’t see what’s going on?

    It isn’t that we’re weak. It’s that we’re under-armed/under-manned. This whole war thing has been handled very badly. Can you at least agree with that?

  126. rm6046
    Posted February 17, 2007 at 2:39 am | Permalink

    With all due respect, RD, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder and Helen Keller could see what’s going on! Just because we choose not to run around with diapers on our heads, doesn’t make them stupid.

  127. Gene Raston
    Posted February 17, 2007 at 8:15 am | Permalink

    So hard truth, you’re telling me that if Al Quida showed up on saddams doorstep and asked to set up a training camp to kill Americans because we kicked them out of afghanistan, saddam would have said NO. Uh huh.

  128. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted February 17, 2007 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    “Perhaps a WE blogger could please, please, provide the list of Repubs who voted for this non-binding piece of crap.”

    What the matter fleetie? YOU cant do the research?

    Go to “the google”. I bet you can find it if you care so much about it.