…and yep, it looks like the thermometer is going to tick upwards by a bit over the next few days in these parts, so here’s a timely tune with an important message (the numbers are a little dated at this point, but it all still bears repeating).
It’s bad enough that I have to do my best to avoid Christine Flowers of the Philadelphia Daily News on Fridays, but apparently, I have to do so now at other times during the week; here, she’s uncharacteristically polite in criticizing Sister Mary Scullion, a legendary figure in these parts for her work on behalf those who are disadvantaged in however many ways, particularly the homeless…
…I couldn't disagree more with Sister Mary's op-ed this week in the Inquirer, which berated Councilman Frank DiCicco's proposed legislation concerning the homeless. Like many of the bill's critics, Scullion believes it's more punitive than it needs to be in that it lets police deal with a homeless person without first contacting a social-service agency, as mandated by law.
Sister Mary conjures up an almost fascistic scenario where the government has the power to arrest vulnerable people on a whim when she writes:
"The problems with DiCicco's bill, beyond its sheer inhumanity, are manifold. Frivolous citations would create legal problems for homeless people, hampering their efforts to get housing and services and break the cycle of homelessness. Violations of their basic rights could lead to costly litigation. And enforcement would waste precious city resources while forcing many homeless people out of Center City and into nearby neighborhoods, shifting the problem rather than solving it."
As noted here from last March (depicting a scenario that, while “fascistic,” is also fairly likely to occur if DiCicco’s ordinance is passed)…
A little over a week ago, First District Councilman Frank DiCicco introduced Bill 110386 in an attempt to amend the 1999 Sidewalk Behavior law to, in his words, “give police … more authority … as to people who are aggressively panhandling …” by ordering those officers to arrest homeless persons without even attempting to first get the assistance of social service professionals who are trained to deal with the kind of financial, mental health, and/or substance abuse problems that many of those human beings have. The current law, which requires such mental health involvement, ain’t broken and therefore doesn’t need to be fixed. In fact, it has become a national model as noted by (Sister Mary), co-founder of Project H.O.M.E., an advocacy group for the homeless.
There are already laws on the books addressing harassment, terroristic threats and simple assault to deal with real criminal behavior if that’s what DiCicco is truly worried about. But that’s not really what he’s worried about. What he’s really stressed about is what he actually said, which is that “hotel guests … are uncomfortable” with having to deal with those kind of people. Well, whooptie-goddamn-do! Tell those upper-crust fancy pants that we’re blue-collar folks here in Philly, and we’re tough enough to deal with the trauma of encountering—GASP!—a talkative guy wearing ragged jeans who hasn’t showered in a few days.
I have worked in downtown Philadelphia, and the missus and I have journeyed to a variety of locales in Philadelphia primarily for dining out, but for other activities also, along with the young one on occasion. And based on our experience, I think Michael Coard of The Philly Post is absolutely right. You just don’t make eye contact if you see someone approaching you who looks like they plainly do not belong in that area. Or, on the rare instance where you happen to be accosted, call 911 at your first opportunity (though I think that is just as likely to happen on a concrete or cobblestone city sidewalk amidst steel-and-glass monuments to corporate America as it is among leafy suburban glades).
So I’m not a bit surprised to see that Flowers basically wants to lock up anyone who didn’t seem to have the wherewithal to emerge one day as a celebrated Philadelphia media columnist and lawyer, or some other well-to-do occupation, in the name of her twisted notions of Christianity. Particularly since, given this column in which she said that anyone who voted for Obama isn’t a real Catholic, she has at best what I would consider to be a depraved notion of spirituality anyway.
Next, I guess I’m supposed to weep crocodile tears over the departure of Bush Dog Dan Boren, who announced here that he will not seek another term in the U.S. Congress from Oklahoma (and the prognosticators say this seat will likely go Republican – gee, ya’ think?).
With that in mind, I give you the following:
Basically, Boren never met a Dubya tax cut that he didn’t like, as noted here (Think Progress commemorated the ten-year anniversary of the first batch here, with the requisite ruinous effects - more here).
As noted here, he opposed any legislation that set a timeline for troop WD from Iraq.
Boren said here that Obama was “the most liberal senator” in Congress and “had no intention” of endorsing him for the White House during the 2008 election (heh).
He accused Obama of being “weak on defense” (an evergreen Repug charge) even though the defense budget was paired by a Republican SecDef, Robert Gates (here).
Boren opposed health care reform here (of course).
He voted against three animal protection measures in the House in 2008, the only Dem to do so, as James Wolcott tells us here.
Lastly, he said here in January 2010 that Democratic congressional losses that fall would be “a good thing” for the party (sadly, his prediction was realized, though how “good” it turns out to be remains to be seen depending on November 2012 I guess).
So yeah, barring a cosmic miracle, Boren’s seat will officially go Red in about 17 months or so. Of course, given his record, it’s hard to argue that an actual Democrat held the seat anyway.
In addition, we learn the following from the Globe and Mail up north here, namely, that perhaps the most notorious liar in the world who still walks upright will appear at a symposium with Fareed Zakaria in a week or so…
The American war against Vietnam, the Pakistani massacre of Bengalis in 1971 (an estimated 1.5 million killed), the operations of the Shah of Iran’s secret police, the brutal Pinochet years in Chile, the secret U.S. bombing of Cambodia that made possible the Khmer Rouge’s genocidal killing fields (1.5 to 2 million dead), the bloody 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus (an estimated 150,000 refugees), the betrayal of the Kurds in 1974-75, the Indonesian slaughter of some 100,000 East Timorese, the war against the government of Angola, the entrenchment of apartheid in South Africa.
No one will ever know how many millions of ordinary citizens were killed, maimed, tortured, brutalized or displaced in these merciless operations. A U.S. Senate subcommittee on refugees estimated that more than three million civilians were killed, injured or rendered homeless in Southeast Asia alone from 1969 to 1975.
And we do know this: By a curious coincidence, all of these horror stories have in common the very man who’s soon coming to Toronto, Dr. Henry Kissinger (somehow the only PhD in the world who’s regularly called Dr.). As Richard Nixon’s national security adviser and both Mr. Nixon and Gerald Ford’s secretary of state, Dr. Kissinger enabled or endorsed every one of them.
In a meeting with presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson in early September 2005, Kissinger was more explicit: Bush needed to resist the pressure to withdraw American troops. He repeated his axiom that the only meaningful exit strategy was victory.
"The president can't be talking about troop reductions as a centerpiece," Kissinger said. "You may want to reduce troops," but troop reduction should not be the objective. "This is not where you put the emphasis."
To emphasize his point, he gave Gerson a copy of a memo he had written to President Richard M. Nixon, dated Sept. 10, 1969.
"Withdrawal of U.S. troops will become like salted peanuts to the American public; the more U.S. troops come home, the more will be demanded," he wrote.
The policy of "Vietnamization," turning the fight over to the South Vietnamese military, Kissinger wrote, might increase pressure to end the war because the American public wanted a quick resolution. Troop withdrawals would only encourage the enemy. "It will become harder and harder to maintain the morale of those who remain, not to speak of their mothers."
Two months after Gerson's meeting, the administration issued a 35-page "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." It was right out of the Kissinger playbook. The only meaningful exit strategy would be victory.
Kissinger also said in February ’07 that Dubya had “a secret plan” to end the Iraq war (hmmm, wonder what other Repug president had “a secret plan” to end a war? Think “I am not a crook” – this post also details how Nixon and Kissinger sabotaged the 1968 peace talks on Vietnam, thus allowing the war to continue for seven more horrendous years).
One day, Kissinger’s physical body will die, which will be a belated deterioration, his soul having died decades ago.
Finally, Andrew Breitbart clone Michael Walsh bellows as follows here (and yes, I’m still in shock that, after having defended Anthony Weiner, it turns out that he was guilty of the underwear pic after all, though I can’t think of a word to describe how pathetic our discourse is that, while our “gilded age on steroids” economy continues to plod along, our wars rage, our civil liberties continue to erode and our planet continues to melt, a picture of an erect member and the legal doings of a former Dem senator seem to rule the day for our corporate media).
(The title of Walsh’s screed, by the way, is “Behold The Face of the Modern Left”)…
In his combination of unctuousness, mendacity, mock-reasonableness, petulance, bullying, hypocrisy, overweening arrogance, brazen aggression, self-pity, victimhood, and bogus moral preening, it’s hard to beat Congressman Anthony Weiner. He’s the perfect face of the modern American Left in all its glorious pathology; why anyone takes these people seriously is utterly beyond me, so transparent are they. And yet for some, their sweet nothings continue to resonate.
It should be noted that Walsh has apparently also written for Irrational Spew Online under the alias of David Kahane, which is the name of an aspiring screenwriter in the film The Player who is killed by an irate movie producer (I suppose that fits the typical “oh I’m such a poor victim of that evil li-bu-ruul media” conservative mindset).
And as noted here, Walsh once ridiculed House Dem Steny Hoyer for speaking out against violence as a result of the Tucson tragedy, even though, as noted here, 10 Democrats received threats of violence after their health care votes (and Orange Man Boehner spoke out against those threats, even though he was guilty of that tactic himself against former Dem House Rep Steve Driehaus…that and much more is noted here; basically, except for former rep Paul Kanjorski threatening Lex Luthor in Florida, which I don’t condone even though Scott is horrible, I can’t find a comparable instance of bad Dem behavior).
Also, for good measure, it should be noted that Walsh referred to James O’Keefe’s lawbreaking here (for which O'Keefe entered a guilty plea) as “spitting on the sidewalk” (U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval described O’Keefe’s breaching of security at the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu as “an extremely sensitive matter,” so I think it’s safe to say that Judge Duval did not agree).
So to sum up, Walsh demonstrates perceived victimhood, a tolerance of violence against his enemies, a total inability or lack of desire (or both) to demonstrate any empathy whatsoever (on health care in this case), and a complete disregard for the rule of law.
Behold the face of the Radical Right.
Oh, and as noted here, Walsh describes “David Kahane” as “a complete idiot who never understands that the joke’s always on him.”
I rest my case.
Oh, and as long as we’re continuing to pile on Anthony Weiner (And by the way, CNN, why do I now have to know about Weiner’s wife too? Any pics on Mrs. John Ensign?), let’s just take a breath and remember something, OK?
This guy consorted with prostitutes and continues to serve in the U.S. Senate. And don’t give me that crap about how the voters of Louisiana, in their eternal, dunderheaded stupidity, sent him back to Washington. He should have had the guts to quit long before then.
…as well as the stupidity of voters in this country who continually elect the frauds on display here (“Democrat” Party, Baby Newtown Leroy? I’m still waiting for details on that space-based air traffic control system of yours)…
…and yep, this works for me too (h/t Thers at Eschaton – don’t quite get all the references to what appears to be Irish politics, but oh well...shape of things to come, maybe?).
…allow me to present once more the following message from the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee…
Also, I apologize for wasting everyone’s time once more with the Anthony Weiner stuff, but I thought this was hilarious from Florida U.S. House Repug Cliff Stearns, who considered “Weiner-Gate” (yep, I guess it was inevitable), a “threat to national security” (once more, the takedown is here).
Stearns is the guy, by the way, who added an amendment to the Zadroga Bill (the one that offered much, MUCH needed medical aid to the 9/11 first responders) to the effect that said first responders wouldn’t receive benefits unless they were first crossed off a terror watch list (typically good video response by Jon Stewart here).
So basically, Stearns should do the following when it comes to Weiner or any other topic, really; sit down and STFU.
And for something truly absurd, Roger Stone, of all people, weighed in on the Weiner mess here at The Daily Tucker, immediately trying to create a false equivalency between Weiner and Chris Lee, the disgraced Repug U.S. House rep who advertised himself shirtless on Craigslist for a date, which was a bit of a “sticky wicket” seeing as how he was married and all like that (typical for a dirty trickster like Stone).
Stone is a legendary bottom-feeder (as noted here - second item), having visited X-rated sex clubs with his wife in Florida and “plac(ing) ads and pictures in racy publications and a website seeking sexual partners for himself and his second wife…he (also enjoyed) frequenting ‘Miami Velvet’ a swingers club in Miami.” Stone denied the report (of course).
Stone also denied having anything to do with the Willie Horton ad that Lee Atwater ran against Michael Dukakis on behalf of Poppy Bush in 1988, and Stone also denied having anything whatsoever to do with the infamous “Brooks Brothers Riot” that halted the Miami Dade vote recount in Florida in November 2000 (I guess this is typical for a guy who says, “Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack”).
Also, Stone chaired a 1995 presidential bid by Sen. Arlen Specter (then a Repug, of course – he admitted that much anyway), and in 2004, Stone was responsible for distributing “Kerry/Specter” signs in a successful effort to defeat Dem Joe Hoeffel, who was challenging Specter for his Senate seat at the time (interesting company Arlen keeps, isn’t it?).
Oh, and remember the godawful Citizens United ruling? Well, Stone originally founded the group in 2008 under the name “Citizens United Not Timid” against Hillary Clinton (I’ll let you, dear reader, determine the meaning of the acronym).
And to conclude the “Weiner wrapup,” I give you this from a blogger named Tommy Christopher at Mediaite who is having a tizzy with Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos over the identities of two women who may or may not have been involved with some sort of related correspondence with Weiner (“Betty” and “Veronica”); Christopher is alleging that Moulitsas is “outing” the two anonymous sources.
Well, as you can read from the Mediaite post, Moulitsas very wisely I think chose not to talk about the matter on the phone with Christopher, but chose to communicate via Email, thus creating a written record that is a lot less subject to interpretation than a phone conversation (Christopher said that “greatly hampered the amount of detail I could give (Moulitsas),” which to me is the first indication that something is fishy here). Moulitsas also emphasized that he saw nothing illegal going on in the post in question, which was written by a diarist and not a member of the site’s editorial staff (Markos also asks Christopher, “If (Betty and Veronica) are so afraid, why are they talking to you?,” which is another good question).
And as for the supposedly innocent “Betty and Veronica,” this Daily Tucker post that links to Mediaite tells us that “Betty’s friend Veronica then approached Christopher with a made-up story about Weiner sending her lewd pictures on Twitter.” And that is supposed to somehow make us feel sorry for “Veronica”?
Yes, I know this is penny-ante crap compared to real issues like the wars, jobs and the economy, the environment, the struggle for human rights around the world (including the full-pitched battle of working men and women and families in this country against the “pay no price, bear no burden” bunch that should have been a foreseeable consequence from the 2010 elections). But I just made the call for better or worse to defend a Democrat who has done the right thing many, many times in the past. If that ended up sucking away needed oxygen, as it were, from more important stuff…well, so be it (and for good measure, I give you what Thers at Eschaton sez here).
Update 6/6/11: Even though this is just piddly crap as I said, God almighty, somebody remind me again why I support these clowns (here...and I'm sure Clarence and Ginny Thomas are laughing their asses off, since this totally evaporates the legitimate issue Weiner fought for of the $$ Ginny made from Silent Clarence and his Citizens United ruling, which C. Thomas supported of course).
Worse, this lends even the smallest degree of legitimacy to Breitbart, though it's pretty sad that his "get," at long last, is a picture of a guy's underwear with an erect member.
Next, I give you last Sunday’s Area Vote in Congress (here)…
House
2012 military budget. Voting 322-96, the House authorized a $690 billion military budget for fiscal 2012, up $10 billion, or nearly 2 percent, from the comparable 2011 figure. The bill (HR 1540) sets a 1.6 percent military pay raise while authorizing $119 billion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan and $52.5 billion for the military's TRICARE health program.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), John Carney (D., Del.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Michael Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Pat Meehan (R., Pa.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), Jon Runyan (R., N.J.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).
Voting no: Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.).
To his credit, Fattah’s politics are pretty progressive, but no matter how you cut it, this vote looks like he’s defunding health care for the military. I know that’s not his intention, but that’s how he’s going to get attacked for it.
Afghanistan withdrawal. Voting 204-215, the House defeated an amendment to HR 1540 (above) setting a quicker pace for President Obama to draw down the 100,000 U.S. troops now in Afghanistan. This was the first congressional vote on Afghanistan since the death of Osama bin Laden. The amendment gave Obama 60 days to improve upon his existing plan, under which he is to start removing troops in July with no projected completion date. The amendment would require the president to set a date for ending the withdrawal and report to Congress every 90 days on his progress toward that goal.
A yes vote backed the amendment.
Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, Holden, Schwartz, and Smith.
Voting no: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, and Runyan.
I know Chris Smith only voted for this to try and paint himself as a moderate (nice try) and attack Obama at the same time (and yes, I still think this bill should have passed even though a Democrat is in the White House…comforting somewhat to know it almost made it to the Senate).
Combat-pay increase. Voting 185-233, the House defeated a bid by Democrats to increase the existing pay bonus for U.S. troops "under hostile fire" or "in imminent danger" from $225 to $325 per month. That was to be in addition to the 1.6 percent pay raise already in the bill for uniformed personnel. The vote occurred during debate on HR 1540 (above).
A yes vote backed higher combat pay.
Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, Holden, and Schwartz.
This is another vote to remember if you see Mikey The Beloved and his fellow Repug playmates wrapping themselves in the flag and waving to the crowd at a 4th of July parade (or Veterans Day, or the just-passed Memorial Day…).
Oh, and speaking of our PA-08 U.S. House rep, I would ask that you keep this in mind when the news breaks that our U.S. congressional district will be redrawn to make every effort to ensure that we are saddled with Saint Mikey forever and ever (ugh).
USA Patriot Act. Voting 250-153, the House sent President Obama a bill (S 990) to extend until June 2015 the three sections of the USA Patriot Act that are not permanent law. One section authorizes roving wiretaps on the communications gear used by terrorist suspects. Another permits surveillance of noncitizen "lone-wolf" suspects not linked to terrorist organizations. Under the third, Section 215, investigators can obtain warrants for searching businesses and other entities without having to show probable cause. The USA Patriot Act was enacted in response to the 9/11 attacks.
This is another “safe” vote trying to paint Mikey as a moderate knowing it would pass anyway (as much as I hate to do it, I have to give him credit for doing the right thing here anyway).
Primary-care physicians, dentists. Voting 234-185, the House passed a Republican bill (HR 1216) to scale back a program in the 2010 health law designed to train thousands of primary-care physicians and dentists for work in underserved communities. The Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education Program is now being funded by $230 million over five years in mandatory spending.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.
Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, Holden, Meehan, and Schwartz.
I thought Congressman John Dingell wrote a great response to this awful development here – please read every word.
Senate
USA Patriot Act. Voting 72-23, the Senate sent the House a bill (S 990, above) renewing three sections of the USA Patriot Act until June 2015. The sections permit roving wiretaps on noncitizen terrorist suspects on American soil, authorize surveillance of "lone-wolf" suspects not linked to terrorist organizations, and allow government access to business records and other files without having to show probable cause.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), and Pat Toomey (R., Pa.).
Voting no: Chris Coons (D., Del.) and Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.).
Not voting: Robert Menendez (D., N.J.).
This is about what I would expect from Toomey (as noted here, he voted for the original Patriot Act in 2001 when he was in the House), and Carper also to tell you the truth, but Bob Casey should know better (kudos to Coons and Lautenberg).
Suspicious banking activity. Voting 91-4, the Senate tabled (killed) a bid to soften the requirement in the USA Patriot Act (S 990, above) that banks notify the Department of the Treasury of any suspicious activity in their accounts. Under the amendment, banks would submit what are known as suspicious activity reports only when asked to do so by law enforcement.
A yes vote was to kill the amendment.
Voting yes: Carper, Casey, Coons, Lautenberg, and Toomey.
Not voting: Menendez.
Paul Ryan's budget. Voting 40-57, the Senate defeated a Republican budget (H Con Res 34) for 2012 and later years that was identical to one passed in April by the House. Written by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the budget would, over time, privatize Medicare, raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, convert Medicaid to a block-grant program run by the states, permanently extend Bush-era tax cuts, reduce discretionary spending for domestic programs by more than 20 percent, increase the basic defense budget by 15 percent, and keep Social Security as it is, among other provisions.
A yes vote backed the Ryan budget.
Voting yes: Toomey.
Voting no: Carper, Casey, Coons, Lautenberg, and Menendez.
I give you yet another awful vote by Toomey (just remember that, if the Repugs controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, “Ryan Care” would be the law by now).
President Obama's budget. By a vote of 0-97, the Senate unanimously defeated President Obama's proposed budget for fiscal 2012 and later years, a document (S Con Res 18) that proposes no structural reforms of Medicare, Social Security, or other entitlement programs. For 2012, the president calls for overall spending of $3.73 trillion, a deficit of $1.3 trillion, a slight drop in military spending, and major spending increases for education, energy efficiency, biomedical research and high-speed rail.
Voting no: Carper, Casey, Coons, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Toomey.
I haven’t been this disgusted over a vote in a long, long time. This to me is the utterly sickening triumph of our media/political/industrial complex manufacturing the almost hallucinogenic narratives of debt vigilantes who must be heeded to ensure the arrival of magical unicorns who will lead us back to prosperity. And that’s barely more stupid than the “conventional wisdom” that rules the day on this subject.
And given that this budget was bound to go down in flames, I honestly can’t imagine why Harry Reid even scheduled it for a vote.
After this, those chuckleheads running the House decided to vote on raising the national-debt ceiling, and the Senate was in Memorial Day recess. The House took its Memorial Day break last week.
Finally, I give you the following…
And I’ll bet he kicks his dog too – please.
Even though John Ensign was covered a lot when the tale of his shenanigans broke, he still didn’t get this type of wall-to-wall coverage (to say nothing of Anthony Weiner, for something of which he may be completely innocent…a likely possibility given Breitbart’s sordid track record). Also related to Ensign, his former Repug senate playmate Crazy Tom Coburn has received a total pass from our corporate media for his own role.
Not for a second will I defend Edwards’ conduct, but if he is acquitted of all charges, whoever made the decision at the DOJ to prosecute this case should be fired.
Update 6/6/11: And speaking of Edwards, get a load of this steaming pile of dookey from Katharine Q. Seelye yesterday (here is a follow up)…
But after all the sordid lies, a “not guilty” verdict could be a rather hollow victory. Here may be a case where the law is inadequate. After all, can a jury render the final verdict on a betrayal so vast?
Oh, shut up.
This is from a newspaper that virtually ignored Edwards when he ran for the Democratic nomination in 2008, as evidenced by this notorious 1,250-word column about Democrats and Latinos in which Edwards isn’t even mentioned once. And now The Old Gray Lady is tripping over itself to cover him now that Edwards is in big-time legal trouble?
...oh, and Social Security is a "pyramid scheme" (here)? Wonder if this guy reads J.D. Mullane?
And then this asshat tries to walk back his comments by saying he defends "the promise of Social Security" - somebody votes for these clowns, I keep telling myself...
...and good for Jon Stewart for ripping that sleazy weasel Eric Cantor (here)...
Against my better judgment, I've decided to waste more time over this (the takedown is here), but I thought Jon Stewart made some good points about "the usual suspects"...
I live in the area of Philadelphia, PA, USA, specifically in Bucks County. My blog deals primarily with political matters and current events in the region where I live, my country, and the world (with other stuff thrown in from time to time), and I will comment on all of this as intelligently as I can. I will try to be judicious in my use of language, steering clear of most guttural profanity, but I will respond in what I believe is an appropriate manner to current news and events. My hope is that people across the ideological spectrum will understand that I am trying to see through hypocrisy on as many fronts as possible for the purposes of promoting informed dialogue.
Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and of course, Florida
Profile Note
The reason why I have a photo of the late actor Patrick McGoohan (from the '60s) included in my profile is because the characters he has portrayed often show a strict sense of self-determination and a moral code of sorts as well as an inherent loathing and mistrust of authority. I admire all of that (even though I definitely don't look like him), so this is my small tribute.
Photo Note
Please "mouse over" photo for attribution - thanks.
One More Thing
I am not here to bash people of any particular ethnicity, race, or sexual orientation. If that is what you are looking for, then please look somewhere else. I know these topics push a lot of buttons, but I don't advocate physical violence against anyone (even Ann Coulter, who happily suggests it against the New York Times; Glenn Beck, who wants to kill Michael Moore; and the ever-popular Bill O'Reilly, who wants to decapitate Michael Kinsley), and all I ask is that you keep that in mind. Thank you.
Comment Policy
I probably should have done this awhile back, but I'm doing it now because it looks like I'll be moderating comments for a little while. Here are some guidelines: 1) If you call me a name in a comment, I won't publish it; 2) That it turn does not give me the right to do that to a commenter; if somehow I slip up on that, I'll owe up to it; 3) If you think I've said something ridiculous, I'll give you the opportunity to make your case, but it had better be a good one; I'm not opposed to that sort of thing, as long as the case is made constructively; 4) I'll give a commenter a couple of posts to publicize their own blog...I'm happy to try and and "share the love," but that will be all; 5) If I find that a repeat commenter (and yes, I have had them) is using the comment forum for their personal soap box over and over and not really addressing what I'm posting about, they will be banned; 6) I don't see a reason to use profanity in comments, though if you're quoting someone who dropped an "F" bomb, for example, I will cut you some slack. That's about all the policy-related stuff I can think of for now.
Legalese
OK, here's the deal: Any content I originate on this site is my property. Any content that I link to or show that belongs to someone else is their property. All the rights expressed or implied on either side apply and will be enforced. For more, click here and here. Does that about cover it?
