This girl was called racist for wearing a McCain/Palin shirt to her school.
I guess if you're a kid, you have to sing songs about Obama in order not to be called a racist.
In another school, there is a whole chapter of a book dedicated to Barack. The Lenin-ism of our country has begun, and he's not even president.
You could be a McCain supporter, but the Barack fans don't take kindly to them. In fact, they beat them up with their own signs.
The left is in high gear with their Republican hate speech. This smiling couple, as featured in Iowahawk, proudly wears T-shirts calling Palin a cunt. I still haven't figured out what Palin has done which earns her that title. But I guess all you have to do is be a Republican woman with a chance of getting into the White House, and you're a cunt.
I know that the left thinks that Republicans are equally evil towards Obama. After all, Olbermann told them so. He reported (as many other have) that McCain supporters were yelling "Kill him!" (Obama) at a recent McCain rally. The only problem with this? The secret service was there, and heard no such thing. I've taken photos as a journalist around Secret Service guys. Trust me... you don't want to yell "Kill [presidential candidate]" around them. Not unless you want your fingerprints on file within the next couple of hours.
Which lead me to ACORN.
I wrote about ACORN previously on this blog... for good reason. Its one of the most corrupt 'vote getting' not-for-profits out there. They protest at every anti-war rally, and consider the Iraq war "racist." If you hunt for it on the web, you can find videos of their people attacking others merely for asking questions about their organization.
Its a ridiculously facist organization.
When I read that the FBI is investigating them, I was happy. But apparently, doggone it, someone stole their computers right when the FBI tried to sieze them. Who else suspects a rat?
People are getting beat up because of their party affiliation. If you don't support their candidate, you are a racist. They consider your candidate a cunt. They include a chapter about their candidate in a book for 8th graders.
They support and defend ACORN, a group that has fraudulently registered tens of thousands of non-existent people, with hundreds of thousands of dollars from the campaign of Barack Obama.
Democrats are fond of calling conservatives facist. But I don't recall a single time in my life when Republicans behaved like this. I hope I never do.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
How I repaired a Phillips 30PW9100D
I am not an electrician. I do not repair things professionally. I do electronics as a hobby, and I can't stress this enough: if you don't understand electronics intimately... do not try to repair your television. Pay someone who knows what they are doing, and you won't receive an electric shock.
If you go inside of a television without knowing what you are doing, you not only have a good chance of receiving an electric shock, but you could kill yourself. That's not hyperbole. A traditional CRT screen needs high voltage, and the circuits inside store those voltages for more then a month after the television is unplugged.
Get it?
No?
Okay; let me put it one more way: this is not meant as an instruction manual on how to repair a TV. This is what I learned from repairing this TV. Its not comprehensive, and its not supposed to be.
If you read this and then open up your television to repair it, you are liable for your own health and well-being from messing around with something that you don't understand. I'm writing this because I know something about televisions but didn't know what to look for to repair mine. Its meant for the people who have a good working knowledge of electronics and know how to safely repair something that stores hundreds of volts.
Please don't open up your Phillips 30PW9100D if you don't know what you're doing. Cool?
On the other hand, if you just wanted to understand what the problem is on this television, go read ahead... and just read.
If you want to add something to my understanding, please leave a comment.
And now my explanation.
I own a nice television. I bought it about two years ago. Its one of the last HD- widescreen televisions that uses a traditional CRT.
For those of you who are interested, until recently, LCD televisions couldn't compare with the color of CRTs. The downside is that CRTs use a lot more power and are really, really heavy. I bought mine as an open-box television, and I got a great deal on it. It has an amazing HD picture. When I first bought it, my cat tried to paw at the birds on the screen.
Unfortunately, the chassis (inside) for my beautiful television was a lemon. Mine is a LO5-1U AA. If you want to know what kind of a chassis your television has, look on the back of the set, near the serial number.
This particular chassis seems to have the same problem that occurs on a lot of sets that were made by this manufacturer at around the same time. The vertical deflection circuit dies after a while, and the screen looks like this:
You might also see a thin white horizontal line. Sorry that these images are fuzzy. (I'm kinda embarrassed about it, since I'm a photographer. I accidentally let the autofocus focus on my reflection in the glass.)
So let me start by answering your first question: why is there a horizontal line if the vertical deflection circuit is the problem?
Picture two things that control the beam of light on your screen: a circuit that makes the beam cross the screen horizontally (left to right), and another circuit that deflects the beam vertically (up and down). If the vertical circuit fails, the beam just travels across the screen in a single line... rather then drawing multiple lines.
I found the service manual for the Phillips 30PW9100D and found many references to this problem online. Several people suggested that it was a capacitor. With that in mind, I went hunting for the faulty circuit.
One more time: don't open your television unless you know what you are doing. Don't, don't, don't.
Reminders for those people who do know what they are doing.
My television had Torx screws. There were four of them on the outside case, and two that screwed the connection panels to the back of the case. If I hadn't unscrewed these, I would have ripped the connection panels out when I took the case off.
On my television, I had to pull the case straight back. There is a ribbon cable inside of the case that connects to a PCB inside.
Note the empty connector, and the green mark on the one side. Like I said, I marked every connector, and then made a note. I wrapped a piece of electrical tape around each ribbon cable, and wrote stuff on the tape, to make sure I knew where it was meant to go. In this case, the jack has a number that I wrote on the tape.
I took photos through most of the process. When I took off the case, this is what I found:
On the top of my set was the Anode. This contains a lot of voltage. Did I mention not to touch it? Yeah. Don't.
There's a thick wrapped wire that goes around the set. I'm pretty sure this is the degaussing coil, but I don't want to misinform anyone.
On the back of the tube is a small PCB that I've dubbed the CRT board.
From the back, the thing on the left is the Tuner. This is normally the thing that takes the antenna signal and converts it into something that the television can use.
The main board is my target here. Its mounted on a piece of plastic that clicks into the lower case. More on that in a second. I need to point out a few more things:
Here's a different angle, again with the case removed. Note the section that says "a lot of stored up electricity". Anytime that you see really thick wires and a bunch of metal as a heat sink, there is a circuit that contains a lot of electricity.
I was super careful anytime I worked around that section.
There are two deflection circuits. One is on a small board that stands vertically on the mainboard. I had to remove it in order to pull the mainboard out. In the photo above, I've already detached the deflection board that I needed to remove. More on that in a minute.
The black box I drew surrounds 3 capacitors. Those are the ones I replaced. I wanted to show you where I found the circuits now, before you see a close up.
Before I could get to any of this, I needed to detach the deflection board that stands up. Its plugged into a blue connector onto the mainboard.
There are tiny clips on the blue connector that hold it to the mainboard.
From there, I started to disconnect all of the wires on the deflection board.
Here you can see the five connectors on the deflection board. I labeled each one, and where it plugged in.
On the right of this photo you'll see something that says "clip for TDA8177F". That copper- looking piece of metal is a clip. Directly below that is the other half of the same clip that holds the TDA8177F to a heatsink.
Its impossible to explain to you how the clip works, but the vertical deflection IC (TDA8177F) is directly below that clip. I had to push on the top of the clip to get it to let go of the IC.
I had no idea if that IC was the problem... but I decided to replace that too. It only cost me about $3 from the Audio Lab of Georgia. There are a lot of parts to this circuit... but I presumed that the most likely ones causing the problem were the capacitors that I replaced, or this chip.
It was worth it to change all of them.
Finally, here is a photo of the capacitors that I replaced. Note that this whole section is surrounded by heat sinks, and shielding. I know that this section contains high voltages during operation, so I was pretty careful about what I touched even though I had discharged everything.
I had to take the PC board off of the plastic tray to get to the back of the board.
Those 3 blue capacitors were all 470uf, 16v. I replaced them with new ones that had a high tolerance for temperature. I didn't know what the failure was (the vertical deflection IC that I also replaced, or one of these chips) but I wanted to make sure that whatever caused it had less of a chance of happening a second time.
So I de-soldered all 3, pulled them, replaced them (making sure I got the polarity right) and put everything back together.
I check my wiring a few times to make sure I hadn't missed anything, then put the case on loosely. I had a fire extinguisher nearby just in case, and kept my distance from the set as I turned it on.
My first try? I had a good picture, but was missing the sound. I turned it off, unplugged it, and found that I hadn't plugged a cable back in all the way.
I turned it back on and it worked perfectly.
Its uncanny.
I had to change the "format" (from 4:3 back to 16:9), but otherwise, it had kept all of my channels in memory.
I know that these kind of things are generally a result of one bad part. That's what everyone told me. But there's something neat about spending less then $10 on parts (I bought back ups of everything) and having the thing work perfectly. The most expensive thing was the shipping for the parts, which was more then the parts themselves.
Taking the thing apart took me several days. Not because it was hard, or difficult. Just because I wanted to label everything and take my time, and make sure I could put it all back together. I also didn't want to touch the wrong things.
Putting it back together took me less then 30 minutes. I checked off each cable as I reattached it, and still somehow missed pushing one all the way in. Go figure.
I came away from this feeling several things:
Anyway, I celebrated by watching Almost Famous, the Bootleg edition, at 5 in the morning.
If you have similar problems with this model of television, I'd love to hear your story.
If you go inside of a television without knowing what you are doing, you not only have a good chance of receiving an electric shock, but you could kill yourself. That's not hyperbole. A traditional CRT screen needs high voltage, and the circuits inside store those voltages for more then a month after the television is unplugged.
Get it?
No?
Okay; let me put it one more way: this is not meant as an instruction manual on how to repair a TV. This is what I learned from repairing this TV. Its not comprehensive, and its not supposed to be.
If you read this and then open up your television to repair it, you are liable for your own health and well-being from messing around with something that you don't understand. I'm writing this because I know something about televisions but didn't know what to look for to repair mine. Its meant for the people who have a good working knowledge of electronics and know how to safely repair something that stores hundreds of volts.
Please don't open up your Phillips 30PW9100D if you don't know what you're doing. Cool?
On the other hand, if you just wanted to understand what the problem is on this television, go read ahead... and just read.
If you want to add something to my understanding, please leave a comment.
And now my explanation.
I own a nice television. I bought it about two years ago. Its one of the last HD- widescreen televisions that uses a traditional CRT.
For those of you who are interested, until recently, LCD televisions couldn't compare with the color of CRTs. The downside is that CRTs use a lot more power and are really, really heavy. I bought mine as an open-box television, and I got a great deal on it. It has an amazing HD picture. When I first bought it, my cat tried to paw at the birds on the screen.
Unfortunately, the chassis (inside) for my beautiful television was a lemon. Mine is a LO5-1U AA. If you want to know what kind of a chassis your television has, look on the back of the set, near the serial number.
This particular chassis seems to have the same problem that occurs on a lot of sets that were made by this manufacturer at around the same time. The vertical deflection circuit dies after a while, and the screen looks like this:
You might also see a thin white horizontal line. Sorry that these images are fuzzy. (I'm kinda embarrassed about it, since I'm a photographer. I accidentally let the autofocus focus on my reflection in the glass.)
So let me start by answering your first question: why is there a horizontal line if the vertical deflection circuit is the problem?Picture two things that control the beam of light on your screen: a circuit that makes the beam cross the screen horizontally (left to right), and another circuit that deflects the beam vertically (up and down). If the vertical circuit fails, the beam just travels across the screen in a single line... rather then drawing multiple lines.
I found the service manual for the Phillips 30PW9100D and found many references to this problem online. Several people suggested that it was a capacitor. With that in mind, I went hunting for the faulty circuit.
One more time: don't open your television unless you know what you are doing. Don't, don't, don't.
Reminders for those people who do know what they are doing.
- Unplug your television. I actually left mine unplugged for a month before I even went inside.
- Don't touch the anode, or even get near it. If you need to disconnect it, then discharge it. This is the most dangerous thing you could do inside of anything electronic that I know of. Don't play with high electricity unless you know what's going on.
- Don't touch anything on the PCB without knowing that its discharged first. There are some sizable capacitors on the PCB. Don't be fooled into believing that its safe to touch the foil on the backside just because its unplugged.
- Take digital photos of everything before you do it, and make yourself a detailed list of what you did. I put my television back together months after I took it apart. (I had to find the right parts, and wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing.) My photos and detailed list made it easier when I got lost. I even marked off the areas where I unscrewed things, and put red marks on one side of each connector before I unplugged them. It made it easier to orient them.
My television had Torx screws. There were four of them on the outside case, and two that screwed the connection panels to the back of the case. If I hadn't unscrewed these, I would have ripped the connection panels out when I took the case off.
On my television, I had to pull the case straight back. There is a ribbon cable inside of the case that connects to a PCB inside.
Note the empty connector, and the green mark on the one side. Like I said, I marked every connector, and then made a note. I wrapped a piece of electrical tape around each ribbon cable, and wrote stuff on the tape, to make sure I knew where it was meant to go. In this case, the jack has a number that I wrote on the tape.
I took photos through most of the process. When I took off the case, this is what I found:
On the top of my set was the Anode. This contains a lot of voltage. Did I mention not to touch it? Yeah. Don't.
There's a thick wrapped wire that goes around the set. I'm pretty sure this is the degaussing coil, but I don't want to misinform anyone.
On the back of the tube is a small PCB that I've dubbed the CRT board.
From the back, the thing on the left is the Tuner. This is normally the thing that takes the antenna signal and converts it into something that the television can use.
The main board is my target here. Its mounted on a piece of plastic that clicks into the lower case. More on that in a second. I need to point out a few more things:
Here's a different angle, again with the case removed. Note the section that says "a lot of stored up electricity". Anytime that you see really thick wires and a bunch of metal as a heat sink, there is a circuit that contains a lot of electricity.I was super careful anytime I worked around that section.
There are two deflection circuits. One is on a small board that stands vertically on the mainboard. I had to remove it in order to pull the mainboard out. In the photo above, I've already detached the deflection board that I needed to remove. More on that in a minute.
The black box I drew surrounds 3 capacitors. Those are the ones I replaced. I wanted to show you where I found the circuits now, before you see a close up.
Before I could get to any of this, I needed to detach the deflection board that stands up. Its plugged into a blue connector onto the mainboard.
There are tiny clips on the blue connector that hold it to the mainboard. From there, I started to disconnect all of the wires on the deflection board.
Here you can see the five connectors on the deflection board. I labeled each one, and where it plugged in.On the right of this photo you'll see something that says "clip for TDA8177F". That copper- looking piece of metal is a clip. Directly below that is the other half of the same clip that holds the TDA8177F to a heatsink.
Its impossible to explain to you how the clip works, but the vertical deflection IC (TDA8177F) is directly below that clip. I had to push on the top of the clip to get it to let go of the IC.
I had no idea if that IC was the problem... but I decided to replace that too. It only cost me about $3 from the Audio Lab of Georgia. There are a lot of parts to this circuit... but I presumed that the most likely ones causing the problem were the capacitors that I replaced, or this chip.
It was worth it to change all of them.
Finally, here is a photo of the capacitors that I replaced. Note that this whole section is surrounded by heat sinks, and shielding. I know that this section contains high voltages during operation, so I was pretty careful about what I touched even though I had discharged everything.
I had to take the PC board off of the plastic tray to get to the back of the board.
Those 3 blue capacitors were all 470uf, 16v. I replaced them with new ones that had a high tolerance for temperature. I didn't know what the failure was (the vertical deflection IC that I also replaced, or one of these chips) but I wanted to make sure that whatever caused it had less of a chance of happening a second time.
So I de-soldered all 3, pulled them, replaced them (making sure I got the polarity right) and put everything back together.
I check my wiring a few times to make sure I hadn't missed anything, then put the case on loosely. I had a fire extinguisher nearby just in case, and kept my distance from the set as I turned it on.
My first try? I had a good picture, but was missing the sound. I turned it off, unplugged it, and found that I hadn't plugged a cable back in all the way.
I turned it back on and it worked perfectly.
Its uncanny.
I had to change the "format" (from 4:3 back to 16:9), but otherwise, it had kept all of my channels in memory.
I know that these kind of things are generally a result of one bad part. That's what everyone told me. But there's something neat about spending less then $10 on parts (I bought back ups of everything) and having the thing work perfectly. The most expensive thing was the shipping for the parts, which was more then the parts themselves.
Taking the thing apart took me several days. Not because it was hard, or difficult. Just because I wanted to label everything and take my time, and make sure I could put it all back together. I also didn't want to touch the wrong things.
Putting it back together took me less then 30 minutes. I checked off each cable as I reattached it, and still somehow missed pushing one all the way in. Go figure.
I came away from this feeling several things:
- That weird sense of accomplishment that you feel when you do it yourself.
- A vague amazement that I could find the problem on the internet
- A renewed love affair with my TV. Dear God, do I love broadcast HD!
Anyway, I celebrated by watching Almost Famous, the Bootleg edition, at 5 in the morning.
If you have similar problems with this model of television, I'd love to hear your story.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Going to the library for Barack
I did something today I haven't done in a long time:
I went to the library and pulled up microfiche.
When I was younger, I used to research a lot. I'm pretty proud of the fact that I knew how to follow the multiple fibers of a subject and flip through a periodical index when I was in grade school.
The internet has made a lot of that unnecessary. But occasionally - like when you need to look up something that happened 16 years ago - you need microfiche.
In 1992, The New Party was formed by a couple named Sandy Pope and Joel Rodgers. They had many goals, some of which I'll address in a subsequent post. But the point is that Obama was a member of this party which was socialist.
There are two ways that the left has tried to blunt this chunk of information, which is unflattering to a presidential candidate:
Tommorrow, I commence with the second half of my research and my quest to connect the dots. But today I just wanted to reflect on the following irony: the thing that might sink the Democrats are the very magazines and articles that were written about them ten years ago... and our ability to read those words today.
If my research can add to that effort, I couldn't be more pleased.
I went to the library and pulled up microfiche.
When I was younger, I used to research a lot. I'm pretty proud of the fact that I knew how to follow the multiple fibers of a subject and flip through a periodical index when I was in grade school.
The internet has made a lot of that unnecessary. But occasionally - like when you need to look up something that happened 16 years ago - you need microfiche.
In 1992, The New Party was formed by a couple named Sandy Pope and Joel Rodgers. They had many goals, some of which I'll address in a subsequent post. But the point is that Obama was a member of this party which was socialist.
There are two ways that the left has tried to blunt this chunk of information, which is unflattering to a presidential candidate:
- They've suggested that Obama was never a member of that party. This photo tends to suggest otherwise. Of course, I'm not familiar with "The New Zeal". I have no reason to disbelieve them, and there are things in the image that leads me to believe that its authentic. (There are moire patterns on the photo, which are not only indicative of a half-toned newsletter that has been scanned in, but suggests that the image was not photoshopped.) The archives of the New Party confirm that Obama was there for at least one of their meetings, and they claim him as their own.
- They've said that The New Party was not socialist, or that we have no proof that the New Party was socialist. Their archived website would suggest otherwise. But I wanted the silver dagger to that argument, which is what led me to the library.
Tommorrow, I commence with the second half of my research and my quest to connect the dots. But today I just wanted to reflect on the following irony: the thing that might sink the Democrats are the very magazines and articles that were written about them ten years ago... and our ability to read those words today.
If my research can add to that effort, I couldn't be more pleased.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Chicago: where only the wealthy pay taxes. And those who have cars.
Just a half year ago, I jumped back into the pool of owning a car in Chicago.
My biggest reason for not owning a car in Chicago?
They tax the F out of them.
State registration fees, state licensing fees, and the city sticker are just the start.
Our toll roads are stupidly inefficient. But we live with it.
But most recently, Chicago has decided to raise taxes on parking. According to the Chicago Tribune, those taxes will be about 33%.
Welcome to the socialist state of Chicago. Can we just dip into your pocket?
My biggest reason for not owning a car in Chicago?
They tax the F out of them.
State registration fees, state licensing fees, and the city sticker are just the start.
Our toll roads are stupidly inefficient. But we live with it.
But most recently, Chicago has decided to raise taxes on parking. According to the Chicago Tribune, those taxes will be about 33%.
Welcome to the socialist state of Chicago. Can we just dip into your pocket?
Sunday, October 12, 2008
More ACORN fraud
There are a lot of people suggesting that it shouldn't matter whether or not Barack Obama had connections with ACORN.
This is why:
ACORN has a criminal past of violating vote registration laws. Beyond that, they are one of the most brown-shirted activist groups I've ever run into. At protests, they have a nasty habit of tearing the signs of counter-protestors and threatening violence on people who have tried to videotape them, or question some of the protestors on tape.
So when I read that officials in Vegas had raided their headquarters to find fraud, I couldn't have been more pleased. From the Review Journal:
This is why:
Barkley estimated he'd registered to vote "10 to 15" times after canvassers for ACORN, whose political wing has endorsed Barack Obama, relentlessly pursued him and others.
ACORN has a criminal past of violating vote registration laws. Beyond that, they are one of the most brown-shirted activist groups I've ever run into. At protests, they have a nasty habit of tearing the signs of counter-protestors and threatening violence on people who have tried to videotape them, or question some of the protestors on tape.
So when I read that officials in Vegas had raided their headquarters to find fraud, I couldn't have been more pleased. From the Review Journal:
The secretary of state's office launched an investigation after noticing that names did not match addresses and that most members of the Dallas Cowboys appeared to be registering in Nevada to vote in November's general election.
"Some of these (forms) were facially fraudulent; we basically had the starting lineup for the Dallas Cowboys," Secretary of State Ross Miller said. "Tony Romo is not registered to vote in Nevada. Anyone trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot."
Agents with the secretary of state and state attorney general offices served a search warrant on the headquarters of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, at 953 E. Sahara Ave. shortly after 9 a.m. They seized voter registration forms and computer databases to determine how many fake forms were submitted and identify employees who were responsible.
Good for them. And good for the Review Journal for reporting this.
About Palin's Hacker
The guy who broke into Palin's e-mail was the son of a Democratic state representative.
From "The Smoking Gun"
Right.
Just a thought:
Watergate was about some low level thugs who broke into a Democratic headquarters office to steal their plans for the election.
This... was lower then that.
I've run into some pretty strange excuses over the past few days for Kernell's behavior. There are people who are suggesting its not a big deal, and that Palin shouldn't have used a Yahoo account.
This completely escapes the fact that the son of a Democratic state rep. broke into her e-mail account with the goal of changing the election. It doesn't matter what you think of Palin. This is like someone breaking into your home because they want to prove that you stole paperclips from your job. It blows on every moral level.
From "The Smoking Gun"
Kernell, pictured at right, allegedly changed its password to "popcorn" and made screenshots of the account's directory as well as certain messages, photos, and "other personal information." Those screenshots eventually were widely distributed online. If convicted of the felony charge, Kernell, an economics major at the University of Tennessee, faces a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.But it wasn't politically motivated.
Right.
Just a thought:
Watergate was about some low level thugs who broke into a Democratic headquarters office to steal their plans for the election.
This... was lower then that.
I've run into some pretty strange excuses over the past few days for Kernell's behavior. There are people who are suggesting its not a big deal, and that Palin shouldn't have used a Yahoo account.
This completely escapes the fact that the son of a Democratic state rep. broke into her e-mail account with the goal of changing the election. It doesn't matter what you think of Palin. This is like someone breaking into your home because they want to prove that you stole paperclips from your job. It blows on every moral level.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Obama belonged to socialist "New Party"
Sometimes I have a hard time writing a headline, because the issue is so important to me that I want to make sure I sum it up accurately and correctly.
The above title is completely true. I know with the slime found on the internet, its sometimes hard to figure out what is the truth. -And there is a lot of trash out there. So let me make the case, as it was originally presented in the "Politically drunk on power" blog.
This was fairly carefully researched stuff.
I love this part of the net; the ability to recall what someone said back in 1996, despite their efforts to cover it up.
This is what they found:
Specifically, they list off the following candidates for Illinois:
So if we're to believe the documents that were uncovered on the net, from 1996, the New Party (a socialist party) was proud to support New Party candidate Barack Obama.
I know that previously, there have been accusations that Barack is a socialist. Most people blow that kind of stuff off as political fluff. Its not real to them.
But in this case, its actually real.
Right voices has a good summary of everything that has been found so far.
What's interteresting to me about this is that the vast majority of the media is ignoring this.
There is proof that Obama belonged to a socialist organization. Which media outlet will be the first one to ask Obama about it? Will any media outlet ask him?
Or is Obama so Teflon, so loved, so adored, that even belonging to a socialist organization won't be cause for alarm?
-John
The above title is completely true. I know with the slime found on the internet, its sometimes hard to figure out what is the truth. -And there is a lot of trash out there. So let me make the case, as it was originally presented in the "Politically drunk on power" blog.
In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist 'New Party' was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations "fusion" reform platform as unconstitutional.
After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.
On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.
This was fairly carefully researched stuff.
I love this part of the net; the ability to recall what someone said back in 1996, despite their efforts to cover it up.
This is what they found:
New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races:
Specifically, they list off the following candidates for Illinois:
Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).
So if we're to believe the documents that were uncovered on the net, from 1996, the New Party (a socialist party) was proud to support New Party candidate Barack Obama.
I know that previously, there have been accusations that Barack is a socialist. Most people blow that kind of stuff off as political fluff. Its not real to them.
But in this case, its actually real.
Right voices has a good summary of everything that has been found so far.
What's interteresting to me about this is that the vast majority of the media is ignoring this.
There is proof that Obama belonged to a socialist organization. Which media outlet will be the first one to ask Obama about it? Will any media outlet ask him?
Or is Obama so Teflon, so loved, so adored, that even belonging to a socialist organization won't be cause for alarm?
-John
The guy who represents the average conservative
He's pissed. He's genuinely pissed.
I couldn't agree with this guy more.
From Hot Air:
I know how he feels... and my next post will expound on it.
I couldn't agree with this guy more.
From Hot Air:
I know how he feels... and my next post will expound on it.
Did Obama try to delay a deal for withdrawal?
This story has been around in various ways, but this one seems a lot more concrete. Particularly by the amount of people who won't comment.
If true, it not only makes Obama the worst opportunist around, but a dangerous man to the US.
At the same time the Bush administration was negotiating a still elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in private conversations that the president shouldn't be allowed to enact the deal without congressional approval.
If true, it not only makes Obama the worst opportunist around, but a dangerous man to the US.
The bailout bill, and the bailout vote
I wanted to put this somewhere, so that I could keep tract of it easily. This is as good of a place as any.
The first vote on the bailout was September 29th, and the final tally is as follows:
The second vote on the bailout was October 3rd, and that tally is as follows:
My representative, Gutierrez, voted "yea" both times.
The first vote on the bailout was September 29th, and the final tally is as follows:
| Ayes | Noes | PRES | NV | |
| Democratic | 140 | 95 | ||
| Republican | 65 | 133 | 1 | |
| Independent | ||||
| TOTALS | 205 | 228 | | 1 |
The second vote on the bailout was October 3rd, and that tally is as follows:
| Yeas | Nays | PRES | NV | |
| Democratic | 172 | 63 | ||
| Republican | 91 | 108 | ||
| Independent | ||||
| TOTALS | 263 | 171 | | |
My representative, Gutierrez, voted "yea" both times.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
A stunningly accurate skit on the bailout
Monday, October 06, 2008
At what point does hero worship get dangerous?
I think that I can say this with 100% honesty:
If Obama were a Republican - and if he agreed (in theory) with everything I believed in - and even if I thought he seemed humble...
...the hero worship would still creep me out.
It would creep me out to the point where I wouldn't vote for that candidate.
I don't understand this level of hero worship about anyone.
Its why I can't fathom the Jim Jones thing, or the Moonies, or anyone who hangs a big photo of their leader in their home.
With all of this in mind, I have to ask this question of any liberal and/or democrat who might run across my blog:
How far does it have to go?
How bizarre would it have to get before you would say
Does that point exist?
Is there any point where you would say that the hero worship has gone too far?
Would it have to be Paris fashion show, where Obama's face is on dresses and clothes, with a model wearing some kind of wristlets that say "Yes, we can"?
Would it be a teachers union suggesting to their members that they should all wear blue on Tuesdays to show their support for Obama and as a way to influence the teens they teach?
Would it be a junior fraternity of black gentlemen marching, wearing camouflage, and stepping forward to tell you, one at a time, how Obama has changed their lives?
Or would it be a group of schoolchildren singing their praise for Obama, with their proud parents watching over them for praising their dear leader?
How far is too far for you?
I'd love it if someone would answer that for me.
If Obama were a Republican - and if he agreed (in theory) with everything I believed in - and even if I thought he seemed humble...
...the hero worship would still creep me out.
It would creep me out to the point where I wouldn't vote for that candidate.
I don't understand this level of hero worship about anyone.
Its why I can't fathom the Jim Jones thing, or the Moonies, or anyone who hangs a big photo of their leader in their home.
With all of this in mind, I have to ask this question of any liberal and/or democrat who might run across my blog:
How far does it have to go?
How bizarre would it have to get before you would say
I can't vote for Obama. Not because I disagree with what he says, but this is too much faith to put into any one person. This is too much worship for one mortal being, especially one who is a politician.
Does that point exist?
Is there any point where you would say that the hero worship has gone too far?
Would it have to be Paris fashion show, where Obama's face is on dresses and clothes, with a model wearing some kind of wristlets that say "Yes, we can"?
Would it be a teachers union suggesting to their members that they should all wear blue on Tuesdays to show their support for Obama and as a way to influence the teens they teach?
Would it be a junior fraternity of black gentlemen marching, wearing camouflage, and stepping forward to tell you, one at a time, how Obama has changed their lives?
Or would it be a group of schoolchildren singing their praise for Obama, with their proud parents watching over them for praising their dear leader?
How far is too far for you?
I'd love it if someone would answer that for me.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Change. Creepy, creepy change.
When I was in 6th grade, I had a teacher who was an African American. I remember singing negro spirituals in that class, and feeling very awkward about it.
You see, there weren't any black kids in our class. So this wasn't about the teacher helping someone to find their identity. It was about what the teacher wanted us to do.
Even though I was in 6th grade, I understood that it was wrong for the teacher to have us sing from her point of view.
Similarly, I look at this video and I'm appalled.
When I watch it, I wonder how many of those kids know what they're singing about. I mean, the one girl is talking about how Obama will help bring freedom to the world. Despite the fact that he opposed the surge. Ahem.
The point being that no kid of that age should be used for politics.
If you read the text on the YouTube page, you find out how this video was created:
Let's parse that sentence, shall we?
At an Obama fundraiser, they tried to figure out ways to spread the message. One of the party faithful was a woman named Kathy, who also happened to teach kids music. She co-authored the songs with the kids.
I hope it was the kids who wrote the lyrics. I'd hate to think that the teacher came up with this:
Ack. My teeth hurt.
Hey, if all of the nations joined as one sounds familiar, you'll probably like the ReMix of the song, which you can find here:
Its appropriately German.
Yeah, I know... tacky. But what do you call the original work? Artistic?
Let's face it.... its not just propaganda... but its creepy propaganda.
It reminded me of cults like this one:
That's from the cult of David Berg. He believed in free sex, free love, and freebies in general. Sound familiar?
Anyway, the good news is that we are about 30 days away from elections. If Obama is elected, all of these kids will be given electric blue "Hope" vests to march around in, and they will turn in anyone who doesn't want to affect change, not to mention those who don't want international unity.
That's how it always works.
You see, there weren't any black kids in our class. So this wasn't about the teacher helping someone to find their identity. It was about what the teacher wanted us to do.
Even though I was in 6th grade, I understood that it was wrong for the teacher to have us sing from her point of view.
Similarly, I look at this video and I'm appalled.
When I watch it, I wonder how many of those kids know what they're singing about. I mean, the one girl is talking about how Obama will help bring freedom to the world. Despite the fact that he opposed the surge. Ahem.
The point being that no kid of that age should be used for politics.
If you read the text on the YouTube page, you find out how this video was created:
Inspired by ideas raised at a grassroots Obama fundraiser, a music teacher, Kathy Sawada, and the children composed and rehearsed the songs in less than two weeks.
Let's parse that sentence, shall we?
At an Obama fundraiser, they tried to figure out ways to spread the message. One of the party faithful was a woman named Kathy, who also happened to teach kids music. She co-authored the songs with the kids.
I hope it was the kids who wrote the lyrics. I'd hate to think that the teacher came up with this:
Now's the moment, lift each voice to sing
Sing with all your heart!
For our children, for our families,
Nations all joined as one.
Sing for joy and sing abundant peace,
Courage, justice, hope!
Sing together, hold each precious hand,
Lifting each other up;
Sing for vision, sing for unity,
Lifting our hearts to Sing!
Ack. My teeth hurt.
Hey, if all of the nations joined as one sounds familiar, you'll probably like the ReMix of the song, which you can find here:
Its appropriately German.
Yeah, I know... tacky. But what do you call the original work? Artistic?
Let's face it.... its not just propaganda... but its creepy propaganda.
It reminded me of cults like this one:
That's from the cult of David Berg. He believed in free sex, free love, and freebies in general. Sound familiar?
Anyway, the good news is that we are about 30 days away from elections. If Obama is elected, all of these kids will be given electric blue "Hope" vests to march around in, and they will turn in anyone who doesn't want to affect change, not to mention those who don't want international unity.
That's how it always works.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
It could be a landslide... for McCain!
Pollster Zogby has suggested that this upcoming election could end in a landslide... for McCain!
From the Democrat and Chronicle:
I was surprised as anyone to read that.
Keep in mind that I predicted this a year ago. But for the past two days, pundits have been telling me that McCain is down in the polls.
Apparently, Zogby doesn't think that the polls tell the whole story.
From the Democrat and Chronicle:
John Zogby, president of Zogby International, told a group of businesspeople today that it’s up to Democratic Sen. Barack Obama to convince voters to go with him. If he’s not successful, the country will likely vote for “a comfortable old shoe”, that being Republican Sen. John McCain.
I was surprised as anyone to read that.
Keep in mind that I predicted this a year ago. But for the past two days, pundits have been telling me that McCain is down in the polls.
Apparently, Zogby doesn't think that the polls tell the whole story.
Priorities: McCain vs. Obama
A financial crisis hits.
I'm presuming that by now, everyone knows the details. But there's one detail that I really want to hit on:
What did each candidate do?
Obama was contacted by a Republican friend of his (Senator Tom Coburn) who suggested that he and McCain issue a joint statement.
Obama - to his credit - called up McCain.
McCain agrees, and says that it would be a good idea. Then McCain goes a little further, and suggests that they suspend the debate so that they can both go to Washington and solve the crisis.
Now I know I need to back up this point, because some people have argued that McCain didn't suggest this to Obama in that initial phone call.
Here is a transcript of Obama's press conference from the 24th of September. A reporter asks Obama if McCain mentioned suspending the debates in that call:
What was Obama's answer?
Obama's priority is that he wants to debate.
I can't think of anything in recent history that makes the priorities of two candidates clearer.
On one hand, you have McCain. When the other candidate reaches out to him and suggests something that is good for the country, he agrees.
Then you have Obama. When the other candidate suggests something that would be good for the country, Obama suggests that he wants to go to the debates.
What is Obama's priority here?
Himself.
His quest for the presidency.
That's what he thinks is most imporant. That people get to see him and hear him.
My dad told me a long time ago that there is a great difference between what people say and what they do, and that I should note the difference.
The difference has been noted.
I'm presuming that by now, everyone knows the details. But there's one detail that I really want to hit on:
What did each candidate do?
Obama was contacted by a Republican friend of his (Senator Tom Coburn) who suggested that he and McCain issue a joint statement.
Obama - to his credit - called up McCain.
McCain agrees, and says that it would be a good idea. Then McCain goes a little further, and suggests that they suspend the debate so that they can both go to Washington and solve the crisis.
Now I know I need to back up this point, because some people have argued that McCain didn't suggest this to Obama in that initial phone call.
Here is a transcript of Obama's press conference from the 24th of September. A reporter asks Obama if McCain mentioned suspending the debates in that call:
OBAMA: Well, he, you know, he mentioned that he was intending potentially, he was going to fly to Washington and that he thought that perhaps we should suspend the debates. I thought this was something that was, that he was mulling over. Apparently, this was something that, you know, he was more decisive about in his own mind.Which is true. McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign to take care of the financial crisis.
What was Obama's answer?
Obama's priority is that he wants to debate.
I can't think of anything in recent history that makes the priorities of two candidates clearer.
On one hand, you have McCain. When the other candidate reaches out to him and suggests something that is good for the country, he agrees.
Then you have Obama. When the other candidate suggests something that would be good for the country, Obama suggests that he wants to go to the debates.
What is Obama's priority here?
Himself.
His quest for the presidency.
That's what he thinks is most imporant. That people get to see him and hear him.
My dad told me a long time ago that there is a great difference between what people say and what they do, and that I should note the difference.
The difference has been noted.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Naomi Wolf goes batshit crazy
When I was in college, I was assigned "The Beauty Myth" by a professor. He knew that I took fashion photos, and I presume that he wanted me to get some kind of feminist primer.
I wrote a fairly critical review of the book. I don't remember what I said, but I remember saying that Naomi's arguments were both incoherent and illogical.
Somehow, Naomi has gotten less coherent, while still selling books.
Recently, Naomi wrote a commentary for the Huffington Post. She writes about how Sarah "Evita Palin" [her slander, not mine] would mean the 'coming' of the 'police state'.
I'd love for everyone to think about that for just a second.
Do you logically believe that Sarah Palin sounds like the kind of person who is for a police state?
Keep in mind, the primary criticism of Palin up until this point has been that Sarah fired her police chief because he supported a ban on concealed weapons for ordinary people, and because the police chief wanted bars to close earlier.
That's the woman who is going to push a police state?
From there, Naomi starts to lose her shit. -And I mean, she seriously loses it. She argues that people - she doesn't say who - are after her. I'm going to quote her, unedited.
Naomi goes on to argue that letters that she's sent to her daughter, at summer camp, have vanished. Apparently, the people who are harassing her really know how to get to a person. By stealing letters meant for summer camp. That's just... well... weird.
To Naomi's credit, I must have the same people after me. When I put money into my bank accounts, money vanishes. I have to keep putting more money in. Its really bizarre.
And e-mail? Don't get me started. I don't know who they are, but they keep putting a bunch of spam in my e-mail box. Obviously, I've been annoying those who would put us in a police state.
People like that old POW and the woman who fired her police chief because he wanted to restrict people from owning weapons.
Unfortunately, I missed Naomi's appearance tonight at the main library in my city. I realized she was going to be there too late. Which is too bad. Because I'd love to ask her a bunch of things in person. Like...
Naomi; I'm genuinely sad that I couldn't question you today. It would have been fun. Of course, you would have asked the security to take me away, because you'd worry that I'd put a new chip in your head. But it would still be fun.
I wrote a fairly critical review of the book. I don't remember what I said, but I remember saying that Naomi's arguments were both incoherent and illogical.
Somehow, Naomi has gotten less coherent, while still selling books.
Recently, Naomi wrote a commentary for the Huffington Post. She writes about how Sarah "Evita Palin" [her slander, not mine] would mean the 'coming' of the 'police state'.
I'd love for everyone to think about that for just a second.
Do you logically believe that Sarah Palin sounds like the kind of person who is for a police state?
Keep in mind, the primary criticism of Palin up until this point has been that Sarah fired her police chief because he supported a ban on concealed weapons for ordinary people, and because the police chief wanted bars to close earlier.
That's the woman who is going to push a police state?
From there, Naomi starts to lose her shit. -And I mean, she seriously loses it. She argues that people - she doesn't say who - are after her. I'm going to quote her, unedited.
Almost everyone I work with on projects related to this campaign for liberty has been experiencing computer harassment: emails are stripped, messages disappear. That's not all: people's bank accounts are being tampered with: wire transfers to banks vanish in midair. I personally keep opening bank accounts that are quickly corrupted by fraud. Money vanishes. Coworkers of mine have to keep opening new email accounts as old ones become infected. And most disturbingly to me personally is the mail tampering I have both heard of and experienced firsthand. My tax returns vanished from my mailbox. All my larger envelopes arrive ripped straight open apparently by hand.
Naomi goes on to argue that letters that she's sent to her daughter, at summer camp, have vanished. Apparently, the people who are harassing her really know how to get to a person. By stealing letters meant for summer camp. That's just... well... weird.
To Naomi's credit, I must have the same people after me. When I put money into my bank accounts, money vanishes. I have to keep putting more money in. Its really bizarre.
And e-mail? Don't get me started. I don't know who they are, but they keep putting a bunch of spam in my e-mail box. Obviously, I've been annoying those who would put us in a police state.
People like that old POW and the woman who fired her police chief because he wanted to restrict people from owning weapons.
Unfortunately, I missed Naomi's appearance tonight at the main library in my city. I realized she was going to be there too late. Which is too bad. Because I'd love to ask her a bunch of things in person. Like...
- Are you nuts? Do you actually believe that there is a secret cabal of Republicans who are harassing you?
- Why are you for Democrats, and against Republicans? Do you actually believe that the Republicans are trying to strip away your rights? Did you know that it was a Democrat who pushed labels on CDs with 'bad' lyrics? That it was a Democrat who pushed the V-chip in your TV? That it is Democrats who are pushing the 'Fairness Doctrine'?
- Are you nuts? No... really... like batshit crazy nuts? Do you believe that building 7 was bought down by the owner of the building on 9/11? Do you think that Katrina was caused by weather experiments? Do you think we faked going to the moon?
Naomi; I'm genuinely sad that I couldn't question you today. It would have been fun. Of course, you would have asked the security to take me away, because you'd worry that I'd put a new chip in your head. But it would still be fun.
A must-read story on a PR company and anti-Palin videos
Its really hard to sum up all of the fantastic reporting that The Jawa Report has done on this story. But I'll try.
Right after Palin was announced as the VP candidate, a video was produced attacking her. Links to that video were presented in various places, including a DailyKos diary, which was later deleted.
The Jawa Report followed the internet nuggets to the door of Winner & Associates; a PR firm that has donated to the Obama campaign and has significant ties to the same.
Again, read the report. I can't sum it up and do it justice. These guys really did their homework and connected the dots.
But if its all correct (and it seems to be), a PR company that has many connections to the Obama camp released a smear video on Palin, then tried to cover its tracks. A lot of tracks were deleted in the process, but the Jawa report kept them all.
Most recently, the Jawa Report published an update, where Ethan Winner (yes, Of Winner and Associates) claims that he made the video on his own, and that he planned on paying all of the expenses out of his own pocket.
If you read the rest of the report, you'll be saying 'bullshit' throughout his denial of impropriety, as I did.
Its important to note that the Jawa Report figured out that 'whoever' was posting those videos online was doing it during regular business hours... which would make it during the time when Ethan was supposedly working for Winner And Associates. Provided that he has regular business hours, of course.
I can't emphasize enough how good this report is. I took journalism classes. I know how much work it takes to follow all of the leads. If there was a Pulitzer for blogging, these guys should get it. Seriously.
Right after Palin was announced as the VP candidate, a video was produced attacking her. Links to that video were presented in various places, including a DailyKos diary, which was later deleted.
The Jawa Report followed the internet nuggets to the door of Winner & Associates; a PR firm that has donated to the Obama campaign and has significant ties to the same.
Again, read the report. I can't sum it up and do it justice. These guys really did their homework and connected the dots.
But if its all correct (and it seems to be), a PR company that has many connections to the Obama camp released a smear video on Palin, then tried to cover its tracks. A lot of tracks were deleted in the process, but the Jawa report kept them all.
Most recently, the Jawa Report published an update, where Ethan Winner (yes, Of Winner and Associates) claims that he made the video on his own, and that he planned on paying all of the expenses out of his own pocket.
If you read the rest of the report, you'll be saying 'bullshit' throughout his denial of impropriety, as I did.
Its important to note that the Jawa Report figured out that 'whoever' was posting those videos online was doing it during regular business hours... which would make it during the time when Ethan was supposedly working for Winner And Associates. Provided that he has regular business hours, of course.
I can't emphasize enough how good this report is. I took journalism classes. I know how much work it takes to follow all of the leads. If there was a Pulitzer for blogging, these guys should get it. Seriously.
What Republicans tried to do, to avoid this financial meltdown
I just wanted to remind everyone what Republicans tried to do in 2003, to avoid this financial meltdown.
According to this New York Times article, that I referenced earlier, the Bush White House proposed further regulation and oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Democrats almost reflexively went against it... suggesting additional oversight would make it harder for people with poor credit to get loans. (By the way; its just logical not to loan money to people with bad credit. I have horrible credit, and its that way for a reason.)
I did my homework, and I looked up the bills that were proposed at the time.
If you look here you'll find senate bill 1508. Read the first part. Its says:
According to this New York Times article, that I referenced earlier, the Bush White House proposed further regulation and oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Democrats almost reflexively went against it... suggesting additional oversight would make it harder for people with poor credit to get loans. (By the way; its just logical not to loan money to people with bad credit. I have horrible credit, and its that way for a reason.)
I did my homework, and I looked up the bills that were proposed at the time.
If you look here you'll find senate bill 1508. Read the first part. Its says:
TITLE I--REFORM OF REGULATION OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC
That was a bill that Senator Hagel tried to get passed. If you look at the co-sponsors, you'll see McCain's name.
Apparently, the bill floundered in committee.
Here is bill HR 2575 which:
Amends the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to transfer supervisory and regulatory authority over specified government sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to the Director of the Office of Housing Finance Supervision from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.Sounds pretty smart. Doesn't it?
Requires the Director to ensure that the enterprises operate in a financially safe manner and remain adequately capitalized.
I lost tract of the third bill, but hopefully, you get the point. A bunch of Republicans tried to solve the problem, and they were blocked.
Anyway, I just wanted everyone to remember that as they read the financial news. Particularly when someone suggests that the Republicans don't care, or didn't try to do enough.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Cheney defines Bush Doctrine in 2001
There are about 5 different definitions of Bush Doctrine that I've found so far.
But this one is interesting to me, because it was said by VP Dick Cheney, shortly after September 11. Its from October 23rd of 2001.
But this one is interesting to me, because it was said by VP Dick Cheney, shortly after September 11. Its from October 23rd of 2001.
Under the Bush doctrine, a regime that harbors or supports terrorists will be regarded as hostile to the United States of America.The direct attack on our nation has put us on notice that the enemy is resourceful and ruthless. We have to assume there will be more attacks. That is the only safe way for to us proceed.
In this conflict, for the first time in our history, we will probably suffer more casualties here at home than will our forces overseas. But in the face of these dangers, Americans can be assured that we are doing absolutely everything we know how to do.
Its strange to believe that September 11th happened 7 years ago. It feels like 2, maybe 3 years ago. Anyway, I thought that the next time that Charlie Gibson asks someone about the Bush doctrine, he might want to use Cheney's definition.
McCain critical of the NY Times
McCain is finally going after the real enemy in this election... the media.
The New York Times recently caught his ire. Spokesman Steve Schmidt said:
To try to diffuse criticism of the Times, Obama spokespeople released a list of articles that they felt were critical of Obama.
I've chosen my favorite titles from that list, and post them below. Remember, these are supposed to be articles critical of Obama.
That last one really hurts.
Ouch! How can his students be enthralled with him? That's clearly biased against him. -And the story of Obama, written by Obama? Now that's some hard-hitting journalism.
I thought I'd share that list of what the spokepeople of the Obama camp feel are articles that are critical of them.
In other criticism, Obama can't actually walk on water.
The New York Times recently caught his ire. Spokesman Steve Schmidt said:
"This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is."In response, the Obama camp tried to suggest that there was no bias on the part of the New York Times. (The Obamaniacs at the Times must be protected at all costs!)
To try to diffuse criticism of the Times, Obama spokespeople released a list of articles that they felt were critical of Obama.
I've chosen my favorite titles from that list, and post them below. Remember, these are supposed to be articles critical of Obama.
- In Law School, Obama Found Political Voice [New York Times, 1/28/07]
- Charisma and a Search for Self In Obama's Hawaii Childhood [New York Times, 3/17/07]
- After 2000 Loss, Obama Built Donor Network From Roots Up [New York Times, 4/3/07]
- A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith [New York Times, 4/30/07]
- An Obama Patron and Friend Until an Indictment in Illinois [New York Times, 6/14/07]
- In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd. [New York Times, 7/30/07]
- Loyal Network Backs Obama After His Help. [New York Times, 10/1/07]
- Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role [New York Times, 3/9/08]
- Obama Secret Service Agent Tied To Sex Joke [New York Times, 5/15/08]
- The Story of Obama, Written by Obama [New York Times, 5/18/08]
- Many Blacks Find Joy in Unexpected Breakthrough [New York Times, 6/5/08]
- Where Whites Draw The Line [New York Times, 6/8/08]
- Obama’s Organizing Years, Guiding Others and Finding Himself [New York Times, 7/7/08]
- As a Professor, Obama Enthralled Students and Puzzled Faculty [New York Times, 7/30/08]
That last one really hurts.
Ouch! How can his students be enthralled with him? That's clearly biased against him. -And the story of Obama, written by Obama? Now that's some hard-hitting journalism.
I thought I'd share that list of what the spokepeople of the Obama camp feel are articles that are critical of them.
In other criticism, Obama can't actually walk on water.
Having multiple cars? Wrong. A huge plane? Oh, that's okay.
Obama recently criticized McCain for his dozen cars. I guess that's excessive.
Apparently, he did so before boarding his campaign airplane.
You know the one. The one that has his name on his seat, with the word "President" on it?
Apparently, he did so before boarding his campaign airplane.
You know the one. The one that has his name on his seat, with the word "President" on it?
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Obama supporters try to suppress WGN. Again.
From this article on the Swamp:
Chicago radio station WGN-AM is again coming under attack from the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for offering airtime to a controversial author.
It is the second time in recent weeks the station has been the target of an "Obama Action Wire" alert to supporters of the Illinois Democrat.
At some point in time, Obama supporters are just going to have to actually start banning books critical of Obama.
UPDATE:
Here is a podcast of that show. I'm including it to piss people off who were trying to suppress the show.
What is Rangel's problem?
He didn't really call Palin disabled.
Did he?
From this CBS News story:
Stay classy, Rangel.
Did he?
From this CBS News story:
CBS 2 HD: "You got to be kind to the disabled?"
Rangel: "Yes."
CBS 2 HD: "She's disabled?"
Rangel: "There's no question about it politically. It's a nightmare to think that a person's foreign policy is based on their ability to look at Russia from where they live."
Stay classy, Rangel.
Absentee ballots
A bunch of people are complaining about absentee ballots.
I'm wary of them, but not against them. For this reason, I wanted to make sure that I bookmarked a good article that suggests that up to 1/3rd of the ballots this year might be cast via absentee ballot.
I note, with no happiness, that both parties are sending out a bunch of ballots. They are hoping that their people will fill them out and send them back. I'm not against people voting. But my feeling is that this is being done to make voter fraud easier.
I'm wary of them, but not against them. For this reason, I wanted to make sure that I bookmarked a good article that suggests that up to 1/3rd of the ballots this year might be cast via absentee ballot.
I note, with no happiness, that both parties are sending out a bunch of ballots. They are hoping that their people will fill them out and send them back. I'm not against people voting. But my feeling is that this is being done to make voter fraud easier.
John McCain wants to suppress POW info?
Of the nuttiest stories ever told during this campaign, the one that I hate the most is the idea that McCain has been trying to suppress knowledge about POWs that are still being held in captivity.
The guy behind this story is Sydney H. Schanberg, a Pulitzer winner who is an idiot. He previously wrote for the NY Times in 1975, and defended the rights of the Khemer Rouge in Cambodia:
This was stupid then, and Sydney is stupid now.
To suggest that McCain wants to hide any information about POWs from public consumption is not only reckless, but its not supported by facts. You don't have to believe me. Just go to the article, and look for meat. It doesn't exist.
It angers me to see someone who voluntarily stayed behind to support the morale of his POW cohorts being this badly maligned. Presumably, this is for political malice. If not, its journalistic malpractice.
The guy behind this story is Sydney H. Schanberg, a Pulitzer winner who is an idiot. He previously wrote for the NY Times in 1975, and defended the rights of the Khemer Rouge in Cambodia:
In the news columns of The New York Times, the celebrated Sydney Schanberg wrote of Cambodians that ``it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.'' He dismissed predictions of mass executions in the wake of a Khmer Rouge victory: ``It would be tendentious to forecast such abnormal behavior as national policy under a Communist government once the war is over.'' On April 13, 1975, Schanberg's dispatch from Phnom Penh was headlined, ``Indochina without Americans: for most, a better life.''
This was stupid then, and Sydney is stupid now.
To suggest that McCain wants to hide any information about POWs from public consumption is not only reckless, but its not supported by facts. You don't have to believe me. Just go to the article, and look for meat. It doesn't exist.
It angers me to see someone who voluntarily stayed behind to support the morale of his POW cohorts being this badly maligned. Presumably, this is for political malice. If not, its journalistic malpractice.
He's not arrogant. He's prematurely president.
I was reading this article, by the AP, on Barack's Chicago headquarters, when I noticed the 8 foot tall portrait of Obama in the background. It was so big, so overwhelming, that I felt a need to blog about it.
But I haven't quite covered all of my feelings about it, so let's recap.
From the begginning, the big criticism about Obama is that he's arrogant. So let me start by saying that I understand that candidates will often have posters with their image around their headquarters.
That doesn't bother me, or freak me out. They are selling a product, and it doesn't hurt to have photos of your product all around you. But Obama has a long history of doing things that kinda look arrogant. For instance, I blogged about this chair of his, on Obama Force One, from a CBS report:
...With the word "President" written on it, near his name. In June, blogs like Holy Coast commented on Barack's new podium, with his own presidential seal. Holy Coast even presented its own comparison, so that people could see the similiarity. 
I should point out that the presidential seal did not appear on Barack paraphenalia there first, but at places that actually sold Barack merchandise. You can get Barack t-shirts and keychains back in May (pre-podium) from places like Zazzle.com 
Then there was the greco-roman temple - built in a football stadium - strictly for Obama's speech. Keep in mind, no one else was to use this temple. Just Obama. as you see in this photo from the LA Times: 
Again, I should point out that any one of these single things, taken by themselves, are weird.
But not troubling.
Building a mini-temple for your candidate? Okay... a little freaky. But not a problem. The chair with the word "President" on it? Yeah... that kinda gives me that icky feeling.
The podium? Freaky. Its that whole thing of trying to make us think that he's president already, and we just haven't noticed it yet.
But this image of Barack in his headquarters is just over-the-top creepy.
Apparently, there is an artist who creates these types of images out of newspaper clippings. He made one of Barack.
Now I get it. Someone gives you a really huge image of yourself, and you can't just say 'no.' You have to do something with it.
But what did Barack do? He hung it up in his headquarters. His office. Where his people work.
Combined with other images of Barack in the headquarters...
...and you get the feel of the old soviet republic.
...its part of a triptik that reads:
"The deeper the change that we want to execute is, the more interest we need to raise for it."
Change.
Anyway, you'll note the similiarities between the soviet style of propaganda, and the posters that the left has chosen to sell "Progress"
I took graphic arts. I understand when someone is imitating a style.
But I also understand when someone imitates a style, that sometimes they also like the underlying message.
Its part of that whole communist chic. I get it. Which is why it feels threatening to me. Particularly from a guy who seems to really like himself.
-Or at least is really okay with having a very big image of himself around.
I said this to someone earlier: Obama doesn't just worry me because he's arrogant. I'm mainly worried about Obama supporters, who would seem to support him in whatever he does.
A man by himself is not dangerous. But a man who millions would willingly follow without question is someone that I don't want as my leader.
Again, and I can't stress this enough... I always used to wonder why it was that people would support Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, etc... without question. I doubted that it could ever happen in my country.
When someone hangs an image that big in his campaign headquarters, that little voice/instinct that warns me (and others) of impending danger starts to get really loud.
But I haven't quite covered all of my feelings about it, so let's recap.
From the begginning, the big criticism about Obama is that he's arrogant. So let me start by saying that I understand that candidates will often have posters with their image around their headquarters.
That doesn't bother me, or freak me out. They are selling a product, and it doesn't hurt to have photos of your product all around you. But Obama has a long history of doing things that kinda look arrogant. For instance, I blogged about this chair of his, on Obama Force One, from a CBS report:
...With the word "President" written on it, near his name. In June, blogs like Holy Coast commented on Barack's new podium, with his own presidential seal. Holy Coast even presented its own comparison, so that people could see the similiarity. I should point out that the presidential seal did not appear on Barack paraphenalia there first, but at places that actually sold Barack merchandise. You can get Barack t-shirts and keychains back in May (pre-podium) from places like Zazzle.com Then there was the greco-roman temple - built in a football stadium - strictly for Obama's speech. Keep in mind, no one else was to use this temple. Just Obama. as you see in this photo from the LA Times: Again, I should point out that any one of these single things, taken by themselves, are weird.But not troubling.
Building a mini-temple for your candidate? Okay... a little freaky. But not a problem. The chair with the word "President" on it? Yeah... that kinda gives me that icky feeling.
The podium? Freaky. Its that whole thing of trying to make us think that he's president already, and we just haven't noticed it yet.
But this image of Barack in his headquarters is just over-the-top creepy.
Apparently, there is an artist who creates these types of images out of newspaper clippings. He made one of Barack.
Now I get it. Someone gives you a really huge image of yourself, and you can't just say 'no.' You have to do something with it.
But what did Barack do? He hung it up in his headquarters. His office. Where his people work.
Combined with other images of Barack in the headquarters...
...and you get the feel of the old soviet republic.
Here is a company that sells communist propaganda posters. If you look at this picture...
...its part of a triptik that reads:"The deeper the change that we want to execute is, the more interest we need to raise for it."
Change.
Anyway, you'll note the similiarities between the soviet style of propaganda, and the posters that the left has chosen to sell "Progress"
I took graphic arts. I understand when someone is imitating a style.
But I also understand when someone imitates a style, that sometimes they also like the underlying message.
Its part of that whole communist chic. I get it. Which is why it feels threatening to me. Particularly from a guy who seems to really like himself.
-Or at least is really okay with having a very big image of himself around.
I said this to someone earlier: Obama doesn't just worry me because he's arrogant. I'm mainly worried about Obama supporters, who would seem to support him in whatever he does.
A man by himself is not dangerous. But a man who millions would willingly follow without question is someone that I don't want as my leader.
Again, and I can't stress this enough... I always used to wonder why it was that people would support Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, etc... without question. I doubted that it could ever happen in my country.
When someone hangs an image that big in his campaign headquarters, that little voice/instinct that warns me (and others) of impending danger starts to get really loud.
Why I'm voting for McCain
Because Woody Allen has endorsed Barack Obama.
When a guy who married his foster child tells me what the right moral decision is, I try to veer in the opposite direction.
When a guy who married his foster child tells me what the right moral decision is, I try to veer in the opposite direction.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Be Patriotic! Pay more taxes!
Biden, according to the AP:
I think that the Democrats have found their direction, finally. They are the party of patriotism, through higher taxes. Don't wear a flag pin. That's jingoism. But paying more taxes? Well... that's just American.
Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."
I think that the Democrats have found their direction, finally. They are the party of patriotism, through higher taxes. Don't wear a flag pin. That's jingoism. But paying more taxes? Well... that's just American.
Your Assignment: Tell me why you hate Sarah Palin
When I was in high school, I had teachers like this:
Its sad, but this really did contribute to me becoming a Republican. Don't get me wrong. I became a Republican at something like the age of 12... while watching the Stalinist tactics of the Democrats in Chicago, my home town.
But when you're in class, and the teacher is basically telling you that anyone who is a Republican is wealthy or an idiot, it takes away a lot of their credibility.
Anyway, Denver's Metro College has an adjunct English professor named Andrew Hallam who assigned an anti-Palin essay as their composition.
A brave young lady named Jana, who is a student at that college, spoke up. Good for her.
If Hallam thinks that his assignments are fine, this is a good time for him to find out that not everyone agrees with him.
Metro State College is investigating a professor who asked students to write an essay critical of Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin. One student said the instructor singled out Republican students in the class and allowed others to ridicule them.
Its sad, but this really did contribute to me becoming a Republican. Don't get me wrong. I became a Republican at something like the age of 12... while watching the Stalinist tactics of the Democrats in Chicago, my home town.
But when you're in class, and the teacher is basically telling you that anyone who is a Republican is wealthy or an idiot, it takes away a lot of their credibility.
Anyway, Denver's Metro College has an adjunct English professor named Andrew Hallam who assigned an anti-Palin essay as their composition.
A brave young lady named Jana, who is a student at that college, spoke up. Good for her.
If Hallam thinks that his assignments are fine, this is a good time for him to find out that not everyone agrees with him.
Obama doesn't want to show his economic plan... yet
According to Reuters, Obama is going to 'hold off' on showing his economic plan.
Its not because he doesn't have an economic plan. He's going to show his plan any second now. Really.
"Given the gravity of this situation, and based on conversations I have had with both Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, I have asked my economic team to refrain from presenting a more detailed blue-print of how an immediate plan might be structured until the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have had an opportunity to present their proposal."
Yeah. That's why.
Its not because he doesn't have an economic plan. He's going to show his plan any second now. Really.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Right To Privacy folks prove their real intent
I think its fascinating that the people who always talk about someone's right to privacy are now reprinting and detailing e-mails that were hacked into, of Sarah Palin.
The hypocrisy is all over the net.
I just read a wired blog that detailed the topics of her e-mails.
Really? This is what we've come to?
That as long as someone stole information, everyone will share it?
The hypocrisy is all over the net.
I just read a wired blog that detailed the topics of her e-mails.
Really? This is what we've come to?
That as long as someone stole information, everyone will share it?
Remember when the Dems wanted to protect Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?
Most people don't remember.
Mainly because the Dems were trying to protect both from any type of oversight or regulation.
At one point, the Bush administration wanted to form a new organization to oversee both companies.
The Democrats blocked them. From the New York Times:
Yep, they were absolutely frigg'in right.
Like Barney Frank said, they are not facing any type of financial crisis. No sir. Not Fannie or Freddie. Of course, you can't blame him for not knowing. He was just in charge of the financial services committee.
Mainly because the Dems were trying to protect both from any type of oversight or regulation.
At one point, the Bush administration wanted to form a new organization to oversee both companies.
The Democrats blocked them. From the New York Times:
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
Yep, they were absolutely frigg'in right.
Like Barney Frank said, they are not facing any type of financial crisis. No sir. Not Fannie or Freddie. Of course, you can't blame him for not knowing. He was just in charge of the financial services committee.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
An Obama Facist Show
As long as we're talking about how facists take over, let's do a study in facist Fashion.
This flickr website is a primer.
I can't speak for Sarah, but it spooks me whenever someone creates a complete line of fashion around a politician. (See: Che, See: Stalin, See: Hitler.)
Of course, this is all about good fashion. Right? So let's take a look. Tell me if you think that any of those articles of fashion make you wonder.
This flickr website is a primer.
In honor of fashion week, having just returned from the Democratic Convention, and the fact that Palin and McCain belittled community organizing in their speeches, I decided to have an Obama themed fashion show: AuH2Obama! On Thursday, Sept. 11 at Cafe 81, pretty ladies modeled Obama dresses, I handed out free Obama buttons and stickers, sold AuH2Obama tops for only $20 and donated 50% of the profits to the campaign. What did you say about community organizing, Sarah Palin?
I can't speak for Sarah, but it spooks me whenever someone creates a complete line of fashion around a politician. (See: Che, See: Stalin, See: Hitler.)
Of course, this is all about good fashion. Right? So let's take a look. Tell me if you think that any of those articles of fashion make you wonder.
Obama's Teleprompter
Obama is going back on the road with a teleprompter.
'A what?' you say.
I know... you didn't realize he needs one. You thought he always said everything off of the cuff. But like most politicians, he uses one. He's just better at hiding them.
Why the press announced this now, I'm not quite sure.
'A what?' you say.
I know... you didn't realize he needs one. You thought he always said everything off of the cuff. But like most politicians, he uses one. He's just better at hiding them.
Why the press announced this now, I'm not quite sure.
'The Atlantic' apoligizes for McCain Photos
I have to hand it to 'The Atlantic'. Clearly, they are no fans of McCain. But they are all over this issue on the basis of journalistic integrity.
In a previous post, I wrote about how Jill Greenberg is a cunt. I wrote that because Jill took photos of McCain with an intent to make him look evil, and then bragged about it, altered those images, and put them online.
The reporter who wrote the story on McCain was appalled. So were other reporters from the magazine. They understood, correctly, that it made them look bad.
The reporter apoligized and expressed his outrage publicly. So did another reporter from the magazine. More recently, the magazine offered its apology to McCain, and suggested that they might sue the photographer over her duplicity.
I hope they do, and I hope they win big.
For those of you who don't know, Jill became famous for getting photos of crying toddlers. How did she get those photos? By giving them cool toys and candy, and then taking them away. That's right. Jill literally took candy from a baby.
It always amazes me when people accuse Republicans of being evil, and then you find out that those people literally take candy from a baby to get a good photo. Nice going, Jill. Your soul is completely intact.
In a previous post, I wrote about how Jill Greenberg is a cunt. I wrote that because Jill took photos of McCain with an intent to make him look evil, and then bragged about it, altered those images, and put them online.
The reporter who wrote the story on McCain was appalled. So were other reporters from the magazine. They understood, correctly, that it made them look bad.
The reporter apoligized and expressed his outrage publicly. So did another reporter from the magazine. More recently, the magazine offered its apology to McCain, and suggested that they might sue the photographer over her duplicity.
I hope they do, and I hope they win big.
For those of you who don't know, Jill became famous for getting photos of crying toddlers. How did she get those photos? By giving them cool toys and candy, and then taking them away. That's right. Jill literally took candy from a baby.
It always amazes me when people accuse Republicans of being evil, and then you find out that those people literally take candy from a baby to get a good photo. Nice going, Jill. Your soul is completely intact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)