There was a commercial on TV just now for, I believe, Lean Cuisine. The claim was made of higher quality ingredients such as “farm picked broccoli”. I am at a loss as how this differs from the broccoli that might be present in competing products.
Are there frozen dinner products that contain “home picked broccoli”?
If true, this is a serious violation of the privacy of the victims. I do not doubt for a minute that there are people out there who would commit such a violation. I hope the crooks are caught and properly punished. I especially hope that whatever pictures and/or video that exist of the victims (naked or clothed) never make it on to the internet. Really, the whole thing is disgusting.
OR
As I read the article, I can not help but feel a bit of cynicism. Was someone spying on these girls, or were they spying on themselves? Is the whole thing a set up to promote their soon to be unveiled web site? If this is the case, then they are going to be in trouble (rightly so) for false reporting of a crime.
OR
The camera and equipment were left over from some previous use (which may or may not have been criminal) and were never activated since the two girls moved in.
I find all three scenarios equally plausible and I do not want to jump to conclusions. I wonder if we will ever know.
It is too bad that jumping to conclusions is not a form of physical exercise. If it were, Americans would not be nearly as out of shape as we are.
A gunman in Norway? Clearly he must be an Al Qaeda terrorist. The afternoon of the attacks, The Weekly Standard had a post up based entirely on the assumption that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. In the Standard’s defense, the article does maintain the “if” stance.
Less than two hours later, Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post, following up on the Standard’s post, explains the policy implications of Al Qaeda’s continued existence.
Now we “know” that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with what happened in Norway.
When Dominique Strauss-Kahn was accused of rape, everyone assumed he was guilty and the maid was a poor victim of a man of wealth and power.
Then it leaks out that the maid had trouble keeping her “story” straight and has been/is a prostitute and we all assume that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is the victim of a scheming woman out for a chunk of his change.
If it turns out she is not a prostitute, is Dominique Strauss-Kahn now guilty all over again?
Be sure to rush to judgement when the next detail emerges!
When it first came out that Justice David Prosser choked Justice Ann Walsh Bradley at the Wisconsin Supreme Court (with the added detail that he had recently called Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson a “total bitch”) we all assumed that Prosser was guilty.
Then it turned out that Bradley had angrily approached Prosser with her fists in the air.
I have no idea what I know about that incident at this point.
Finally, here is a story of a woman who spent seven months in jail having done nothing wrong. An ex set her up and the police assumed guilt.
There was an amusing letter to the editor in Wednesdays Fort Wayne Journal Gazette (yes, I am slow to get to the newspaper…shocking, ain’t it?). The letter is headlined “Obama’s misquoting Constitution instructive” and is the third letter at the link.
Mr. Rusk, Sr. is upset with President Obama for misquoting the Constitution of the United States:
On multiple occasions President Obama has misquoted a key part in the opening lines of our most important protection from tyranny. His reading is “…all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights…”
Attentive readers have probably already noted that the “quote” is not even from the Constitution, but from the Declaration of Independence. Details, details.
Readers may also be asking what is wrong with the quote. I know I did. One problem is the word “inalienable”.
If you are unclear on the difference between his “inalienable” and the proper word “unalienable,” consult a good dictionary.
I consulted four or five online dictionaries and my real life dictionary. They all agree that unalienable is a variant of inalienable. So even if the President is using the wrong word, the meaning is the same.
Mr. Rusk then complains about Obama’s omission of the phrase “by their Creator”. Fair enough. Of course it is not clear that the President considers himself to be quoting the Declaration in the first place. Obama’s freely inserts biblical and foundational phrases into his public rhetoric all the time. That he would frequently talk about how all men are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights is not all that surprising. Indeed, anyone who has listened to enough of Obama’s public speech would be surprised if he was not using such language.
Finally, Mr. Rusk asks:
If our creator is not the source of our rights, who or what then is? Certainly not this or any other government.
Well, we are all entitled to our own opinion. There are plenty of people that do not believe in a god, but still accept that human beings do in fact have rights. These rights are simply inherent. They do not “come” from anywhere. Note that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not invoke god or even mention god.
To depend upon a creator for your rights is problematic when faced with those who do not believe in a creator.
Mr. Rusk’s letter is so problematic that it leads one to wonder if some liberal wrote it trying to make Conservatives look bad (my money is not on this possibility).
Debby and I were out the door early today to drive thirty minutes north and pick blueberries! Despite the heat we walked into when we left the house when we arrived at the blueberry farm it was quite pleasant. They had had a lot of rain earlier and it cooled them off. So we got to pick from wet bushes.
We picked 17 pounds!
Debby out picked me 9 pounds to 8. I can’t figure out how she has the rock in the bucket for the weighing but it isn’t there when the berries are poured out. She out picked me last time we picked (a few years ago) but only by a couple of ounces (and we picked a lot more that day!)
I love blueberries with cereal and in pancakes. Normally, I am not much of a pancake fan, but put blueberries in them and it is a completely different food.
The wet berries laid out to dry before freezing.
We saved fifty cents a pound by picking the berries ourselves, so $8.50. That took four man hours of labor. So we earned $2.12 an hour. Then there was the gas and the hour of time spent in travel.…
So, no. We did not do this to save money. We had fun. That was the point (well, that and the resultant BLUBERRIES!)
Eight months ago many Republicans ran for office on a platform of jobs, jobs, jobs. Of course, the principle tool the government has for creating jobs is stimulus spending. Republicans do not do stimulus spending so once they were elected they had to come up with an alternative to the jobs crisis.
Just a few months ago, there was no debt crisis and there was no debt ceiling crisis. No one was talking about refusing to raise the debt ceiling. No one was talking about lowering the countries credit rating.
But the Republicans had run through all the symbolic votes they could think of (none of which had anything to do with jobs) and were suddenly faced with the prospect that the country might start asking about jobs.
So they decided that the debt was a crisis. It wasn’t. By historical standards, the debt is still well below its historical high. The country still has (for a bit longer) top grades from the rating agencies. United States bonds are still considered the safest investment on the planet and buyers were still lining up to buy them at very low interest rates.
But the Republicans decided the debt was a crisis, and they found a way to make their beliefs reality: refuse to raise the debt ceiling!
Three days ago, Reuters reported that
Ratings agency Moody’s on Monday suggested the United States should eliminate its statutory limit on government debt to reduce uncertainty among bond holders.
The United States is one of the few countries where Congress sets a ceiling on government debt, which creates “periodic uncertainty” over the government’s ability to meet its obligations, Moody’s said in a report.
“We would reduce our assessment of event risk if the government changed its framework for managing government debt to lessen or eliminate that uncertainty,” Moody’s analyst Steven Hess wrote in the report.
Standard & Poor’s reiterated on Thursday it sees a real risk that future U.S. government deficits may meaningfully miss discussed targets and that there is a 50 – 50 chance the U.S. AAA credit rating could be cut within three months, perhaps as soon as August.
The deficit reduction debate is coming up against an August 2 deadline when the $14.3 trillion limit on America’s borrowing capacity is exhausted, putting in jeopardy payments on U.S. Treasury debt as well as paychecks for federal employees and soldiers.
If an agreement is reached to raise the debt ceiling but nothing meaningful is done in terms of deficit reduction, the U.S. would likely have its rating cut to the AA category, S&P said.
So, there was no debt crisis until the Republicans needed to distract the electorate from their non-interest in jobs. Today there is a real debt crisis. The only thing that has changed is that now no one can be certain that the US will not someday, if not next week, refuse to meet its obligations.
At this point, if the Republicans are sincere in their concern for federal spending and debt, then they have no choice but to eliminate the statutory limit on government debt. Otherwise, the interest the US pays on its debt is going to go up. It will be expensive.
Hat tips to TPM and to The New Republic.
Steve Benen makes an interesting comment at the end of a blog post:
the GOP has decided that every recent electoral setback should be seen as excuse to move even further to the right. When Republicans win, they become more radical, assuming they’re being rewarded for their right-wing ideology. When they lose, they become still become more radical, assuming they’re being punished for not being right-wing enough.
I think that he is correct. It fits right in with a Republican policy goal: tax cuts. Whatever the current economic situation is, the Republican policy response is to cut taxes.
This kind of “thinking” does spare oneself the effort of actual thinking, so it does have that going for it.
Ahh, the sweet simplicity of ideology.
It has come out that Michele Bachmann has a more or less continuing experience with potentially incapacitating (presumably temporarily) migraines. She has released a letter (the text of which can be seen at TPM) from her physician clarifying her problem and how she is treated for it. I am not a doctor, so I have no idea if the letter is sufficiently explanatory or not. It does sound as though the headaches are not a serious problem.
There is one question I have. Within the letter, addressed to Michele by her doctor, is the following:
Dear Congresswoman Bachmann,
If you expect Americans to support you in your bid to become President of the United States, I suspect that a great number of us would like to know just what the known trigger factors for your migraines are (just in case one of them might be, oh say, making a tough decision, for example). Could you please let us know? Thanks!
Rich Beckman
I’m sure I’ll be hearing from her soon.
Well, it’s been a week since I last posted on this subject (or any subject!). So we must be one week closer to the day the federal government runs out of money. Are we closer to an answer?
It would seem we are not. President Obama has not (yet) taken my advice from a week ago (could it be he does not read my blog?!?!). I stand by it with one addition.
Dear President Obama,
You should announce tomorrow that it is clear that the deadline will not be met and that it is your intention to see to it that all the debt obligations of the United States will be met, interest and principle. Principle will be met by paying off what is immediately due and then borrowing that much again to do the same tomorrow (thereby never exceeding the debt limit but also meaning that the process is going to start sooner than August 2). You then should make it crysal clear what will not be paid. You should do this in a speech, in a press conference, in a press release, and you should send administration officials to the Sunday (and any other) talk shows to explain what will not be paid.
Obviously, you will have to explain again (and again) that this situation exists because the Republican House decided it was what they wanted and that they refuse to negotiate insisting that they get 100% of what they want.
This will cause a lot of consternation, some short term hardship, and some short and long term economic costs. It is absurd that the situation exists at all . There is, however, a dim silver lining comprised of the fun of seeing House Republicans tripping over themselves as they rush to raise the debt ceiling after the start to hear from their constituents.
President Obama,
You need to be clear about what you will do when the debt ceiling is not raised. You need to state unequivocally that the United States will not default on it’s debt, that the interest payments will be made.
It must be clear that federal expenditures will immediately be cut 40%. You need to be clear what 40% that will be. There ARE Americans who are going to not get their checks and you need to let us know who that will be now.
You must be clear that even though the interest payments will be made, the interest rate America pays on its debt will go up and that this WILL mean that the debt of the United States will now be even greater than what everyone has been projecting up until now. This is because the amount of principle payments that are due in August exceed the amount of revenue that will be available to pay them. The only way those principle payments get paid on time is to borrow the money from someone else, but the borrowing limit has been met. When principle payments are late, the interest paid is going to go up.
You should explain that you have given up negotiating since the Republicans have brought nothing to the table and you now insist that the debt limit bill be a clean bill. You should ask Americans who are upset with the consequences that you have laid out to contact their congressman and insist on a clean bill to raise the debt limit.
After making these consequences clear to the American people, you need to go in to the debt limit negotiations and explain that you are done negotiating. The Republicans have demonstrated beyond all reason that they have no idea what it means to negotiate and compromise and since no deal can be reached, the bill must come through clean.
Thank-you for your attention to this matter.
Rich Beckman
A constituent.