Tuesday Talk
Posted by Michelle Moquin on February 7th, 2012
Good morning!
I’m not a big football fan, hence I didn’t have any desire to watch the Super Bowl. Grew up with too many Super Bowls messing with my birthday celebrations. :) So the only part of the game this past Sunday that I indulged in was the half time entertainment. It wasn’t until after the fact was I aware of the commercial with Clint Eastwood. Did you see?
Clint Eastwood On Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial: ‘I’m Not Politically Affiliated With Mr. Obama‘
After a day filled with chatter about the political implications of his “Halftime in America” Super Bowl commercial for Chrysler, acting legend Clint Eastwood moved to quell any speculation that he was making a pitch for President Obama’s economic policy.
“l am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message about job growth and the spirit of America,” Eastwood, a libertarian and longtime Republican voter, said Monday evening on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” about the ad, which features him extolling the virtues of a revitalized Detroit. Chrysler was one of the companies saved in President Obama’s 2009 auto bailout, which Eastwood has publicly opposed. “I think all politicians will agree with it,” he continued. “I thought the spirit was OK.”
Eastwood, who said he was “not supporting any politician at this time,” also gave his blessing for either party to reference the spot, or at least its message.
“If Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it,” he said.
Earlier in the day, Fox News contributor Karl Rove criticized the ad for being “a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the President of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.”
In response, Eastwood’s longtime manager Leonard Hirshan told NY Magazine that the ad was never intended to be political.
“I think that Rove and everybody, if they’re sensible, would wonder why a longtime Republican and Libertarian would do that,” he said. “Just think about that, how silly that is: It’s not like [the ad] was done by a left-winger, like Paul Newman in his day. It was done by a Republican, and he was doing it about America. There’s not anything political to do with it whatsoever. I don’t want him to do commercials, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s a PSA [public service announcement]. Period.”
*******
Readers: I loved it. Eastwood may not be “politically affiliated with Mr. Obama”, but it certainly doesn’t hurt that the commercial kicked Obama some kudos in a complimentary indirect kind of way. And Eastwood was against the auto bailouts.
Clint, said this to the L.A. Times in November 2011:
“But I’m a big hawk on cutting the deficit. I was against the stimulus thing too. We shouldn’t be bailing out the banks and car companies. If a CEO can’t figure out how to make his company profitable, then he shouldn’t be the CEO.”
And yet he starred in this Chrysler commercial. What are you thoughts? Blog me.
The forum is now open.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
February 7th, 2012 at 7:21 am
WHICH WEIGHT-LOSS SYSTEM WORKS BEST?
Spring has not exactly sprung yet… but you’d never know it from all the ads for weight-loss plans warning us that bathing suit season is coming.
you’ve got weight to lose, perhaps you are wondering whether joining some sort of program might be worth your time and money. But which kind is most effective?
Well, some researchers in the UK were wondering the same thing—and now they’ve completed the research that gives the answer.
Their study was published in BMJ in November 2011. It measured the relative success rates of different approaches to helping overweight and obese people lose weight—and the results are quite illuminating!
WEIGHING YOUR OPTIONS
Researchers enrolled 740 overweight and obese men and women (average age 49). Each joined one of the following weight-loss programs for the 12-week study, and each program was free to the participant…
A commercial, group-based weekly program. Participants were assigned to either Weight Watchers (the same program available in the US) or one of two popular UK-based programs that are similar, Slimming World or Rosemary Conley.
All three programs provided printed diet and exercise guidelines, advice, group meetings, scheduled weekly weigh-ins and feedback.
When group members lost a certain amount of weight, there were rewards, such as certificates and recognition in front of the group.
A dietitian-developed, group-based weekly program. The program structure is similar to a commercial program in that it is group-based and there were some weigh-ins, though just one at the beginning and one at the end.
It was developed by dietitians and led by dietetic assistants. There weren’t as many supportive printed materials or rewards, and less attention was given to each participant.
These participants met weekly for six weeks and then had follow-up sessions during week nine and week 12.
A series of one-on-one meetings with a nurse who had been tutored in a three-day weight-management counseling course.
The content of these meetings was shaped by the participant’s particular experiences and questions, so the leaders provided individualized support and education, but there were no group interactions.
The leaders of these groups didn’t have extensive training in weight loss. Participants were weighed each week.
A series of one-on-one meetings with a pharmacist who had been tutored in a three-day weight-management counseling course.
This program was identical to the kind with the nurse, except that it was led by a pharmacist.
A control group. These participants were each given passes that were good for 12 sessions at a gym but no specific advice about how to exercise, eat nutritiously or lose weight.
Every program encouraged participants to lose weight, with many asking participants to target losing 5% to 10% of their body weight, but each individual set his or her own goal.
Now, let’s see which groups succeeded and which didn’t…
“WEIGH” TO GO!
Researchers evaluated participants’ weight loss twice—once at the end of the 12-week program and then again at the end of one year.
Every single group (including the control group that went to the gym) had lost weight at both the 12-week and the one-year marks, but the group-based programs outshone both the control group and the one-on-one programs.
The commercial programs—Weight Watchers, in particular—were most effective. For instance, after one year…
Weight Watchers participants maintained an average loss of 7.62 pounds, compared with 5.40 pounds for the dietetic assistant-led group… 2.38 for the control (gym pass) group… 1.82 for one-on-one sessions with a nurse… and 1.45 for one-on-one sessions with a pharmacist.
WHAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE?
I spoke with the study author, Kate Jolly, PhD, senior clinical lecturer in public health and epidemiology at University of Birmingham in England, who identified a number of factors that she thought may explain why the commercial programs got the gold medal,
why the dietetic-assistant led program got the silver medal and
why the one-on-one programs came in dead last—surprisingly, even behind the control group!
Group support. Certainly not every person is comfortable talking about his/her weight in front of other people, but many folks find that the dynamics of group support—especially the commercial programs, with their cheers and certificates for weight loss and their sympathy for tougher times—is helpful.
Both the commercial diets and the dietetic assistant-led programs provided group support.
Convenience. Commercial programs are held at multiple locations and provide lots of meeting times to choose from, including day and evening options.
The dietetic assistant-led program and one-to-one nurse-led and pharmacy-led programs met only during the day and in only one location.
Dr. Jolly said that participants weren’t as likely to attend the one-on-one sessions because they needed to schedule their own appointments—sometimes they just didn’t follow through.
Reinforcement. Commercial programs offer information in many formats including printed diet and exercise advice and other at-home resources such as helpful Web sites and Web-based or telephone support—none of which were available through the other programs.
These may have reminded participants to stay on track.
Regularly scheduled weigh-ins.
Dr. Jolly pointed out that since patients scheduled their own weigh-ins for the one-on-one programs, they were free to manipulate their appointments to gloss over, say, a weekend food splurge.
The dietetic assistant-led group had only two weigh-ins. But the commercial programs had both the highest number of weigh-ins and the most strictly scheduled ones—and since they were less flexible, they likely promoted more accountability.
So if you’re thinking about choosing a weight-loss program, this research suggests that you may want to consider a commercial program first—but keep in mind, said Dr. Jolly, that every person is different, so be patient until you find something that works for you.
Source:
Kate Jolly, PhD, senior lecturer in public health and epidemiology, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, England.
February 7th, 2012 at 7:29 am
Howie:
I cut your UFO entries out and paste them up for study by my ninth grade science class. You have turned a lackluster group of students into one of the most popular classes in this private school.
Science projects, ecology groups, and UFO clubs have sprung up everywhere. Many parents credit my class with the new or increased interest their children have in reading and using the web for something other than facebooking.
I received the Outstanding Teacher Award for the first time in my 11 years as a teacher here. I want you to share in this reward.
Thank you.
Steve.
February 7th, 2012 at 7:41 am
This message was forwarded to others.
TAO Says:
February 7th, 2012 at 7:39 am
Howie:
Thanks
Transmitted to Mothership. It will be prepared.
Urte
================
Add ours to the gratitude.
11/7te
February 7th, 2012 at 7:44 am
Doug,TMD:
Thanks for the addition to Howie’s post. My friends and I were thrilled to discover how it matched what Howie was talking about.
I would love to visit America and meet him. Do you know him personally?
Rick
February 7th, 2012 at 7:47 am
Michelle, I couldn’t stop laughing when I read your article. I do wish you could fix your blog so that people can get in when they get the urge.
It often seems that only the regulars can get in. It was a hoot to my girlfriends too.
Love
Pearl
February 7th, 2012 at 7:52 am
Doug,TMD;
Your Ron Paul link is just another example of why I question any woman’s intelligence that would support the republican party.
Harriet
February 7th, 2012 at 7:53 am
Howie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just another great post. I will be researching this one for a while.
February 7th, 2012 at 7:58 am
Howie:
I am an environmental veterinarian. My daughter sent me your post on space vampires. It was very interesting.
As one who has studied and written on what the lost of wolves in their natural habits has done to the explosion of deer and diseases that result from losing a natural predator, I was very intrigued by your premise.
Please elaborate.
Samuel
February 7th, 2012 at 8:07 am
I have always been a Clint fan, and when this came on and I heard that voice, I knew it would be good. Clint is a widely known Republican, and was Mayor of Carmel, CA and at one time thought to become a Vice to baby Bush ticket. I agree with him that bailouts should not have gone out to the corporations, however, and I said this then, if they need to go out they should go to companies that actually make a product and put food on the tables of labored families, not simply money grabbing paper pushers on Wall Street. The only bailout with the founding fathers in mind was that of Detroit. And, lo and behold, they paid it all back AND THEN SOME. Kudos go to that hard decision from Obama. Romney would have bailed Wall Street and let Detroit fail.
The funny things about economics that the Repugnicants try to keep hidden from the public mindset, is that the only thing that drives a strong economy is a strong working class that makes a product that others will buy. When there is a product that others will buy and use money exchanges hands on all levels of the economic scale. When the rich have the money, the Repugnicants claim it will trickle down, which is total bullshit. There is no products to exchange and if they choose to not do any trickle then the buck stops, period. The caveats with Detroit didn’t exist with Wall Street, which is partly why Detroit is paid off and some of Wall Street is still funds outstanding. The greed and corruption is so deeply inbread at this point, it is like a virus that can permeate through even the best employees on Wall Street. The virus must be killed, by means of deep regulations or letting failed companies that are only used as ATM machines for the elite disolve and people should go to jail. There should be no corporations with such a stronghold on government. That is known as Fascism.
Nicely done, Howie.
Rick, I do not know Howie personally, but would enjoy the opportunity to do so as well some day.
Steve, great job thinking outside the box to enlighten the pliable scientific minds of your students. Getting them deeply interested in science in today’s day of Washington’s desire to move science out of schools and bring more religion in is a great feat. Congrats to you! It is also great that you showed them variable avenues to the internet which will open their minds to so much more! Keep the fresh thoughts with the kids brewing and you will change the world!
February 7th, 2012 at 8:46 am
Steve (#2):
I am happy you received the Outstanding Teacher Award for the first time in 11 years as a teacher. It is very resourceful of you to use anything you can to reach the minds of your students.
I hope you do not judge me for my typos or spelling mistakes.
MM Blog is a bit risqué and covers many adult topics. You have read the disclaimers on Michelle’s Blog? It is really an adult forum. I wonder if teenagers should be reading some of the banter that goes on there. Do you censor it or do they just log on by their selves?
You used your teaching skills outside the box and started something good. Kudos to you, Steve.
HOWIE
February 7th, 2012 at 9:31 am
Urte and 11/7te (#3):
You are welcome. It would have been a tragedy had the space vampyres gone ahead with their plan.
HOWIE
February 7th, 2012 at 11:08 am
Howie:
Thank you for your concern about the young mind. If you reread my post you will see that I said that “I cut your UFO entries out and paste them up for study by my ninth grade science class. ”
My class is unaware of the where I get your posts. So put your mind at ease. They are not scrolling through Michelle’s blog.
I must say Michelle you have set the bar very high for the all purpose blog. This republican has converted to an Obama supporter.
Steve
February 7th, 2012 at 11:14 am
I believe that the spirit of the Super Bowl half-time Ad with Clint Eastwood narrating was perfect as an ad for America and our Auto Industry — Chrysler Motors in particular.
It was half-time and it could be half-time for President Obama as well if he is voted in a second term.
Mr. Eastwood speaks of the power of our Nation to pick itself up by the bootstraps with the right leadership.
President Obama is waiting for his half-time as well. Give him a chance and he will bring this country back to life if he gets re-elected.
There is no other sane choice. Mitt the Mormon, or Gingrich? — NO WAY.
President Obama is the only Presidential candidate capable of changing this country for the betterment of ALL Americans. Not just the Billionaires and Billionaire Corporations, but EVERYONE, because it takes us all to make a Nation. Rich, Middle Class and there will always be the Poor and Needy who need a safety net to fall back on.
This goes back to the Bible. One must help the poor. If you believe in the Judeo-Christian God, you must help the poor. It could be you one day. If you are White and believe that you will reach the 1% Billionaire Club and they will be there with open arms, you are delirious.
With 99% or our nation being controlled by 1% there is something very wrong here and it needs fixing very badly. This Country was built by people from all over the world who came here to live the American Dream and we must be tolerant and helpful to everyone to continue being great again.
President Obama must be re-elected to a second term. He must have his second-half to accomplish what only he can do — Honestly bring this country back to greatness by being fair to everyone — not just Special Interest Groups representing the Super Rich.
This is my opinion and I hope it turns out to be true.
HOWIE
February 7th, 2012 at 11:27 am
Steve, that was a great idea. I have been following Howie’s post for a couple of years. It never occurred to me to use them in my class.
I am a junior college professor. Great Idea.
Thanks
Malcom
February 7th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is not measuring the drapes in the majority leader’s office in anticipation of a power change, but tells HUMAN EVENTS he is confident Republicans can pick up enough seats in the November election to regain control.
“I assure you, we’re fixated on it,”McConnell said.
In a wide-ranging interview that will be featured in this paper’s print edition, McConnell discussed the upcoming election, tax increases, the fate of the Keystone pipeline and the House action last week to repeal a key component of ObamaCare.
The new entitlement program called the CLASS Act, a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s plan to pay for long-term care, is also facing criticism from within his own party.
“The administration has even admitted that it cannot possibly work,”McConnell said. “We ought to have that vote in that Senate. I expect they won’t want to have it.”
Sen. Kent Conrad (D –ND), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, called that portion of Obama’s plan”a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing Bernie Madoff would be proud of.”
McConnell also said Republicans have fought back on numerous attempts by Democrats to raise taxes in order to increase government spending.
“We don’t have the need for a tax increase,”McConnell said. “We have the need for spending reductions.”
Click here to watch part three of our interview with McConnell.
—Jason Mattera
February 7th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Howie, I agree with your analysis. Obama deserves to be re-elected, and America deserves to to have the best at its helm.
February 7th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
MAKING LOUDMOUTHS SHUT UP!
Editor’s Note: Welcome to our multipart series on how to deal with all sorts of annoying people.
Enjoy Part 1 and look for Part 2 next month.—Carole
Surely you’ve been to a dinner party where one of the guests has ideas about, say, politics or the economy that you find illogical—maybe even alarming.
Yet he continues to blab on and on about “how things should be” without taking into account anyone else’s opinion.
People like this tend to be aggressive, overconfident and, perhaps most annoying of all, uncomfortably loud.
And—correct me if I’m wrong—there seems to be more of them around these days.
Is your blood pressure rising just thinking about it? Mine is! And that’s not healthy.
So I called life coach and regular Daily Health News contributor Lauren Zander and asked her, “What’s the best way to deal with these opinionated bullies without sinking to their level?”
HOW TO ASSERT YOURSELF—WITHOUT FUELING THE FIRE
Zander’s plan for dealing with a loudmouth…
Don’t say the first thing that comes to your mind.
Though it’s tempting to denounce the shouter as an idiot or to outshout him with your own opinion, doing this will not change his mind.
It will lead only to verbal fisticuffs—not to mention discomfort and awkward silences from others at the dinner table.
As Zander noted, it isn’t always necessary to state your own principles—let alone fight about them—in order to remain true to them.
Instead, while the tirade goes on, take a deep breath and say to yourself, I will not take the bait.
With any luck, the loudmouth will soon pipe down, and then you and the others in the group will be able to get back to some real conversation.
Change the subject. However, what if your loudmouth really is asking for a fight and persists in his rant?
To keep him from hijacking the entire event, somebody will have to step in, Zander said, and if you want to be that person, here is what to do.
Wait for a moment when the rant has slowed down—and then say to him, “Your point of view is very different from mine, and I understand that it’s really important to you.
But we’ll never agree, so there is no point in talking about this further. Let’s talk about something else instead.”
Then suggest a new topic—ideally something that is also interesting, but perhaps less weighty, such as food, technology, entertainment, family, travel or hobbies.
Even if people at the table have differing opinions about such topics, discussing them is less likely to invoke fury.
And, Zander told me, “As simple as it is, this technique of changing the subject tends to take argumentative people by surprise and quiet them.”
Before the loudmouth can climb back on his soapbox, you and the other guests are already involved in a different discussion.
All in all, the key to getting less worked up by loudmouths is to let go of the idea that you’re going to “put them in their place” or change them, said Zander.
Instead, what can keep you feeling calm and less angry in their presence is to defuse the entire encounter.
And whether or not they say so, everyone else in the group will be silently thanking you for it!
Source:
Lauren Zander, cofounder and chairman, Handel Group, New York City. http://www.HandelGroup.com.
February 7th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
The 9th Circuit ruled today California’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional,saying a state can’t revoke gay rights solely because a majority of its voters disapprove of homosexuality.
In a 2-1 ruling, it was said Proposition 8′s limitations on access to marriage took rights away from a vulnerable minority without benefiting parents, children or the marital institution.
“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples,” said Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the majority opinion.
“The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.” (Read the full ruling here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf)
Reinhardt, joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, pointedly refrained from deciding whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry. Instead, he said Prop. 8 violated the Constitution because it was rooted in moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and withdrew rights they had won less than six months earlier, when the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage.
Their narrowly framed ruling would apply only to California, if upheld on appeal.
—-
The fight continues but we will prevail!
Our Planet needs diversity. How will Humans ever successfully and openly co-mingle with Aliens of many differences if Humans can’t even accept differences in gender within themselves?
/SB
February 7th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Howie #13 and Erica #16; There is not much I can add to your analysis other than “ditto“. If the republicans gain control of the White House, we will have a world of shit to deal with.
With all the occupying and protesting of those greedy and evil institutions and private entities that have been draining this nation and others of their wealth, health, and well being. It appears that the world is well aware of the despicable actions of the 1%ers. And is ready to do something about it.
The only sane thing to do in the US is to re-elect President Obama to lead our nation in fixing these problems Americans must deal with.
It is inconceivable to me that there are so many in America that will place their vote based on nothing other than racism and hate.
Allowing the issues and needs of the American People be damned. Pure insanity.
Al
February 7th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Interesting what causes a republican to take issue with a judicial decision.
=====================
Gingrich Releases Statement On Prop 8 Ruling
Newt Gingrich released the following statement on California’s 9th Circuit Court decision regarding Proposition 8:
With today’s decision on marriage by the Ninth Circuit, and the likely appeal to the Supreme Court, more and more Americans are being exposed to the radical overreach of federal judges and their continued assault on the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States.
I was drawn back into public life by the Ninth Circuit’s 2002 decision that held that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance were unconstitutional.
Today’s decision is one more example that the American people cannot rest until we restore the proper rule of the judicial branch and bring judges and the Courts back under the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States begins with “We the People”; it does not begin with “We the Judges”. Federal judges need to take heed of that fact. Federal judges are substituting their own political views for the constitutional right of the people to make judgments about the definition of marriage.
The country has been here before. In 1856, the Supreme Court thought it could settle the issue of slavery once and for all and impose a judicial solution on the country. In 1973, the issue was abortion and once again a Supreme Court thought that it could impose a judicial solution on the country once and for all. Judicial solutions don’t solve contentious social issues once and for all.
Should the Supreme Court fail to heed the disastrous lessons if its own history and attempt to impose its will on the marriage debate in this country by affirming today’s Ninth Circuit decision, it will bear the burden of igniting a constitutional crisis of the first order.
The political branches of the federal government, as well as the political branches of the several States, will surely not passively accept the dictates of the federal judiciary on this issue. An interventionist approach by the Court on marriage will lead to a crisis of legitimacy for the federal judiciary from which it may take generations to recover.
====================
Notice the decisions he found fault with in his cites.
Irene
February 7th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Ditto Al.
February 7th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Does anyone really find this attractive?
http://www.celebitchy.com/207010/the_84_lb_model_with_the_20_inch_waist_claims_she_eats_junk_food_all_day_nutritionists_disagree/
February 7th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Irene, if I read that correctly, is he implying he supports slavery? Why is the media is not all over this?
/SB
February 7th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
/SB;
The media is white and they, as that smart ass Robert says, give so much deference to white males.
February 7th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
Can anyone believe that huffpost is giving big time to Beck calling someone else an idiot?
February 7th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Brilliantly written and exactly the point. The good news is that the moderate middle saw and took note of all of this. The ridiculous right only associate with each other.
They do not want to know Latinos, African Americans, immigrants both registered or not, gays, women, non-Christian and certainly not anyone under about age 30 who display a reassuring tolerance for “others”.
This leads them to believe that they have the majority with them in their loony toons views. Clearly, the Komen mess proves they do not.
February 7th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Here’s an article showing how the Republicans are trying to exploit this ruling by misrepresenting it as an attack on religious freedom:
http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=145185
February 7th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Tthe GOP love to pick and choose when it comes to religious freedoms. no one is forcing any woman to use contraception, only make it available if they choose to do so.
What’s wrong with that? Some of these very same people who are ranting against this issue don’t have a problem supporting Mr. Gingrich who is a serial adulterer. that defies logic.
February 7th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
The dishonesty from the “pro-life” people is sad. Are they against capital punishment? If not, then they can’t call themselves pro-life.
They would argue that capital punishment is deserved, but abortion is not and I would agree. But I don’t run around calling myself pro-life.
I believe that some life is precious and some life is not precious. And the “pro-lifers” feel the same way. The pro-life movement is a charade.
What they really want is to tell everyone else how to act, what to say and what to think. These precious fetuses that they go on about are just a cover.
Like George Carlin said “they are all worried about the fetuses until they are born and then f*** ‘em.”
February 7th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Another stupid issue for the GOP. Everything they stand for is not what Americans stand for. If you don’t want to use contraceptives – then don’t.
But let women who do get them without paying for them – it is less money spent for drugs and I am all for it. Obama 2012!!! GOP you are going down!!!!!
February 7th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
I wonder how much of an issue this would be if women could be priests?
February 7th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
I wonder how much of an issue this would be if men could get pregnant?
February 7th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”
February 7th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Women can be preists! Just not in that little, church in Roma!
February 7th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Beck should be flogged for his aggressive cooperation with gold retail investment companies in driving up the artificial price.
Just think about it – if you are in a TOTALLY COLLAPSED, FAILED ECONOMY (collapse of the dollar, fed, etc…) – WTH is gold gonna do for you? You gonna go knock on the gates and sell it to the royalty?
February 8th, 2012 at 7:14 am
President Obama’s Incredible Shrinking Labor Force
by Newt Gingrich
Dear Fellow Conservative,
President Obama last week brandished new jobs numbers as proof that his policies were having an effect on the unemployment rate, which the report said declined to 8.3 percent in January.
The president is right about one thing: his big government agenda and class warfare tactics are having an effect — but it’s not the one he claims. In truth, last month’s drop in the unemployment statistic was due largely to the evaporation of 1.2 million people from the labor force number.
When people become so discouraged they stop actively looking for work, they are no longer counted as unemployed and the rate goes down even though Americans are hardly better off than they were before.
The rate went down in January because (apparently) 1.2 million people decided in a single month not to pursue work. This is the number, in effect, that President Obama is touting.
The January report caps an extraordinary decline in the participation rate that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has been reporting under the Obama administration.
Since January 2009, the BLS said more than five million people have dropped out of the labor force — the greatest decline in American history and the lowest participation rate in more than three decades. Only about six in 10 adult American civilians are counted as part of the labor force.
A few more good jobs reports like this and we’ll have a three percent unemployment rate with nobody working.
The president assures us, however, the lower unemployment rate is actually evidence that his policies are successful.
Asked on Monday about the fact that unemployment had dropped in part because so many Americans left the labor force, unable to find jobs, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the decline in the participation rate could be an “economic positive” because some of it is “due to younger people getting more education.”
Carney also tried to blame the massive exodus on Americans getting older—which they must have done at record levels in January to account for 1.2 million people retiring at once.
Those are pretty glib and grasping explanations for the single largest exit from the labor force on record—especially since it’s more than four times the number who left the previous month.
In reality, almost half a million fewer Americans are employed today than when President Obama took office. The real unemployment rate, counting those who are unemployed, underemployed, or have looked for work in the past 12 months but since given up, is closer to 15 percent.
More Americans are relying on food stamps than ever before. Teenage unemployment during the Obama administration is the highest since records began in 1948, with almost one in four teenagers who wants to work today unable to find a job. 8.2 million Americans have only part-time employment either because they can’t find full-time work or because their hours have been cut back.
The president’s unrelenting assault on job creators has made a bad economy much worse.
In the middle of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, he rammed through Obamacare, spent almost a trillion dollars of “stimulus” indiscriminately, virtually took over the American auto industry, attempted to raise taxes on producers with carbon trading legislation, banned development of offshore oil and gas resources, passed the Dodd-Frank Act which crippled community banks, juiced up the regulatory powers of the EPA, FDA and other bureaucracies—and lately, has taken to demonizing job creators with class warfare rhetoric while offering policy platitudes that do nothing to solve our problems.
These are the things the president is trying to tell us are responsible for last month’s drop in the unemployment rate? Having driven five million people out of the labor force, maybe on second thought he’s right.
Your Friend,
Newt
February 8th, 2012 at 8:46 am
Newt; I don’t believe you have a friend, period.
Al
February 8th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Jackie Speier is trying to save women from the worst treatment a woman can experience in the military.
======================
Democrat Jackie Speier introduces military rape bill
Nov. 17, 2011 | By Kitty Felde | KPCC
A California congresswoman has launched a campaign to combat military rapes.
Democrat Jackie Speier has been making weekly speeches on the House floor, telling the stories of rape victims in the military. Now she’s introduced a bill that would take rape cases out of the usual military chain of command and transfer investigations, prosecutions, and victim care to an autonomous sexual assault office.
Speier says that when a Marine reported her superior officer had raped her, she was told to take an aspirin and go to bed. “That kind of advice might be good for a headache.
But when that’s a prescription by the military to one of its soldiers that has been a victim of an assault or a rape,” she says, “we’ve got a problem.”
The Department of Defense says there were 19,000 sexual assaults last year in the military. Fewer than 3 percent of the perpetrators were punished.
Speier says allowing assaults to go unpunished compromises the effectiveness of the military. “Members of military units survive on the code of watching out for each other.
When sexual assaults and rapes are hushed, ignored, or treated lightly, trust in a unit is compromised along with its collective readiness to engage the enemy,” Speier said.
Speier’s lined up more than three dozen co-sponsors for the bill. They don’t include the Republican head of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon of Santa Clarita.
His office says “it would be premature to comment” on the bill because it hasn’t been referred to the committee.
Also missing as a co-sponsor is Democrat Loretta Sanchez, who also sits on the Armed Services Committee.
Sanchez says sexual assault in the military is “deplorable,” but she doesn’t believe cases should be removed from the chain of command in the military.
She says it would “further take accountability away from the Commanders who should be held fully accountable for the safety and well-being of their units.”
===========================
We as women need to get behind this.
Alycedale