Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
wolf, that short's gonna choke. em
One other lil' thang...
Last hint:
Who owns General Gas Corporation (GNGA.PK)?
Alright, why the sudden volume???...
GEVI has been like molasses for months. Are the links between GEVI, GSRE, and EDVP the reason for today's weirdness?
Are y'all awake *NOW*? LOL!
Here's why...
GEVI is a VERY thinly traded stock:
Recent trading....
-----------open/....hi/.lo/close/vol
5/12/09.....0.42/0.75/0.42/0.75/14,800
4/30/09.....0.75/0.75/0.75/0.75/250
4/24/09.....0.68/0.68/0.68/0.68/250
4/23/09.....0.67/0.67/0.67/0.67/591
4/22/09.....0.67/0.67/0.67/0.67/500
4/21/09.....0.35/0.35/0.35/0.35/166
4/15/09.....0.35/0.68/0.35/0.68/450
4/13/09.....0.68/0.68/0.68/0.68/300
4/9/09.......0.58/0.68/0.58/0.68/2,600
4/7/09.......0.50/0.58/0.50/0.58/3,150
4/3/09.......0.58/0.58/0.58/0.58/6,427
3/26/09.....0.57/0.58/0.57/0.58/2,000
General Environmental Management, Inc. is likely connected to GSRE:
Endeavor Power Signs Letter of Intent for Acquisition of Working Interest in Oil & Gas Lease in Bexar, Texas with General Gas Corporation (GNGA):
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show ... 7406.shtml
This report dated Mar 27, 2009:
http://www.pinkinvesting.com/companies/ ... -GNGA.html
...gives www.go-gem.com as GNGA's website. This is the homepage of General Environmental Management, Inc., a waste management company.
EDGAR file on General Environmental Management, Inc.:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar ... getcompany
Is this the waste management focus Mr. Toth was hinting at awhile back?
Uh-huh.
(GRIN!)
Very odd...
GEVI just went from .42 to .75 in the last 26 minutes of trading today.
Figure it out.
Raven, I hate to say it...
but, that DHS Assessment was correct. National security assessments outline possibilities, NOT certainties. It's quite normal for those illuminated to denigrate the results.
3.3 mil = NO VOLUME???...
What kinda hinky wacko are you?
ROFLMAO!!!
*R*O*F*L*M*A*O*!!!
For men only...
Kneeling Bench Keeps Toilet Splashes (and Pride) to a Minimum
by Steve Levenstein
"Japanese men brought to their knees by angry housewives"... this headline brought to you by the makers of the Tenshi no Hizamakura, literally "Angels Knee Pillow", designed to reduce the distance from the fountain to the pool by bringing proud men to their knees. I ask you, how could they stoop so low?
...Guys, it's time to make a stand, literally, because standing to answer one of nature's calls is what makes men men. We stand tall, and we stand proud - and the higher we stand, the prouder we are. Refuse the Angels Knee Pillow... now let us spray. MORE...
http://inventorspot.com/articles/kneeling_bench_keeps_splashes_and_pride_minimum_27528
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
Republicans Declare 2010 as Year of the Bible
by Jill Richardson Sun May 10, 2009
OK, no joke about this. Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA] has introduced a resolution to encourage Obama to declare that 2010 is The Year Of The Bible. Now, excuse me if I'm wrong about this, but I thought 2010 was going to be the Year of the Tiger.
Is anyone else sick of living in the United States of Jesustan? And, um, why are these 14 Congresscritters wasting their time with silly stuff like this when we've occupied 2 foreign countries and our economy is in the tank? Is it because they think the only possible way out of the mess the Republicans created is to pray? I mean, that's SLIGHTLY less obnoxious than being merely the "party of no" but it still doesn't get us anywhere.
Cosponsors:
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA]
Rep. John Carter [R-TX]
Rep. James Forbes [R-VA]
Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA]
Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN]
Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX]
Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ]
Rep. Jim Jordan [R-OH]
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R-CO]
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX]
Now, I am no biblical scholar. I'm not even Christian. So I went in search of a hint on what it might mean to act Jesus-like. And I found this:
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' - Matthew 25
Hmm, clearly I would expect the sponsor of this bill to be gung ho for Obama's health care plan. Or perhaps he'd sponsor a bill to raise the minimum wage, or to increase funding for the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program that provides food to low income Women, Infants, and Children that are at nutritional risk. Let's see what he's been up to:
H.J.Res. 50: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. The text of the amendment isn't available online yet, but based on the list of sponsors I don't think it's an amendment for marriage equality.
H.Res. 386: Commending the University of Georgia Gymnastics Team for winning the 2009 NCAA National Championship. Very nice.
H.R. 227: Sanctity of Human Life Act Does that mean we should stop killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or abolish the death penalty? Oh no, it's a bill to declare that human life begins at fertilization.
H.R. 1621: Pledge Language is English Declaration and Government Endorsement Act of 2009 This bill will withhold Federal funds from schools that permit or require the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or the national anthem in a language other than English.
What is this guy doing in Congress other than wasting space? And if we DO declare 2010 the Year of the Bible, does that mean we'll stop catching Republicans cheating on their wives in airport bathrooms and with Congressional pages for the entire year?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/10/729837/-Republicans-Declare-2010-as-Year-of-the-Bible
Interesting news story...
Vancouver and Spokane: Penny stock axis of evil
By David Baines, Vancouver Sun May 9, 2009
Forbes magazine has dubbed Spokane, Wash., "The Scam Capital of America." "Welcome to Spokane, Wash., a metropolitan object lesson in what can befall the unwary when rugged individualism is revered and consumers unsuspecting," writes William P. Barrett in the magazine's latest edition. "Con games are so much a part of the fabric that even an official City of Spokane press release carried a whiff of resignation last November when it warned that 'another scam has come' to town. That one involved tricking mail recipients into cashing rubber checks and returning most of the proceeds to the sender." "It's liked a runaway train," the magazine quoted Zan Deery, an investigator for the Spokane Better Business Bureau, referring to the number and variety of scams that are afflicting the city.
The headline harkens back to a similarly themed story that Forbes published in May 1989. That story branded Vancouver as "The Scam Capital of the World" due to the antics of Vancouver stock promoters and brokers. "Like most large North American cities, Vancouver has a serious garbage disposal problem, but this one is unique," wrote author Joe Queenan. "The garbage is the Vancouver Stock Exchange. It is polluting much of the civilized world." The article brought such shame to Vancouver that exchange officials eventually phased out the VSE and replaced it with a better-regulated bourse, now known as the TSX Venture Exchange. But the sleazier of the Vancouver promoters, rather than seeking to improve their ethical practices, simply moved their dirty deals to the U.S. over-the-counter markets.
Forbes similarly traces Spokane's chicanery to its stock exchange: "Dicey stocks are another longtime growth industry," the magazine observes. "Founded in 1897, the Spokane Stock Exchange was the country's last regional exchange devoted to questionable penny stocks when it was shuttered in 1991 amid SEC pressure. Not that its demise stopped Spokane's stock touts from plying their trade...."
This is where these scam capital stories intersect. Spokane's junior stock players hooked up with Vancouver's junior stock players and formed their own axis of evil. "In January," Forbes notes in its article, "the SEC suspended trading for 10 days in Future Canada China Environment, a Bellingham, Wash,. firm whose over-the-counter shares soared from 92 cents to $28.50 -- a $1-billion market cap -- despite the apparent lack of any underlying business." As I have reported in previous columns, Future Canada is not really based in Bellingham. That's just a mail drop. It's based in Vancouver, and its controlling shareholder is a former Burmese political refugee who lives in Surrey.
Forbes went on to say that Future Canada's legal counsel was Conrad Lysiak, a veteran Spokane securities lawyer who once served as the Spokane Stock Exchange's compliance officer. "After leaving the exchange Lysiak was censured, fined and briefly suspended in the 1990s by regulators after he was found to have been compliance officer for a brokerage office that committed fraud on his watch. Lysiak, whose client list has included a number of public companies, declined to comment to Forbes."
As I have noted in previous articles, Lysiak has provided legal services for many Vancouver-based companies that trade on the U.S. over-the-counter markets and turn out to be shams. Some have developed into obvious stock manipulations, such as Aberdene Mines Ltd., which was prosecuted by the B.C. Securities Commission. Just two weeks ago, I noted that Lysiak was filing solicitor for Ridgestone Resources Inc., an obvious sham which morphed into an accident-waiting-to-happen called GreenChek Technology Inc. Forbes also notes in its article that Spokane is home to Williams & Webster, an accounting firm that has garnered considerable infamy in recent years.
In June 2007, the U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board called into question the firm's audit of a U.S. junior company and suspended partner John Webster for one year and partner Kevin Williams for two years. The firm, which agreed only to a reprimand, is still permitted to audit public companies. Williams & Webster have also been the accountants of choice for many other Vancouver penny stock deals, including CellCyte Genetics Corp., which was based in Seattle but was being promoted by West Vancouver's Brent Pierce, who until last year had been banned from dealing stock in B.C.
Forbes notes that Lysiak and Williams & Webster "teamed up to work for what became Arctic Oil & Gas. It had all of $155 in the bank, but its stock nevertheless rose 70,000% within weeks to $3.65 a share early last year. Investors, it would seem, were encouraged by the firm's claim of rights to 30% of all energy resources near the North Pole. In January, Arctic, which now lists a California address, changed its name to Placer Gold Corp. Recent price: one cent." I have written several stories about Arctic Oil & Gas. Among other things, I have noted that its president, Peter J. Sterling, once hired psychic spoon-bender Uri Geller to dowse one of his Australian properties for gold, and that one of the company's directors was Senator Ed Lawson of Vancouver.
"Just what makes Spokane look like an overachiever in dodgy endeavors is a matter of debate," Forbes mused in its article. "Some say it's the town's remoteness, or its proximity to the Canadian border..." I think what we have here is two wild-west towns, both with long and storied histories of penny stock skullduggery, who have found each other and are doing what comes naturally.
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Vancouver+Spokane+Penny+stock+axis+evil/1578975/story.html
Molybdenum also.
THG ~ You feel okay?
Republicans are s-o-o-o lovable...
How Can Texas Ask Women to Pay for Rape Kits?
Joe Cutbirth
Journalists occasionally shine light on a public policy that is so disgusting it literally stuns you - just takes your breath away and leaves you speechless. Your first thought is they've made a mistake. Or this is ratings hype. It can't be true. After the initial shock wears off, you realize it actually is happening - that it's the system - and it hurt real people today; and it will hurt others the same way tomorrow, and others the day after that, and others the day after that. And you just want to urp. That happened today when I saw this clip on CNN (from Houston station KPRC) that showed the attorney general of Texas (my home state) is sending letters to women who have been raped threatening their credit will be ruined unless they pay for the part of the criminal investigation known as the rape kit. (A rape kit is a set of items that specially trained medial staff use to gather and preserve evidence of a sexual assault. A woman can decline the process, which can take up to four hours, but going to an emergency room and undergoing this additional intrusion helps document the attack and gives law enforcement evidence it needs to investigate the crime and prosecute the rapist.) The cost, according to CNN/ KPRC, runs $1,200 to $1,800.
Has the state's attorney general lost his mind? Do these penny-pinching bureaucrats have no decency, no shame at all? The U.S. Violence Against Women Act requires states to pay for "Jane Doe rape kits," also known as anonymous rape tests, if they want to receive funding for other programs. But Gov. Rick Perry and his tea bagging followers like to demagogue their opposition to federal programs and make media events out of refusing the federal money that comes with them. So why are we surprised when a spokesman for Attorney General Greg Abbott defends the letters, saying the state's Crime Victim's Compensation Fund, which collected nearly $100 million in 2007, would go broke if Abbott didn't follow strict criteria set by the legislature?
The stink from Austin keeps getting worse and worse. How can a governor, a lieutenant governor or a House speaker allow state law to be interpreted this way? How can 150 state representatives and 31 state senators - Republicans and Democrats shown proof this is happening on their watch - sleep at night or look themselves in the mirror? This is a gut-check issue for every person in public service. Any lawmaker, mayor or police chief who has to think more than two seconds about the right thing to do here should simply resign. He or she is in the wrong business.
Emergency legislation that bans this practice should be introduced Monday morning in both the Texas House and the Texas Senate, and the governor should sign one of those bills into law the very next day. No woman in Texas or anywhere ever should have to bear that cost. That can happen if the speaker of the Texas House, lieutenant governor and Gov. Rick Perry step-up and show some leadership. Personally, I think municipalities or counties should pay the cost of criminal investigations in their jurisdictions, and that should include the cost of gathering evidence in a rape case. And if there are so many rapes in a community that doing so will break the city or county budget, then it's time for another CNN story or stories on local television to expose that horror.
Women should never have to file an insurance claim in connection with a rape kit. A rape kit isn't treatment. It is part of a criminal investigation, and neither they nor their insurance carrier should in any way be forced to bear even temporary cost of this procedure. The trouble with getting insurance involved is that many women fear follow-up contacts from insurers asking for additional information, and that would be tantamount to harassment. Then, there is the issue of insurance information being shared among health care providers and the invasion of privacy that is unique to this crime. But the State Board of Insurance, the police unions, the Texas Municipal League and all the other interest groups with their teams of high-paid lobbyists can figure that out later. This is an emergency, and it is a disgrace to the state of Texas. It should be rectified by the end of this week, and it can be -- if there is any leadership left in Austin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cutbirth/how-can-texas-force-women_b_201289.html
Is there a possibility this policy originates from the idea put forth by the Religious Right that women inherently cause their rapes and need punishment for appearing lascivious?
I'm also betting the bank holding the $100,000,000 Texas Crime Victim's Compensation Fund has leveraged the funds and can't afford to disburse them as needed.
Sick bastards.
It's called 'Free Enterprise'...get used to it.
The insurance lobby cares...right?...
Insurers' Liability for Losses Due to Intoxication ("UPPL")
Policy Description
In 1950, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) developed a model law entitled the Uniform Accident and Sickness Policy Provision Law (UPPL). If enacted by States, it would permit insurers to include a provision in insurance policies that reads as follows:
The insurer shall not be liable for any loss sustained or contracted in consequence of the insured's being intoxicated or under the influence of any narcotic unless administered on the advice of a physician.
In most cases, jurisdictions with provisions reflecting this model law (also termed insurance exclusion) use this identical wording. In contrast, in some jurisdictions, statutes and/or regulations explicitly prohibit insurers from denying payment for insurance benefits for losses due to the intoxication of the insured. For example, South Dakota's statute prohibits insurers from denying health/sickness insurance benefits for injuries sustained while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Most State statutes and regulations that either permit or prohibit this form of exclusion apply to health (sometimes called sickness) insurance. Laws in some jurisdictions also apply to accident, long-term care, disability, and/or life insurance. Almost all States that have explicit policies regarding exclusion of claims arising from intoxication apply those rules to health insurance. The coding displayed in the APIS comparison tables for this policy topic is limited to health insurance. Notes are provided for the few States with provisions that apply to accident insurance but not health insurance.
http://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/index.asp?Type=BAS_APIS&SEC=%7B7AC19035-9A30-41E2-8C51-D33EC71A6798%7D
In states where UPPL is in force ER doctors can't voluntarily check an injured driver's blood for alcohol or drugs.
WHY?
Simple...If the driver tests positive for either the hospital won't be paid for services rendered.
Google 'uppl states' for an education. Here's a sample:
The Implications of Alcohol Intoxication and the Uniform Policy Provision Law on Trauma Centers; A National Trauma Data Bank Analysis of Minimally Injured Patients.
Original Articles
Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care. 66(2):495-498, February 2009.
O'Keeffe, Terence MB, ChB, MSPH; Shafi, Shahid MD, MPH; Sperry, Jason L. MD, MPH; Gentilello, Larry M. MD, FACS
Abstract:
Background: Alcohol intoxication may confound the initial assessment of trauma patients, resulting in increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, thereby increasing hospital costs. The Uniform Policy Provision Law (UPPL) exists in many states and allows insurance companies to deny payment for medical treatment for alcohol-related injuries. If intoxication increases resource utilization, these denials compound the financial burden of alcohol use on trauma centers. We hypothesized that patients injured while under the influence of alcohol require more diagnostic tests, procedures, and hospital admissions, leading to higher hospital charges.
Methods: The National Trauma Databank (2000-2004) was analyzed to identify adult trauma patients (age >=16 years) who were discharged alive, had a length of stay <=1 day and minor injuries (Injury Severity Score <9), and were tested for blood alcohol. The study was confined to minimally injured patients to facilitate identification of unexpected resource use most likely attributable to alcohol use. Resource utilization was compared among patients who tested positive or negative for alcohol use. Results are presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Results: Sixty-eight thousand eight patients met study criteria, of which 31,020 were positive for alcohol. Despite similar baseline characteristics, alcohol-positive patients required significantly more invasive procedures, including intubation (OR 4.16, 95% CI = 3.56-4.85) and Foley catheter insertion (OR 1.52, 95% CI = 1.39-1.67) as well as diagnostic tests (CT scan OR 1.16, 95% CI = 1.12-1.20). They were also less likely to be discharged from the emergency department (OR 0.61, 95% CI = 0.58-0.64), and more frequently required hospital (OR 1.64, 95% CI = 1.57-1.73) or intensive care unit admission (OR 1.82, 95% CI = 1.71-1.94). Mean hospital charges were $1,833 greater ($10,405 +/- 225 vs. 8,572 +/- 68).
Conclusions: A significant amount of trauma center costs are primarily attributable to alcohol use rather than injury severity or outcome. The financial costs associated with alcohol use and UPPL-related cost-shifting to trauma centers is a significant burden to trauma centers. UPPL laws that penalize trauma centers for identifying intoxicated patients should be repealed in states where they exist.
http://www.jtrauma.com/pt/re/jtrauma/abstract.00005373-200902000-00031.htm;jsessionid=KL1YpD1JVpfdycJnpHW1DkX1N4nSrx0nChHHmZLzMc12DjYzsjWJ!762269091!181195628!8091!-1
Ex-Hospital CEO Battles Reform Effort
By Dan Eggen May 11, 2009
The television ads that began airing last week feature horror stories from Canada and the United Kingdom: Patients who allegedly suffered long waits for surgeries, couldn't get the drugs they needed, or had to come to the United States for treatment. "Before government rushes to overhaul health care, listen to those who already have government-run health care," intones Rick Scott, founder of a group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights. "Tell Congress to listen, too." Scott, a multimillionaire investor and controversial former hospital chief executive, has become an unlikely and prominent leader of the opposition to health-care reform plans that Congress is expected to take up later this year. While disorganized Republicans and major health-care companies wait for President Obama and Democratic leaders to reveal the details of their plan before criticizing it, Scott is using $5 million of his own money and up to $15 million more from supporters to try to build resistance to any government-run program.
The campaign is being coordinated by CRC Public Relations, the group that masterminded the "Swift boat" attacks against 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry, and is inspired by the "Harry and Louise" ads that helped torpedo health-care reform during the Clinton administration. "Everybody wants to say I'm against Obama's plan, but I'm not necessarily," Scott said in an interview last week. "The bottom line is that this is happening fast, and there is not much of a debate going on about what will happen if we go down this path." But in ads, media appearances and other venues, Scott argues that whatever effort Obama is likely to put forth, it will put the country on a slippery slope toward a bureaucratic, British-style national health service.
The effort has alarmed many Democrats and liberal health-care advocates, who are pushing back with attacks highlighting Scott's ouster as head of the Columbia/HCA health-care company amid a fraud investigation in the 1990s. The firm eventually pleaded guilty to charges that it overbilled state and federal health plans, paying a record $1.7 billion in fines. In an ad broadcast in the Washington area and in Scott's home town of Naples, Fla., last week, a group called Health Care for America Now says of Scott: "He and his insurance-company friends make millions from the broken system we have now." The group's national campaign manager, Richard Kirsch, said: "Those attacking reform are really looking to protect their own profits, and he's a perfect messenger for that. His history of making a fortune by destroying quality in the health-care system and ripping off the government is a great example of what's really going on."
Scott, 56, seems unfazed by such criticism, emphasizing that he was never charged with any wrongdoing and that other health-care companies were also fined for overbilling problems. A lawyer with no formal medical training, Scott built Columbia/HCA into the largest U.S. health-care company before he was ousted by the board of directors in 1997. He was also once a partner in the Texas Rangers with George W. Bush. Scott now runs an investment firm and owns, among other things, a chain of walk-in urgent-care clinics in Florida called Solantic.
Conservatives for Patients' Rights spent about $600,000 a month on ads in March and April but is ratcheting up its buy for May to more than $1 million, CRC representatives said. Scott has also spent recent weeks meeting with lawmakers on Capitol Hill and addressing conservative groups in Washington, including the influential weekly breakfast organized by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist. Scott said he has met with "some Democrats" but acknowledged that most of those aligned with his views are Republicans. "I believe that free-market principles will solve our health-care problems," Scott said, adding that he was successful in cutting costs and improving customer satisfaction at both Columbia/HCA and his Solantic clinics.
For the moment, Scott's campaign is a relatively independent operation, in part because major insurers, hospitals and other health-care providers have muted their criticism in hopes of shaping the outcome of a final reform package. The situation is remarkably different from that in the early 1990s, when the insurance industry bankrolled the "Harry and Louise" ads, which featured a fictional couple worrying about a nationalized health-care system. The void has left Republicans somewhat adrift. In a 28-page memo circulated among lawmakers this week, prominent GOP pollster Frank Luntz urged Republicans to be "on the side of REFORM" and warned against direct attacks on the popular president. Instead, Luntz wrote, Republicans should warn about a "takeover" by "Washington bureaucrats" who would force patients to "stand in line" for care.
One senior Democratic staffer involved in the health-care debate said the arguments by Luntz, Scott and others are "distractions" that rely on distortions of the actual debate taking place in the House and Senate. Reform advocates note that many of the problems highlighted by Scott, such as long waits and shoddy care, are already major problems in the United States under the private insurance system. Democrats especially bristle at the central allegation in Scott's advertisements: that they hope to create a fully government-run, or "single-payer," health system of the kind seen in Canada and Britain. In fact, Obama and Democratic leaders have effectively ruled out that option in discussions so far, leading angry left-wing activists to disrupt a Senate hearing on the issue last week. "We are not Europe. We are not Canada," Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is leading the debate over a health-care plan as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a recent speech. "We need a uniquely American solution. It has to be a partnership of public and private players."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/10/AR2009051002243.html?hpid=topnews
Ya gotta love those insurance companies...right?
It looks like...
Federated Energy Corporation, the Oklahoma Operator, was the Operator on another oil deal that was quashed by the state of Kentucky:
http://tinyurl.com/q32daa
(check item #7)
re; Rick Wilkins...
Executive Vice President & CFO of Federated Energy...Is this the same guy:
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/854/710/222134/
Anyone know anything about this?...
http://rickwilkins.info/
Sounds to me...
like a bored cop lookin' to stir up some shit. I'm surprised he got by with it...in that area especially!
LOL!
Teenage Bomb Threat Suspect Was Internet Prank-Call Star
By Kevin Poulsen * May 7, 2009
A 16-year-old North Carolina boy arrested for allegedly making a bomb threat against Purdue University had a secret identity as a superstar in an unusual online subculture — one dedicated to making prank phone calls for a live internet audience, his mother admitted Thursday. “I heard the prank phone calls he made,” says Annette Lundeby of Oxford. “They were really funny prank phone calls…. He made phone calls to, like, Walmart.”
Annette Lundeby told Raleigh, North Carolina’s WRAL TV that her son was being unfairly held under the USA Patriot Act.
Lundeby confirmed that her son was known online as “Tyrone,” a celebrity in a prank-calling community that grew late last year out of the trouble-making “/b/” board on 4chan. Using the VOIP conferencing software Ventrilo, as many as 300 listeners would gather on a server run by Tyrone to listen to him and other amateur voice actors make often-crude and racist phone calls, some of which are archived on YouTube. The broadcasts were organized through websites like PartyVanPranks.com.
A former fan of Tyrone’s work helped lead the police to Lundeby’s son after the boy allegedly moved beyond pranks this year and began accepting donations from students eager to miss a day of school. In exchange for a little money, Tyrone would phone in a bomb threat that would shutter the donor’s school for a day. “People would pay about five dollars, and they get to submit a number,” says Jason Bennett, a 19-year-old college student in Syndey, Australia. “It was getting way out of hand.” Lundeby admits that her son received donations for his prank phone calls, but denies that he made bomb threats. She says her son was with her, coming home from church, at the time of the February 15 phone call that summoned a bomb squad and evacuated the mechanical engineering building at Purdue University in Indiana.
Bennett didn’t hear the Purdue call, but he says he heard Tyrone admit to that bomb threat later, and decided enough was enough. He contacted university police and began helping them get the goods on “Tyrone.” The case came to a head the night of March 5, when Tyrone made a series of rapid-fire bomb threats against five different schools around the United States. Bennett recorded the calls. “This is a warning to every staff, student and anybody else who may be in the school tomorrow afternoon at 11:00 a.m.,” the caller is heard saying in a voicemail message for Mill Valley High School in Shawnee, Kansas.
“There are twelve bombs located throughout the entire campus at the school,” the caller continues (.mp3). “They are in random lockers throughout the school — I will not tell you which lockers they are located in. There are also two in the bathroom and there is one in the gym. You have exactly one hour after 11:00 a.m. to find and disarm the bombs. That is all I have to say. All will be cleansed.” After leaving similar threats with four other schools, Tyrone gives listeners his e-mail address and asks for PayPal donations. Then he promises more calls in the morning. “I’m going to go to bed so I can fucking wake up at 6:00 in the morning and I’m going to cancel about eight or nine schools maybe,” he says. “You guys have fun missing school tomorrow.”
When Tyrone signed off, Bennett immediately put the recording on his own web server and provided a link to a Purdue University police detective working the case, who shared it with the FBI. Police warned the schools that very night that the calls were hoaxes, and the FBI — armed with a search warrant and a criminal complaint — swooped in on Annette Lundeby’s home at 10:00 p.m., seized computers and arrested her son. Lundeby insists the “Tyrone” on the recording must be a different prank caller using her son’s online handle and e-mail address. “I’ve asked him about this and he doesn’t know anything about it,” she says. “There are other people who sound like him.”
Bennett says Lundeby knew her son had made bomb threats. “His mother knew that he was making calls, because she’d come on the microphone when he was talking and tell him not to do any bomb threats because the house was going to get raided,” he says. “He said he wasn’t going to do any more bomb threats because his mom didn’t approve of them. But then he did them anyway.” Lundeby denies knowing anything about her son staging bomb hoaxes. But she admits seeing a YouTube video in which “Tyrone” jokes that he’s hidden a bomb in a box of take-out chicken.
In that call — laced with profanity and racist slurs — Tyrone is heard phoning a New York cigar shop while watching on a webcam streamed though the video-feed site New York City Live. When he sees a food delivery arrive at the checkout counter, he tells the clerk, “Your chicken is here. It contains the bomb which will detonate. It’s my bomb. It’s the bomb that will detonate in five minutes. The fried chicken has a bomb in it.” “I’m not sure if that was him or not,” says Lundeby. “If you’ll notice, the guy is also playing along with him. A lot of these calls are pre-setup. The other person on the other end knew it had been preset.”
“He did not make the bomb threat to Purdue,” she adds. “Even so, it’s about the Constitution.”
The arrest of Lundeby’s son stoked widespread outrage on the internet after Raleigh, North Carolina’s WRAL-5 reported on the case, noting that the boy is a patriotic homeschooled student with an American flag bedspread. Much of the online fury was triggered by Lundeby’s incorrect claim — uncritically reported by the station — that the boy was being held without any legal rights on the authority of the 2001 USA Patriot Act. In truth, making telephone bomb threats has been a federal crime since 1939. The teenager is being held without bail in Indiana, but he’s been formally charged, has a court-appointed attorney, and has already made three appearances in front of a judge. The case is sealed because the suspect is a minor.
Responding to the internet outrage on Thursday, the U.S. attorney’s office for the Northern District of Indiana issued a press release (.pdf) emphasizing the the teenager is not being held on terrorism charges. The case “alleges a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(e), which prohibits sending false information about an attempt to kill, injure or intimidate any individual or to unlawfully to damage any building through an instrument of interstate commerce,” the prosecutors wrote. “The government has filed a motion with the Court seeking to transfer the juvenile to adult status,” the government added. “That motion is pending before the Court and is scheduled for a hearing during the month of May.”
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/teenage-bomb-threat-suspect-was-an-internet-prank-phone-call-star/
I wonder if this qualifies as right wing terrorism? In any case, momma oughta be locked up for a very long time.
Rape Victims Forced To Pay For Evidence
By Stephen Dean May 8, 2009
HOUSTON -- Victims of sexual assault are getting bills, rejection letters and pushy calls from bill collectors while a state crime victims' fund sits full of cash, Local 2 Investigates reported Thursday. "I'm the victim, and yet here I am. I'm asked to pay this bill and my credit's going to get hurt," said a single mom from Houston. She received bills marked, "delinquent," after she visited a hospital where police told her to have evidence gathered. Officers assured her she would not pay a dime for that rape kit to be handled. "That was unreal," she said. "I never thought I'd be out anything for what I went through." She was 44 years old when she was attacked in her own bed. She said she awoke to find a burly 15-year-old friend of her son assaulting her. He was found delinquent, meaning he was convicted, in juvenile court, thanks in part to the evidence gathered with the rape kit.
"It is set up legislatively so that the criminal justice system pays for whatever evidence collection occurs," said Kelly Young, with the Houston Area Women's Center, a rape crisis facility. Police departments are reimbursed for up to $700 by the Texas Crime Victims' Compensation Fund, but many departments cover the bills if they exceed that. After that happens, victims can apply for other costs associated with the rape kit hospital visits to be covered by the fund.
The Houston Police Department made one payment toward the single mother's hospital bill, but when she submitted the $1,847 worth of remaining bills to the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund, she received a denial letter, telling her that law enforcement should have paid. "She's getting the run-around," said Young at the rape crisis center, which was not involved in her case. "There may be lots of survivors who have this happen and we don't know because they don't know that they shouldn't be getting the bills," she said. "A lot of people aren't going to ask. They're just going to go ahead and pay it and move forward with their lives. They don't want to keep re-living that experience," said Young.
Texas State Comptroller's office figures show the fund has tens of millions of dollars left over at the end of each year. In September 2006, the balance was $67,058,646 and one year later, the balance was $57,669,432. In 2008, that figure was up again to $66,572,261 that was left unspent in the fund. Attorney General's spokesman Jerry Strickland said the crime victim fund is enforcing strict guidelines imposed by the legislature as to which bills are paid and which victims are sent a denial notice. Otherwise, he said that fund could become "insolvent." He said state law is clear that crime victims must exhaust all other potential funding sources, such as local police or their own health insurance. "The legislature set it up that way," said Strickland.
When asked for a number of how many denial letters had been sent out to Texas rape victims in the past, Strickland did not have an answer after checking with his crime victims' compensation office workers. He said the attorney general's office constantly trains hospitals and health care providers on how to help victims in getting reimbursed for their expenses. Health care workers and rape crisis counselors told Local 2 Investigates that victims have come forward with denial letters for varying reasons, such as police listing the case as inactive, paperwork being filed incorrectly, or expenses falling into the wrong category.
Young, the advocate at Houston Area Women's Center said, "They're not dotting the Is and crossing the Ts to make sure that the person who was victimized does not have to re-live it six months later because they get a bill." When Local 2 Investigates contacted the hospital where the single mother had her rape kit performed, hospital leaders quickly canceled her bill when they found out the state would not be paying the charges She now owes nothing. She said she's amazed it happened to begin with, adding, "I don't look very kindly to them. I mean, I would expect that they would have had a little more feeling for me and they didn't."
http://www.click2houston.com/news/19400415/detail.html
Maybe we oughta let Texas secede...and then invade their ass and institute a 'democratic regime'. Hell, I'd gladly volunteer for THAT duty in a heart beat!
THG, for a real education...
read this:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/plot/The_Plot_to_Sieze_the_White_House_by_Jules_Archer/
re; Oklahoma’s sovereignty...
The last election 'blessed' us w/a Rep House & Senate for the 1st time since Statehood. They're prepping for the removal of our Dem Governor in the next election by pandering to the Religious Patriot wingnuts we have in abundance.
In the last two months they've passed bills on:
1; Reverting TOTAL education standards control to local sch boards.
2; Transferring control of testing standards AWAY from the State Board of Ed to a new department under total Rep control.
3; $100k tort limit.
4; Reduction of prison $$$$ to promote transferal of inmates to 9 private prisons owned by the wife of a past Rep Okie Governor.
All were vetoed by the Governor. (so far)
They beat the Governor's veto on placing a $5 million Ten Commandments monument on the Capital grounds. To pay for it, they defeated a bill forcing ins. companies to pay for Autism treatment.
Oh yeah...they're now proposing a monument to...Oral Roberts, the finest religious con artist in Okie history!
Experience all over the world has demonstrated, I fear, that the distance between stable, orderly government and one that has been taken over by force is not so great as we have assumed. Indeed, the plot that Butler exposed - if what MacGuire claimed was true - is a sobering reminder to Americans. We were not immune to the sentiments that gave rise to totalitarian governments throughout the world in the 1930s. We make a serious mistake when we assume, "It can't happen here!"
i.e;...Profoundly discouraged populations are extraordinarily gullible...that's why I rail against superfluous speech so much. It's a regrettable historical fact that those societies prone to verbal 'firing for effect' are the most vulnerable to large scale political upheaval over time. So far, America has managed to maintain a tenuous balance between mild repression in the name of Security & Tradition and anarchy under the guise of Libertarian Principle & Eroding Personal Freedoms.
The only way we can continue to 'benefit from dissension' is to continually expose and deride errant speech by strongly illuminating those benefiting from it. One should never forget that Free Enterprise is based on Greed...and that Exaggeration is Profitable. All that's required is a gullible audience.
Gullibility is the result of ignorance.
Ignorance is the progeny of poor education combined with information control by the State.
I beg to differ...
At this point, ANY hint of insider intent re; SLJB operations not previously PRd qualifies as 'insider information'...ESPECIALLY if it is congruent with the views of the person posting it.
Regardles ... imo ... the posters I referred to did not receive any insider information.
Thanks, mbc...
You're absolutely correct. It angers me when people post stuff representing their opinion that insults my meager intelligence with disingenuous half-truths, etc.
...ESPECIALLY when I believe the poster to actually be a cut above the herd.
The human condition will never improve until we cease mindlessly counting coup on each other for scurrilous ends.
Words Designed to Kill Health Care Reform
Sen. Jeff Merkley
U.S. Senator from Oregon
Posted May 7, 2009 | 06:48 PM (EST)
Over and over again, I hear from Oregonians that we need real health care reform that provides every American with access to quality, affordable care. That is why Congress and President Obama are so focused on this issue. Of course there are folks in the insurance and hospital industries, from the medical profession, and both political parties who will have different ideas about how to achieve our goal. But I was shocked when I read a memo from Republican strategist Dr. Frank Luntz laying out plans to dismantle any effort to give all Americans access to quality health care. Dr. Luntz, the man who developed language designed to promote preemptive war in Iraq and distract from the severity of global warming, is at it again -- this time with a messaging strategy designed to sink our historic opportunity for health care reform.
Let's be clear: this is not a strategy to push certain ideas about health reform. It is a strategy intended solely to kill reform efforts altogether. In his own words, Dr. Luntz has stated, "You're not going to get what you want, but you can kill what they're trying to do."
Not surprisingly, since the American public is strongly in favor of fixing the broken health care system, the Luntz strategy is predicated on deception. In his memo, Dr. Luntz lays out multiple ways that opponents of health care reform can trick and manipulate the American public. One strategy that stood out to me is to call efforts to reform our broken health care system a "bailout for the insurance industry." This is ridiculous. This statement is developed to serve the same interests who stopped at nothing to derail health care reform in the 90's, who blocked health care coverage for low-income children, and whose top Medicare priority for 15 years has been transferring money from seniors and taxpayers to the insurance industry.
When support for a prescription drug benefit in Medicare became too powerful to ignore, President Bush and his allies created the convoluted system we now have. Rather than simply add a prescription drug benefit to the tried, true, and popular Medicare program as Democrats wanted, they devised a giveaway for insurance companies. For years Dr. Luntz's clients have virtually abdicated health care policy making to the insurance industry; the last thing it needs is a bailout.
Today though, even the insurance industry is engaged in constructive negotiations about how to repair the health care system. Unfortunately for the vast majority of Americans who support reform, however, Dr. Luntz's new game plan to stop change is being embraced by leaders in the Republican Party. In a briefing where Dr. Luntz presented his strategy to Republican House members, Rep. Mike Pence from Indiana, the chairman of the House Republican Conference, made it official by saying, "Frank is back."
So expect a massive misinformation campaign coming to a health care debate near you. Opponents using Dr. Luntz's doublespeak will argue for a "balanced, common sense approach" to health care but what they really want is to keep the system the way it is. They'll say that a public plan will not be "patient centered," but their real goal is to block accessible health care for every American. They'll say reform will deny Americans "choice" even when every American will be allowed to keep their health insurance and their doctor. They'll claim that the "quality of care will go down," while callously ignoring the fact that millions of Americans have no health care at all and millions more are denied the medications and procedures they need.
What we are seeing, yet again, is that while Dr. Luntz and his clients may have excellent polling data, they are utterly clueless about what the American people want. But, I have to give Dr. Luntz credit on one front: he points out that Republicans need to appear to be on the "right side of reform" or they lose the health care argument. The problem is that you can't fake support for reform. You're either for improving the quality and affordability of health care or you're against it. You're either for expanding coverage to every American or you're against it. At the end of the day, no matter what talking points they use, each member of Congress is going to have to vote for or against improving our broken health care system.
With small businesses and families being buried by rising costs, with 47 million uninsured, millions more underinsured and American companies losing ground against their global competitors, it is evident to anyone that our health care system is broken. There are Republicans and Democrats, insurance executives and patient advocates, physicians and hospital representatives all working to meet one of America's most pressing challenges. We certainly do not all agree on what a reformed health system should look like or how to get there, but there are people on all sides who are negotiating in good faith. The country deserves that debate on the merits, not poll-tested attack lines intended to prolong the broken system we have today.
http://tinyurl.com/ddx8p4
Religious bullying is a problem around the world
Walter Rodgers – Thu May 7, 5:00 am ET
Oakton, Va. – A friend, a Pakistani journalist, recently came out of the troubled Swat valley in northwest Pakistan and told a chilling tale. He said, "It is now halal [religiously sanctioned] to kill journalists." The tribal Muslim clerics in Swat, he said, have declared open season on reporters whose writings they disapprove of. My friend, a brave and devout Sunni Muslim, seemed quite shaken, having spent two weeks reporting under threat in Swat, an area once called the Switzerland of Pakistan. Several journalists have already been murdered for a perceived breach of theocratic codes. Such violence is religious "correctness" in the extreme, but vigilante enforcement of theocratic codes can crop up whenever and wherever an individual or minority does not conform to the religious tenets of the majority.
In the United States, when Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D) of Minnesota asked to be sworn in using the Koran, the personal attacks on him from the Christian right were just short of poisonous. In areas such as the Balkans and Iraq, religious intimidation has taken the form of ethnic cleansing, forcibly coercing religious minorities to emigrate. In the West Bank a decade ago, I witnessed Hamas activists taunting Christian women for wearing crosses around their necks. Though Palestinian officials deny religious coercion, the exodus of Christian Arabs from the West Bank suggests otherwise. Another form of religious intimidation worms its way through US high schools. Teenagers complain of being verbally assaulted by "God squads," whose members roam corridors demanding to know if their fellow students share their messianic religious visions – and if not, why not?
Religious bullying is "a great concern," says Deborah Lauter of the Anti-Defamation League. "It does happen a lot … we believe it's a pervasive problem." Daniel Mach of the American Civil Liberties Union agrees: "It's clear this problem is not going to go away soon." The ACLU is representing a group of anonymous students in Santa Rosa County, Fla., who allege that school officials created a coercive environment in promoting their personal religious beliefs in school and at school events. "The students are proceeding anonymously to avoid intimidation and threats of violence…," Mr. Mach said. Indeed, the list of complaints from those who are unwilling to go forward for fear of intimidation and possible violence "is far longer [than] the list of cases filed," according to Art Spitzer, another ACLU attorney. He said it is easier to win these cases in the courts, but religionist partisans win in the schools because "there are no judges in the principals' offices."
A friend in a northern Virginia high school said religious hectoring by students is "very aggressive and sometimes involves physical threats." He told of a young Jewish friend who is frequently told by other students that her religion is "wrong because you don't believe in God." Judaism can be no less bullying, however, when it finds itself in the majority. Walk through Mea Shearim, an Orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem. If you are a nonobservant Jew, or worse, a gentile, you risk being cursed or stoned. I was spat upon eight years ago for merely walking through the area once (no, it wasn't a Jewish holiday or Sabbath).
These incidents are rarely discussed because we fear giving offense. It's disingenuous, however, to pretend they do not occur. Intimidation is intimidation, whether it's found in Pakistan, Jerusalem, Florida, or northern Virginia. Western civilization has become far too tolerant of religious intolerance that masquerades as freedom of religion. Young people today are taught not to be "judgmental," but without making critical judgments, how can we curtail threats to individual liberty? And amid such intellectual tapioca learning itself becomes irrelevant. Zoe Oldenburg, a scholar of a most horrific outbreak of religious violence, the Roman Catholic Church's Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars of the 13th century, wrote, "the essential value of any faith must be judged by the effect it produces in the lives of its devotees.…"
Religion should have a humanizing effect on its adherents. Civilizing barbarians was an original aim of Islam. Christianity is supposed to cultivate charity for all mankind. The original idea of loving thy neighbor as thyself was first articulated in Jewish Scripture. Yet when religion loses sight of its potential civilizing leaven, it risks merely becoming tyranny in subtler guise. Thomas Jefferson swore "eternal hostility toward every tyranny over the mind of man." Today, however, political and religious leaders tend to snooze their way through the various manifestations of religious coercion and intimidation reminiscent of a darker medieval world.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090507/cm_csm/yrodgersweb07
Who Says the Presidency Requires Faith?
By Alan Colmes
President Obama, unlike President Bush 43, but like most previous chief executives, is not attending a breakfast for National Prayer Day, and not taking part in a formal early morning service. He is, however, signing a proclamation that sets aside the first Thursday of May as the National Day of Prayer, which has been a tradition since 1952. This has certain conservatives and evangelicals up in arms to the point where they are knocking his commitment to his faith.
Predictably, National Day of Prayer chairwoman Shirley Dobson (wife of Focus on Family’s James), says her group is disappointed by lack of participation by the Obama administration. “At this time in our country’s history, we would hope our president would recognize more fully the importance of prayer,” said Mrs. Dobson, who occupied a prominent seat in the front row for the ceremonies during the Bush administration. But Mrs. Dobson’s comments are mild in comparison to the reaction from Concerned Women for America’s president, Wendy Wright. “For those of us who have our doubts about Obama’s faith, no, we did not expect him to have the service,” said Wright. “But as president, he should put his own lack of faith aside and live up to the office.”
Just where is the screed that the office of the presidency of the United States requires faith? Where is that stated in the Constitution? Where is it written that faith is even a requirement for public office in this country? I find Ms. Wright’s comments as outrageous as she thinks Obama’s lack of participation in the National Day of Prayer is — especially since she wields this as a club to suggest the president is without faith — which is both beside the point and untrue. What a wonderful way to use religion; to club someone over the head.
Wright, who refused the opportunity to come on my radio show to defend her position, also used the occasion to attack Obama for his recent comments in Turkey that America does not consider itself a Christian nation, complaining, “It’s almost like Obama is trying to remake America into his own image. This is not a rejection of Shirley Dobson; it’s a rejection of the concept that America is a spiritual nation and its foundation is Judeo-Christian.”
Of course, what Obama actually said was:
“We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”
Officially, we are not a Christian nation, much as that upsets those who want the government to declare it as such. It’s ironic that many of the same conservatives who preach small government, nevertheless want big brother to acknowledge and sanctify their religious beliefs. But the 1776 Treaty of Tropoli states, “[As] the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;” and we are supposed to adhere to what treaties say, even if Bush & Co wishes to disregard little annoyances like the Geneva Convention.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State reminds us what Jesus said about public prayer. Matthew 6:5-7 states:
“When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”
It’s a shame that groups like the Independent Women’s Forum have such a problem with Jesus. They also have a problem with the founding fathers. President James Madison proclaimed a day of prayer. He later said such proclamations are not appropriate. “They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion.” Thomas Jefferson also opposed declarations of national days of prayer by the Federal government, writing:
“Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it.”
Obama is not attending the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast that is held in conjunction with National Day of Prayer, but it’s important to note that, if he went, he would not be allowed to speak. Spokesman Joe Cella says the president is welcome to attend, but a 2004 directive from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says pro-choice politicians should not be publicly honored. And the president did attend February’s National Prayer Breakfast which has been an annual event since 1953. Furthermore, let’s not forget that an online petition put out by the conservative Cardinal Newman Society is protesting Obama’s planned May 17 appearance at Notre Dame. So, while Obama speaks about bringing people together, and the plurality of religious practices that make a great nation, it’s some of those who oppose him who use religion to divide.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/06/colmes_obama_prayer/
mbc, the article you're citing...
is an excellently demonstrative screed promoting psychoanalytical branding of selected 'undesirable' segments of society. Put simply, if one isn't a 'Believer' one is a Communist. The sole intent of that piece is to induce Societal Polarization in service to a particularly repressively judgmental minority whose trademark is seduction of the gullible.
Contrary to what you may think, 'free enterprise' isn't Free...the costs are all around you. Unrestrained free enterprise is about Greed...unrestrained religiosity is about Power. We're now coping with the effluent of eight years of that combination...don't you think that's enough?
Republican Political Hackery and the Hate Crimes Bill
During the same historic week in which marriage equality was passed in Maine, the Republicans -- the self-proclaimed party of emancipation and "the liberty tree" -- attempted to derail hate crimes legislation with some political trickery that succeeded in allowing Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to accuse the Democrats of protecting pedophiles. Stay with me on this. Rep. Steve King (R-Batshittia) introduced an amendment to the hate crimes bill calling for the term "sexual orientation" to exclude "pedophiles" even though the bill specifically defines sexual orientation as "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality." Pedophilia, as everyone knows, is nonconsensual no matter who engages in it.
Not only was King insinuating the derogatory stereotype that homosexuals are pedophiles, but his amendment would've further validated this stereotype by writing it into the legal record. By the way, Joe the Plumber -- another very serious leader of the Republican Party -- advanced the same stereotype this week when he said that he'd never let his "gay friends" anywhere near his kids. Classy. Nevertheless, King making this kind of distinction is sort of like amending civil rights legislation with: "the term 'African Americans' shall not include anyone who rapes white women." It elevates a stereotype while denying one exists. Pretty slick -- in a creepy, sinister kind of way.
Obviously, the point of King's amendment was neither to help to separate the LGBT community from nonconsensual sexual deviants, nor was it designed to make sure pedophiles weren't covered under the hate crimes law. King's intention was absolutely to trick Democrats into voting against the amendment -- and they did -- thus allowing the Republicans to say that Democrats are with the pedophiles. So the Republicans are seeking a way out of their current mess by defining the Democrats as the party of pedophilia, even though the GOP's previous attempts to paint the Democrats as the pro-terrorist, anti-American party failed miserably to prevent landslide Democratic victories in the last two general elections.
But of course King's stupid amendment trick allowed Sean Hannity to repeat throughout his Tuesday night show things like, "Is it safe to say that Democrats were willing to protect pedophiles?" Limbaugh, meanwhile, remarked that the Democrats are "carving out protection for perverts." This from a guy who successfully wiggled out of a legal situation involving the possession of prescription E.D. meds (not in his name) during a stag trip to a destination apparently known for sexual tourism. Here's the thing, though. Hannity, Limbaugh, King and 166 House Republicans are decidedly against the hate crimes bill. The legislation, as passed by the House, specifically defines hate crimes as being "motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim." Again, Hannity, King and the rest are absolutely opposed to this.
So while the Republicans have vocally and repeatedly expressed their position against "protecting pedophiles," it can be said -- and, quoting King, "it's a matter of record" -- that they're also against protecting women, racial minorities, ethnic minorities, religious people and disabled people, among others.
Get it?
Why don't you want to protect religious people, Hannity? Why don't you want to protect disabled people, Limbaugh? Why don't you want to protect women, Congresswoman Foxx? Why do you, Mr. King, support "legal protections" for criminals who brutalize and often savagely kill Christians, Jewish people, amputees and the mentally challenged -- regardless of whether they're veterans, senior citizens, Republicans or dittoheads? (Contrary to what Hannity was saying on his show about the bill not including veterans, I'm pretty sure veterans can be disabled, female, black, religious or ethnically non-Anglo. Was Hannity expecting the bill to include every occupation, too? Would that've changed his support in some way?)
The House Democrats, for their part, might've missed an opportunity here, though. Perhaps they should've allowed King's derogatory and disingenuous amendment to pass and then quietly pulled it out in conference (should it get that far). This way, the Democrats could've forced King's trickery to backfire against the Republicans. When the bill with the King amendment came up for a vote on the floor, not only would the Republicans have voted against legal protections for all of the above groups, but they would've voted against King's amendment and thus in favor of "carving out legal protections for perverts" and "pedophiles."
The Democrats didn't do this, however. Much to their credit. And that says a lot about how they regard the seriousness of this legislation. Whether or not you agree with the spirit of hate crimes legislation, it's not an issue that lends itself to political hackery. And it doesn't really matter if these are crimes against a hundred people or a thousand people or if it's just one boy in Laramie - or two black men in Texas -- this is legislation about real people who were (or will be) killed for no reason other than for being perceived as different.
Vote for the bill or vote against it. Support it or denounce it. Make your case with due respect for what this sort of thing involves. Just don't play politics with it.
So you can bet Congressman King and his staff are really, really proud of their clever little hack trap, and I'm sure the scripts for the predictable "liberals are with the pedophiles" ads are already being worked up for the 2010 midterms. The thing is, Americans aren't buying this crap on a stick from the Republicans anymore. Coupled with their lengthy record of incompetence and ridiculousness, it's only succeeding in making them look cheaper and less serious than they were yesterday and the day before.
http://tinyurl.com/cmylbs
You can either be a dittohead & condone this childish BS as business as usual, or you can ask yourself who benefits when the bill falls.
Does anyone know...
anything re; the info in this two month old article?
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan
Betsy McCaughey
Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy. Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department. Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors. But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.” Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541) What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464). The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis. In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.
Hidden Provisions
If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later. The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).
Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”
More Scrutiny Needed
On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny. The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.
(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs
b-b-bend ovah...
General Motors: Officially Wiping Out Common Shareholders
Tyler Durden May 06, 2009
In a filing yesterday with the SEC, GM announced that it would issue 60 billion new shares, in order to "pay off" debts to the government, its bondholders and the UAW. And since the government would end up being the majority owner, only the approval of the U.S. Treasury would be needed (talk about a gating factor).
As a result of the flood of new shares, existing shareholders, much as previously expected, would end up owning 1% of the pro forma equity, and assuming straight mathematical dilution, the shares which closed at $1.85 would be worth a little over 1 cent.
Specifically, the actions contemplated by the filing are as follows:
* Increase the number of authorized shares of GM common stock to 62 billion shares;
* Reduce the par value of GM common stock from $1 2/3 per share to $0.01 per share; and
* Effect a 1-for-100 reverse stock split of GM common stock, whereby each 100 shares of GM common stock registered in the name of a stockholder at the effective time of the reverse stock split will be converted into one share of GM common stock. MORE...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/135638-general-motors-officially-wiping-out-common-shareholders?source=yahoo
It's about time...
Obama to be prayer day no-show
By Julia Duin (Contact) | Wednesday, May 6, 2009
President Obama is distancing himself from the National Day of Prayer by nixing a formal early morning service and not attending a large Catholic prayer breakfast the next morning. All Mr. Obama will do for the National Day of Prayer, which is Thursday, is sign a proclamation honoring the day, which originated in 1952 when Congress set aside the first Thursday in May for the observance. For the past eight years, President George W. Bush invited selected Christian and Jewish leaders to the White House East Room, where he typically would give a short speech and several leaders offered prayers.
Obama White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that the president is simply reverting back to pre-Bush administration practice. MORE...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/06/prayer-day-no-show/
GM plans 1-for-100 reverse stock split
Kimberly S. Johnson and Tom Krisher May 5, 2009
DETROIT (AP) -- General Motors Corp. notified shareholders Tuesday it is planning a reverse stock split that would give them one share of new stock for every 100 shares they currently own. The automaker said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the deal would be part of an agreement with the Treasury Department in which the government would assume at least half of GM's debt in exchange for company shares. GM will send the information to shareholders currently holding a total of 610.5 million outstanding shares.
GM spokeswoman Julie Gibson said the company is merely notifying shareholders of what it may do if it reaches deals to swap debt for stock with the Treasury Department and bondholders. The company, she said, is not making an offer to shareholders. GM has received $15.4 billion in U.S. government loans and faces a June 1 deadline to restructure or be forced into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Under GM's plan, the U.S. government would get a 50 percent equity stake in exchange for about $10 billion in loan forgiveness.
For the deal to work, GM has to reach agreement with the United Auto Workers to swap stock for about $10 billion of the $20 billion in payments GM must make into a trust fund that will take over retiree health care expenses starting next year. The UAW's stake would total about 39 percent. Bondholders would get 10 percent and current stockholders would get 1 percent. The breakdown between the union and government is still being negotiated, Gibson said.
When all the deals are done GM expects to have about 62 billion shares, 100 times more than currently are outstanding. "If the restructuring as currently contemplated occurs, there will be very substantial dilution to existing holders of GM common stock," GM's filing said. Hence, the reverse stock split proposal. Critics, mainly bondholders, have accused the Obama administration of favoring the government and the UAW at the expense of investors.
Richard Hilgert, president and owner of Automotive Financial Research LLC in Beecher, Ill., said bondholders and stockholders are getting the short end of the deal. But for stockholders, who might lose everything, it might be the best they can do. "As a shareholder, I'd rather have one percent of something than one percent of nothing," he said. Hilgert predicted that GM shares would decline even lower than Tuesday's $1.85 close.
In a separate filing, GM said its Canadian subsidiary will receive a $2.6 billion loan ($3 billion Canadian) from the Canadian government. GM can draw on the loan in installments of $500 million Canadian ($425.5 million). The Canadian government would be among those first in line to receive repayment of 35 percent of the loan, according to the filing. The Canadian Auto Workers union has approved modifications to its existing contract in an effort to help GM cut labor costs. GM Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson said the company would go back to the union, asking for deeper cuts to match those recently approved by Chrysler's CAW workers.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-plans-1for100-reverse-apf-15143150.html?.v=10
FAILURE GETS A PASS
Firing tenured teachers can be a costly and tortuous task
By Jason Song May 3, 2009
The eighth-grade boy held out his wrists for teacher Carlos Polanco to see. He had just explained to Polanco and his history classmates at Virgil Middle School in Koreatown why he had been absent: He had been in the hospital after an attempt at suicide. Polanco looked at the cuts and said they "were weak," according to witness accounts in documents filed with the state. "Carve deeper next time," he was said to have told the boy. "Look," Polanco allegedly said, "you can't even kill yourself." The boy's classmates joined in, with one advising how to cut a main artery, according to the witnesses. "See," Polanco was quoted as saying, "even he knows how to commit suicide better than you." The Los Angeles school board, citing Polanco's poor judgment, voted to fire him. But Polanco, who contended that he had been misunderstood, kept his job. A little-known review commission overruled the board, saying that although the teacher had made the statements, he had meant no harm.
It's remarkably difficult to fire a tenured public school teacher in California, a Times investigation has found. The path can be laborious and labyrinthine, in some cases involving years of investigation, union grievances, administrative appeals, court challenges and re-hearings. Not only is the process arduous, but some districts are particularly unsuccessful in navigating its complexities. The Los Angeles Unified School District sees the majority of its appealed dismissals overturned, and its administrators are far less likely even to try firing a tenured teacher than those in other districts. The Times reviewed every case on record in the last 15 years in which a tenured employee was fired by a California school district and formally contested the decision before a review commission: 159 in all (not including about two dozen in which the records were destroyed). The newspaper also examined court and school district records and interviewed scores of people, including principals, teachers, union officials, district administrators, parents and students.
Among the findings:
* Building a case for dismissal is so time-consuming, costly and draining for principals and administrators that many say they don't make the effort except in the most egregious cases. The vast majority of firings stem from blatant misconduct, including sexual abuse, other immoral or illegal behavior, insubordination or repeated violation of rules such as showing up on time.
* Although districts generally press ahead with only the strongest cases, even these get knocked down more than a third of the time by the specially convened review panels, which have the discretion to restore teachers' jobs even when grounds for dismissal are proved.
* Jettisoning a teacher solely because he or she can't teach is rare. In 80% of the dismissals that were upheld, classroom performance was not even a factor.
When teaching is at issue, years of effort -- and thousands of dollars -- sometimes go into rehabilitating the teacher as students suffer. Over the three years before he was fired, one struggling math teacher in Stockton was observed 13 times by school officials, failed three year-end evaluations, was offered a more desirable assignment and joined a mentoring program as most of his ninth-grade students flunked his courses. As a case winds its way through the system, legal costs can soar into the six figures. Meanwhile, said Kendra Wallace, principal of Daniel Webster Middle School on Los Angeles' Westside, an ineffective teacher can instruct 125 to 260 students a year -- up to 1,300 in the five years she says it often takes to remove a tenured employee.
"The hardest conversation to have is when a student comes in and looks at you and says, 'Can you please come teach our class?' " she said. When coaching and other improvement efforts don't work, she said, "You're in the position of having to look at 125 kids and just say, 'I'm sorry,' because the process of removal is really difficult. . . . You're looking at these kids and knowing they are going to high school and they're not ready. It is absolutely devastating."
'Really disheartening'
In his first major education speech in March, President Obama called for a system that would be the "envy of the world" -- one that nourishes good teachers and casts out the "bad" ones. "I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences," he said. "We can afford nothing but the best when it comes to our children's teachers and the schools where they teach." In many California school districts, that goal seems impossibly distant. Laziness, apathy or poor performance often aren't firing offenses, some school officials complain. "We as administrators, knowing how difficult it is, tend to make excuses for the employee, and I think in some cases, accept mediocrity," said L.A. Unified Supt. Ramon C. Cortines.
Strapped districts are forced to keep tenured staffers they deem unworthy even as they must consider layoffs for less-experienced teachers, without regard to their talents. "It's really disheartening," said Dr. Mitchell Wong, president of Act4Education, a group of parents trying to improve school performance in West Los Angeles. "What message does it send to the students, to the community and to the teachers who are doing their job?" Kathleen Collins, associate general counsel for L.A. Unified, explained it this way: "Kids don't have a union."
Teachers have won strong job protections over the years, the legacy of labor battles in the early 20th century, when instructors could be fired for frivolous infractions. Some experts say the tenure system has outlived its usefulness. Union leaders say tenure and collective bargaining are not the problem, nor is it fair to use egregious cases to indict the entire system. "The union is bound by law to defend our members, and we do," said A.J. Duffy, president of United Teachers Los Angeles. "That should in no way deter the resolve of the district to do their job, which is to help failing teachers to get better, or, if they can't, to work to get rid of them."
Outspoken teachers can be victimized, union leaders say, and principals and parents sometimes take aim at people they simply don't like. Teachers, they say, are entitled to a presumption of innocence. Cynthia Acerno was a last-minute hire at an elementary magnet school in the San Diego Unified School District, according to a summary of her case by a review commission. Though known for being strict, the district veteran had had no previous problems. But "vocal, politically well-connected" parents accused her of being a "menace," and started unfounded rumors that she was screaming at children, drinking and using drugs, the panel found. Some pulled their children from her class. "The case against her was a cocktail of hearsay on hearsay with an ill-will chaser," the panel commented in its ruling in favor of Acerno, who could not be reached for comment. ". . . Many of these scurrilous and damaging things were said in front of the children of this class by parents. This was shameful."
Despite such problems, the system in California provides teachers protections that go beyond what they receive in many other states. Teachers here can gain tenure after two years instead of three, which is common elsewhere. Proposing changes can amount to stepping on a political third rail. Last week, when Los Angeles school board members Marlene Canter and Tamar Galatzan introduced measures to streamline the firing process, more than an hour of debate ensued in which UTLA leaders, a state senator and fellow board members warned against hasty action and an end-run around the unions. A milder motion was approved to create a task force to discuss the issue further.
The process has remained more or less the same for years:
The onus initially is on principals to document their case. Their evidence must pass muster with district officials and lawyers, who decide which cases should be taken to the school board. Once the board approves a dismissal, teachers may appeal to Commissions on Professional Competence, review panels that have final administrative authority on who gets fired or laid off in California schools. In many other states, such appeals are handled by administrative law judges alone. But California panels also include two educators, one appointed by the school district and the other by the employee under review.
The grounds for termination seem clear enough. They include immorality, persistent violation of school rules, unprofessional conduct, commission of a felony or sexual harassment, unsatisfactory performance and the catchall "evident unfitness to teach." In practice, however, even the panelists can disagree on whether these grounds are met, and if met, whether they merit firing in a particular case. Districts complain that in review hearings, where lawyers go head to head, the testimony of student witnesses is often discounted because their memories have faded, they are scared or reluctant to talk about traumatic events, or they can't withstand intensive cross-examination.
But it is not uncommon for districts to sabotage themselves with technical missteps. In Polanco's case, for example, L.A. Unified administrators began firing proceedings before giving him the required 45 days' "notice of unprofessional conduct" -- one factor in the commission's decision to overturn his firing. And if the teacher or district is dissatisfied with the commission's decision, each has the right to appeal the case to superior and appellate courts, which sometimes force the panels to reconsider. Records show that from the time principals tagged teachers for possible termination, hundreds of cases were dropped or settled -- often through district buyouts -- between 1994 and 2008. No specific documentation was available, however, on how each case was resolved. Even so, the cases reviewed by The Times open a window onto the firing process from start to finish, showing many of the ways it works or does not along the way.
District struggles
L.A. Unified officials have struggled with the system more than most. Of the 15 tenured employees on record as fighting their terminations before review commissions in the last decade and a half, nine won their jobs back. The main reasons: Commissions did not find the district's evidence damning or persuasive enough. The district wanted to fire a high school teacher who kept a stash of pornography, marijuana and vials with cocaine residue at school, but a commission balked, suggesting that firing was too harsh. L.A. Unified officials were also unsuccessful in firing a male middle school teacher spotted lying on top of a female colleague in the metal shop, saying the district did not prove that the two were having sex.
The district fared no better in its case against elementary school special education teacher Gloria Hsi, despite allegations that included poor judgment, failing to report child abuse, yelling at and insulting children, planning lessons inadequately and failing to supervise her class. Not a single charge was upheld. The commission found the school's evaluators were unqualified because they did not have special education training. Moreover, it said they went to the class at especially difficult periods and didn't stay long enough. Four years after the district began trying to fire Hsi, the case is still tied up in court, although she has been removed from the classroom. Her lawyer declined to comment on her behalf. The district's legal costs so far: $110,000.
Classroom ineffectiveness is hard to prove, administrators and principals said. "One of the toughest things to document, ironically, is [teachers'] ability to teach," Wallace, the Daniel Webster principal, said. "It's an amorphous thing." District officials thought they had a strong case against fourth-grade teacher Shirley Loftis, including complaints and other evidence they said dated back a decade. According to their allegations before the commission, Loftis, 74, failed to give directions to students, assigned homework that wasn't at the appropriate grade level and provided such inadequate supervision that students pulled down their pants or harmed one another by fighting or throwing things. One child allegedly broke a tooth, another was hit in the head after being pushed off a chair, a third struck by a backpack.
The commission, however, sided with Loftis. It acknowledged that she showed signs of burnout and "would often retreat from student relationship problems rather than confront them." But it said the district did not try hard enough to help her and suggested administrators find her another job -- perhaps training other teachers. "She's obviously an intelligent lady, and such a program might well succeed." When the district took the case to Superior Court, lost and appealed, Loftis retired. The district agreed to pay $195,000 for her attorney's fees. Through her attorney, the former teacher declined to comment. Collins, whose first case with L.A. Unified was Loftis', recalled being frustrated because, although the problems allegedly had gone on many years, the district was allowed to present just four years of evidence under the state education code. "This is not an LAUSD story -- it is a statewide reality," Collins said in an e-mail.
But L.A. Unified doesn't pursue as many firings as other major districts, considering its size. The district, which has about 30,000 tenured teachers, fires 21 a year -- well under 1 per 1,000 -- according to district statistics for the last five years. Long Beach fires 6 per 1,000, and San Diego fires about 2 per 1,000. Evidence suggests that L.A. Unified does a poor job of tracking teacher performance overall, making it tough to prove anyone is a bad apple. A one-time study of teacher evaluations from the 2003-04 academic year, for instance, showed that 98.9% of all tenured teachers were said by supervisors to have "met standards."
The only categories in which a substantial percentage were said to have needed improvement concerned punctuality and attendance. Five percent had difficulty showing up on time. Even some teachers union representatives said they do not believe the evaluations accurately portray the quality of teacher performance. Joshua Pechthalt, a United Teachers Los Angeles vice president, said the process is "fraught with problems" and results in teachers, especially young ones, not getting the guidance they need. "I don't know any workplace where 98% of the people are doing a good job," Pechthalt said.
Contrition can help
In other districts, as well, review panels found officials to be too harsh, or determined that their firings weren't supported by "the preponderance of evidence" -- a standard also used in most civil cases. San Diego Unified administrators tried and failed to fire an elementary school reading teacher who one district evaluator said could not follow a lesson plan. "It was evident . . . that the teacher was likely not the most gifted or skilled," the commission said in reversing the dismissal. "However, her performance was not 'unsatisfactory' simply because she was not the most capable or the quickest study."
In many instances, an apology -- or at least an acknowledgment of error -- went a long way. One teacher and coach from the San Ramon Valley Unified School District in the Bay Area was contrite after being accused of leering at teenage swimmers, making sexually charged remarks to students and instructing girls to "bark like seals" while they did push-ups. "There is good reason to believe the respondent's conduct will not recur," the commission wrote of the teacher, who had worked in the district for 24 years.
In several cases, the commissions were torn. Ronald Hafner, a choral teacher with a long history of favorable evaluations in the Lake Elsinore Unified School District, was accused of serious misconduct during a trip he led with 24 students and five chaperons to Las Vegas. According to a commission summary, the district accused him of drinking alcohol in front of students, making offensive remarks -- such as suggesting that girls in his charge should apply to be strippers -- and touching a female student inappropriately. Hafner disputed many of the accusations and argued in the hearing that he was the subject of a "witch hunt" by fundamentalist Christians. He could not be reached for comment.
In 2005, the panel found that Hafner's behavior was "shameful and inexcusable and demonstrates a severe lapse of judgment." But the teacher kept his job, because the district's allegations were not fully proved and did not warrant dismissal, according to the panel majority. A middle school assistant principal on the panel wrote a sharp dissent: "As a parent I would not allow my child in his classroom. As a colleague I cannot condone his conduct or attitude. As an administrator I could not trust him beyond my sight."
Too daunted to try
Faced with such frustrations, many principals don't even attempt to navigate the firing process. Letting a bad teacher slide or making him someone else's problem is far easier than trying to document his failings, some say. The prospect of union grievances, and a protracted battle against labor representatives and attorneys, makes the endeavor even less appealing. Joseph Walker, a former principal of Grant High School in Van Nuys, was sued by a special education teacher whom he tried to dismiss for alleged repeated sexual harassment. A civil jury sided with Walker -- but the review commission decided the teacher shouldn't be fired. The case, now in the courts, has dragged on seven years.
Confronting uphill battles like this, Walker said: "You're not going to fire someone who's not doing their job. And if you have someone who's done something really egregious, there's only a 50-50 chance that you can fire them." Walker is now principal of Discovery Charter Preparatory Academy in Pacoima, where he said he had fired three teachers so far this year. None were fired during his three years as head of Grant. The difference: His school's teachers are not unionized and can be fired at will.
On regular public school campuses, some principals simply pass problem teachers from school to school. Judith Perez, principal of Hancock Park Elementary School in Los Angeles, recalled a situation in which a fellow principal had one more teacher than he needed. Under union rules, the teacher with the least seniority was to be transferred. Instead, the principal pushed out a poorly performing veteran by threatening to make her life miserable with frequent observations of her classes, Perez said.
The teacher ended up at Perez's school. When Perez called the principal for information, he quickly apologized. "I'm so sorry," she recalled him saying. Perez soon found out why, concluding that her new teacher was "a total incompetent. . . . She had no idea how to conduct a lesson in reading or math." Perez committed herself to either making this teacher improve or forcing her out. "I was a [teachers] union leader," Perez said. "I believe in teachers' rights and protections. . . . But my bottom line is I'm in this profession for children. . . . Basically, I dedicated my year to getting rid of this teacher." She kept a detailed diary, conducted a series of formal meetings with the teacher and her union representatives -- all called for under the teachers' contract -- and finally persuaded the woman to quit.
A principal at Le Conte Middle School in Hollywood got a very different result. To Linda Del Cueto, David Daniel's physical education class looked more like recess than an instructional period. Half or more of the students refused to change into gym clothes, and it sometimes took Daniel more than 15 minutes to get enough control to take roll, administrators reported in commission and court documents. Del Cueto and her assistants repeatedly observed Daniel, counseled him and offered help, compiling meticulous records over three years.
But the commission sided with Daniel, saying the evaluations by Del Cueto and her staff were so frequent that they undermined Daniel with his students. "Students at the middle school level are very perceptive," the commission wrote. "This atmosphere led students to believe that they could openly defy [him]." Essentially, the administrator was faulted for making too many observations. "When that decision came out," Del Cueto said in an interview, "I really thought it was a classic example of damned if you do, damned if you don't." Daniel agreed to resign from the district in late 2006. As part of a settlement, the district agreed to pay lifetime health benefits and $50,000 in attorney fees. Daniel's attorney said the former teacher did not want to comment.
In the Polanco case, as in Daniel's, there was no shortage of documentation. The account of the history teacher's interactions with the apparently suicidal boy came primarily from his teaching assistant, who wrote a detailed letter to administrators. In addition, students submitted written statements that were introduced at Polanco's hearing. One student wrote that Polanco had told the boy that he "should cut himself more bigger next time (cuts himself like a little wussy)." Another wrote: "Polanco tell [him] that he should cut himself with something sharper." A third wrote that "Polanco would call [him] 'the cutter kid' and would sometimes call [him] stupid."
Polanco testified at his hearing that he had not made these remarks and instead had told the boy -- who was not named in the commission documents -- that he was glad his suicide attempt had not succeeded. The documents suggest he had showed concern about the boy, asking a counselor about his well-being. "Knowing that I caused pain, whether I did it on purpose or without knowing it, it's a weight on my shoulders because I'm responsible [for] what happened in my classroom," testified Polanco, who declined to comment for this story. The commission accepted the accounts of the teacher's aide and students as accurate. But it did not see the statements of Polanco, an otherwise well-regarded teacher and former union representative, as goading or callous. The teacher, the panel concluded, was trying "to defuse the awkward situation."
The Times could not determine what became of the boy. As for Polanco, he now teaches at East Valley High School in North Hollywood.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers3-2009may03,0,7565606,print.story
W-A-A-A-A-A-A...
Barack Obama's crackdown on US tax dodgers is just beginning
Nick Mathiason Tuesday 5 May 2009 20.26 BST
President Obama's announcement of a US crackdown on corporate tax avoidance is just the beginning, according to Washington insiders who believe further measures will be outlined this year. Obama moved late on Monday to make it harder for US multinationals to outsource American jobs to poorer countries to save money, as well as stopping companies hiding behind offshore operations to save tax. Obama's tax-dodging initiatives are slated to raise $210bn (£140bn) over 10 years, but have been attacked by US business groups who say it will undermine US corporations, placing them at a competitive disadvantage.
Obama unveiled measures to clamp down on giving tax relief to companies who spend money on overseas subsidiaries until profits from those subsidiaries flow back to the US. It is also stopping US firms from gaining tax relief on artificial claims they have paid taxes overseas. There are additional stringent proposals for wealth managers to disclose information about rich clients or face the presumption that they are facilitating tax evasion.
Obama's insiders are conscious that nearly a third of US profits in 2003 came from only three jurisdictions: Bermuda, the Netherlands and Ireland. And they have drawn attention to a report from the US government accountability office published in December that found 83 of the 100 largest US corporations have subsidiaries in tax havens. On the campaign trial, Obama repeatedly pointed out that one office address in the Cayman Isles alone housed 18,857 corporations, very few of which have a physical presence in the islands.
There are suggestions London could benefit from Obama's crackdown as US companies may choose to relocate after Obama's reforms, which will be debated in Congress. John Whiting, tax partner at PricewaterhouseCooper's, said: "This is Obama carrying through his campaign promises. It sounds broad and tougher and shows an intent to raise an awful lot of money from overseas. If the US is indicating that it will tighten up tax rules, it may give an opportunity for the UK as a competitive environment for international businesses." Raymond Baker, Washington-based Global Financial Integrity director, said: "This signals the importance given to these issues by President Obama. The US has certainly opened the door to apply these more widely."
To fund Obama's fiscal stimulus plan and ambitious healthcare proposals, the president is expected to focus on the billions of dollars lying in secretive jurisdictions. It was the president who brokered a deal on tax havens at last month's G20 meeting in London by persuading China to agree to sign up to a blacklist of tax havens. Tim Geithner, the treasury secretary, said the measures were "balanced" and that increased taxes would be partly offset by a research and experimentation credit worth $75bn over the next 10 years, and allowing research exemptions for the change to the deferral rule.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/05/obama-tackles-tax-avoidance
Texas shakedown
Texas police shake down drivers, lawsuit claims
Gary Tuchman and Katherine Wojtecki
TENAHA, Texas (CNN) -- Roderick Daniels was traveling through East Texas in October 2007 when, he says, he was the victim of a highway robbery.
Roderick Daniels of Tennessee says a Texas police officer tried on his jewelry in front of him. Police in the small East Texas town of Tenaha are accused of unjustly taking valuables from motorists. The Tennessee man says he was ordered to pull his car over and surrender his jewelry and $8,500 in cash that he had with him to buy a new car.
But Daniels couldn't go to the police to report the incident. The men who stopped him were the police. Daniels was stopped on U.S. Highway 59 outside Tenaha, near the Louisiana state line. Police said he was driving 37 mph in a 35 mph zone. They hauled him off to jail and threatened him with money-laundering charges -- but offered to release him if he signed papers forfeiting his property. "I actually thought this was a joke," Daniels told CNN.
But he signed. "To be honest, I was five, six hundred miles from home," he said. "I was petrified." Now Daniels and other motorists who have been stopped by Tenaha police are part of a lawsuit seeking to end what plaintiff's lawyer David Guillory calls a systematic fleecing of drivers passing through the town of about 1,000. "I believe it is a shakedown. I believe it's a piracy operation," Guillory said.
George Bowers, Tenaha's longtime mayor, says his police follow the law. And through her lawyers, Shelby County District Attorney Lynda Russell denied any impropriety. Texas law allows police to confiscate drug money and other personal property they believe are used in the commission of a crime. If no charges are filed or the person is acquitted, the property has to be returned. But Guillory's lawsuit states that Tenaha and surrounding Shelby County don't bother to return much of what they confiscate.
Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson said they agreed to forfeit their property after Russell threatened to have their children taken away. Like Daniels, the couple says they were carrying a large amount of cash --- about $6,000 -- to buy a car. When they were stopped in Tenaha in 2007, Boatright said, Russell came to the Tenaha police station to berate her and threaten to separate the family. "I said, 'If it's the money you want, you can take it, if that's what it takes to keep my children with me and not separate them from us. Take the money,' " she said. The document Henderson signed, which bears Russell's signature, states that in exchange for forfeiting the cash, "no criminal charges shall be filed ... and our children shall not be turned over" to the state's child protective services agency.
Maryland resident Amanee Busbee said she also was threatened with losing custody of her child after being stopped in Tenaha with her fiancé and his business partner. They were headed to Houston with $50,000 to complete the purchase of a restaurant, she said. "The police officer would say things to me like, 'Your son is going to child protective services because you are not saying what we need to hear,' " Busbee said.
Guillory, who practices in nearby Nacogdoches, Texas, estimates authorities in Tenaha seized $3 million between 2006 and 2008, and in about 150 cases -- virtually all of which involved African-American or Latino motorists -- the seizures were improper. "They are disproportionately going after racial minorities," he said. "My take on the matter is that the police in Tenaha, Texas, were picking on and preying on people that were least likely to fight back." Daniels told CNN that one of the officers who stopped him tried on some of his jewelry in front of him. "They asked me, 'What you are doing with this ring on?' I said I had bought that ring. I paid good money for that ring," Daniels said. "He took the ring off my finger and put it on his finger and told me how did it look. He put on my jewelry."
Texas law states that the proceeds of any seizures can be used only for "official purposes" of district attorney offices and "for law-enforcement purposes" by police departments. According to public records obtained by CNN using open-records laws, an account funded by property forfeitures in Russell's office included $524 for a popcorn machine, $195 for candy for a poultry festival, and $400 for catering. In addition, Russell donated money to the local chamber of commerce and a youth baseball league. A local Baptist church received two checks totaling $6,000. And one check for $10,000 went to Barry Washington, a Tenaha police officer whose name has come up in several complaints by stopped motorists. The money was paid for "investigative costs," the records state.
Washington would not comment for this report but has denied all allegations in his answer to Guillory's lawsuit. "This is under litigation. This is a lawsuit," he told CNN. Russell refused requests for interviews at her office and at a fundraiser for a volunteer fire department in a nearby town, where she also sang. But in a written statement, her lawyers said she "has denied and continues to deny all substantive allegations set forth." Russell "has used and continues to use prosecutorial discretion ... and is in compliance with Texas law, the Texas constitution, and the United States Constitution," the statement said.
Bowers, who has been Tenaha's mayor for 54 years, is also named in the lawsuit. But he said his employees "will follow the law." "We try to hire the very best, best-trained, and we keep them up to date on the training," he said. The attention paid to Tenaha has led to an effort by Texas lawmakers to tighten the state's forfeiture laws. A bill sponsored by state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, would bar authorities from using the kind of waivers Daniels, Henderson and Busbee were told to sign.
"To have law enforcement and the district attorney essentially be crooks, in my judgment, should infuriate and does infuriate everyone," Whitmire said. His bill has passed the Senate, where he is the longest-serving member, and is currently before the House of Representatives. Busbee, Boatright and Henderson were able to reclaim their property after hiring lawyers. But Daniels is still out his $8,500.
"To this day, I don't understand why they took my belongings off me," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/05/texas.police.seizures/index.html