ADL’s Attack on Glenn Beck Regarding Soros Remarks

On 11 November 2010 Abraham  Foxman of the Jewish anti-Defamation League criticized Glenn Beck’s depiction of George Soros during his early years in Budapest, Hungary where he, as a 14 year old, assisted in sending many of Budapest’s Jews to concentration camps for extermination, an experience which Soros himself perversely described as “exhilarating”.

For some inexplicable reason, Mr. Foxman seems to persist in describing a 14 year old as a “young boy” in his “childhood”, … like a child in kindergarten or grammar school.

A 14 year old isn’t a child. A 14 year old is a teenager and more appropriately described as a young adult, impressionable … but with many of his formative traits already well established. For a man who is now described as “brilliant” by many of his contemporaries, I can only imagine that his mental development was far beyond that of his peers at the age of 14. Depicting Mr. Soros as a 14 year old as some brainless automaton not responsible for his actions is, in itself, a rather naive assertion.

There was nothing anti-Semitic in Glenn Beck’s comments. George Soros freely admits that his mother was one of the most influential persons in his early life, a person with extreme anti-Semitic views. Soros’ strong support of anti- Israel Palestinians is just one example of his anti-Semitic and anti-Israel position.

The ADL, other Jewish organizations and Israel would do well to study and heed Glenn Beck’s assessment of George Soros and the many organizations that are extensions of HIS grand scheme. Glenn Beck is a friend to Israel and Jews. George Soros, a Jew by birth only, isn’t.

Matthew Richardson: Closet Democrat??

So …

What’s with the heading, “… Closet Democrat??”?

Well, before a week or so ago, I had never heard of Matthew Richardson.

Then, I see this ad on FOX NEWS, of all places, for this man running for the office of Attorney General of South Carolina.

Okay …

But …

Something seemed to be missing.

There was no mention of PARTY AFFILIATION. I’ve seen the ad several times now. I was right … no mention of party affiliation. Interesting. Suspicious …

So … I did a little checking.

Mr. Richardson IS the Democratic candidate for the office of Attorney General. Interesting. So, why doesn’t he say so in his ads?

Mr. Richardson is not just the Democratic candidate for the office of Attorney General. He isn’t just a run of the mill Democrat. He is the South Carolina Democratic Party’s elected representative to the Democratic National Committee, that illustrious group that sets the progressive platform for all supposedly good Democrats to run on.

Yet, Mr. Richardson doesn’t even advertise the fact that he’s a Democrat. Mr. Richardson isn’t just distancing himself from the president, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. He’s distancing himself from the entire Democratic Party in his campaign ads. Even his official campaign page doesn’t indicate he’s a Democrat without a little scratching.

I had heard that this was going to be the strategy for Democrats trying to get elected, but this is the first case where I’ve actually noticed it in such a blatantly obvious strategy of omission of party affiliation.

This alone doesn’t necessarily disqualify a person from being the state’s attorney general, in my opinion, yet it does make me wonder how he, as the state’s lead prosecutor and defender, might be inclined to handle “inconvenient truths”.

In an article on his website, Richardson touts experience, qualifications in his bid for state attorney general, Mr. Richardson makes the following statement:

“… the attorney general’s focus must be the law and not politics.

Yet, in an article published in “The State” in answer to the question, “Do you separate your professional work from your political work?“, Mr. Richardson replied,

I try not to avoid politics in my professional career. I want my professional career to be consistent and integrated with the rest of my life.”

So … which is it? Does Mr. Richardson separate his politics from his professional life or not? Can he? In one place he says the attorney general’s role shouldn’t be encumbered and influenced by politics yet, he also states that politics are an integral part of his professional career … inseparable.

So, we have here a man who conveniently doesn’t mention in his campaign ads that he’s the Democratic candidate although I readily admit that one doesn’t have to scratch very deep to discover that fact.

Then he states that the position of attorney general isn’t the place for politics but also states that he doesn’t separate his politics from his professional activities.

Well …

I appreciate his candor when his comments are gathered together and put into context. Has he just disqualified himself for the office of attorney general based on his own standards? And the “no Party” ads for the Democratic candidate …

“Tough and Fair” …

Really??

I agree with Mr. Richardson on one point. The office of attorney general should be about the law and not politics.

Tom Coburn Refers to Nancy Pelosi as “Nice”???

Dr. Coburn, I think you’ve let your inherent propensity, as a physician, to be forgiving cloud your choice of words, at least, if not your judgment.

Nancy Pelosi is “nice”? Nice???

Senator Tom Coburn, a physician from Oklahoma, is right about one thing as reported in Tom Coburn Knocks Fox News, Says Nancy Pelosi is a “Nice Person” – Political Hotsheet – CBS News. A lot of the people listening to him didn’t agree with him and don’t think Nancy Pelosi is nice. And, it’s apparent from watching the cable news channel that a lot of people at Fox News don’t think she’s nice either. And, he’s also right that many of the people who don’t like Nancy Pelosi, people who don’t think she’s nice, haven’t met her. I haven’t met her … and have no desire to do so.

For a number of years now, I have watched Nancy Pelosi spew her political rhetoric which is frequently grossly inaccurate as well as vindictive and vitriolic, that is, when she can get a few words out of her mouth in a consistent and non-bungling manner. These include her comments about former President Bush, the war in Iraq and her criticism and attacks on those who oppose her and her views.

I do imagine that during a one on one encounter, Nancy Pelosi could be “charming”, even disarming … but “nice” … no. It’s easy to be mesmerized or “charmed” by snakes, … but they’re still snakes. Nancy Pelosi may be charming … but she’s still Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi may even be likable … but she’s still Nancy Pelosi … and represents nearly everything I’m opposed to. And, trying to force what she believes on me is not something that I consider nice.

Throughout the years, I’ve met a lot of  “shuck and jive” street hustlers who were both likable and even charming. Regardless, I wouldn’t trust any of them any further than I could spit. Nice, as an adjective to describe them, never came to mind.

Nancy Pelosi may be charming. She may even be likable …, but “nice” … no.

I’d suggest Senator Coburn reconsider his choice of adjectives in describing Ms. Pelosi.

Nice refers to, not only how a person is, but “what they do”. I don’t consider a lot of what Ms. Pelosi is doing as “nice” … far from it.

Maybe Senator Coburn is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, has been in Washington too long and loosing some of his objectivity. He, at least should consider reviewing a dictionary before choosing his adjectives. I will admit he’s a lot more of a gentleman than Nancy Pelosi is a lady. I wouldn’t even demean female dogs by comparing them with Nancy Pelosi. I had a female dog for many years and wouldn’t degrade the memory of her in such a lowly manner.  He should also keep in mind that, in his future encounters with the “nice lady”, the sharp sting in his back could be the knife the nice lady was hiding … figuratively or literally.

What’s Wrong with Fingerstyle Guitar Magazine?

This must be the $64 question that a lot of the subscribers and purchasers of the magazine must be pondering right now as they await delivery of issue #70. I call it the $64 question. Actually it’s the $29.95 to $153.70 question since the current prices for subscriptions are all over the place, depending upon whether you select a one year digital only or a two year international print and digital subscription.

In 2009, the magazine managed to get out one issue … under “new” management … that promised they would get the magazine back on its bimonthly schedule. That issue came out in October 2009 after months of delivery promises that began roughly in July of last year.

Then the magazine stated it would begin the bimonthly schedule in earnest in mid January of 2010. That was three months ago.

Now, on their Facebook page, the “owners, publishers, editors … whomever” have claimed that the magazine was mailed a “few days” before 18 March. That was a little over a week ago now. Even with the notoriously slow USPS media mail, surely someone should have received their issue by now. Yet, to date, there is no indication of that. Media mail can be notoriously slow, taking two to three weeks for delivery; but, if you live one town away from the mail drop, it shouldn’t take that long for delivery, not even a week. Yet, there’s no indication on the Facebook page that anyone has received an issue thus far.

A few weeks ago, a check of the list of contacts on the Fingerstyle Guitar Magazine page revealed that Ron Garant, the previous owner of the magazine, was still lingering on in the capacity of “assistant editor”. Tonight, a review of the lists of contacts reveals that the “assistant editor” is no longer listed. Interesting …

It should also be noted that, in that same time, the locations of everyone concerned has also , again, shifted from a township in mid upstate New York to New Jersey. I’m not sure of the cause for that, although some of the commenters on my previous post,“Fingerstyle Guitar Magazine” … !!!!!CAUTION!!!!!, regarding this magazine did mention filing complaints in New York state against the magazine.

Let’s assume that in the next week or so people will start receiving their copy of the magazine, issue #70. Then what?

This is already butting up against the advertised distribution date for issue #71, week of April 19th. If issue #70 is delivered within the next week or so, that will mean a time span between issues of over five months, … not exactly bimonthly, barely semi-annually. And, that’s being generous considering the one issue last year. Who out there actually expects to receive issue #71 in mid April?

So …

Why can’t these people deliver the magazine as promised?

They seem to have no problem in getting material together. There seems to be a wealth of musicians willing to contribute to the magazine. I can’t comment on their advertising revenues since I’ve never seen a copy of the magazine, but certainly they do have advertisers.

I have a very simple hypothesis regarding the problems of the magazine … money.

Why would it take more than three months to publish a magazine whose content seemed to be formulated three months ago? In one simple word … money. They didn’t have the money to take the magazine to press. And, it’s taken them more than three months to scrap up the money, if, in fact, they actually have. That would require them to be taking in money faster than they’re spending it.

This also brings into question, the future of the magazine. If it’s taken three months to get together the money to publish one issue, what’s happened to the money that should have been held in reserve to publish future issues?

When I googled “Fingerstyle Guitar Magazine” tonight, the lead post that came up was my previous post. The magazine’s website came up on page 5 of the search … page 5. I know how many hits it’s taken to get my post in the number one spot … and that gives me an indication of the interest in the magazine, when their website is on page 5.

Their Facebook page, as well as pages on other social networking sites, may be having a relative amount of interest … but I haven’t noticed that people can actually subscribe on those sites. Correct me if I’m wrong, but people actually have to go to the magazine’s website to subscribe or buy an issue.

I guess a question has to be asked. Has my post been detrimental to the magazine. My surmise would be that it has to a small extent.

But, my post would be a dead and forgotten issue if the magazine had simply delivered as advertised. I would be written off as some disgruntled hack. Unfortunately, for everyone interested in the magazine, the failure of the magazine to produce a product and deliver it as advertised has fed the interest in my post, giving it significant validity.

If I’m wrong, someone please tell me.

I think it’s time for the “new” owner and all concerned with the publication of the magazine to be open and up front with the people who have already paid for subscriptions and issues as well as those interested in doing likewise.

Is there enough interest in the magazine to keep it going?

A little open and honest communication from the owner seems to be appropriate now. I don’t include the editor in that statement since I don’t think he knows what’s going on.

Maternal Healthcare Crisis as a Justification for Healthcare Reform

Today, I had an article pointed out to me published on the website of an organization called Change.org. It was under the heading of Human Rights. The article,  A Maternal Mortality FAIL in the U.S., was written by a Harvard professor, Alicia Ely Yamin.

The article states that Ms. Yamin ” is currently a Joseph H. Flom Fellow on Global Health and Human Rights at Harvard Law School’s Human Rights Program, and an Adjunct Lecturer at the Harvard School of Public Health.”

To support her thesis Ms. Yamin claims that “the likelihood of a woman dying in childbirth in the U.S. is five times greater than in Greece.”

To further support her contention, she also claims that “African-American women are nearly four times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than white women. These rates and disparities have not improved in more than 20 years.”

Then she goes on to iterate Amnesty International’s assertion that “this is not just a public health scandal; it reflects widespread violations of women’s human rights, including the right to life, the right to freedom from discrimination, and the right to the highest attainable standard of health. Patterns of marginalization and exclusion in this society are exacerbated by a discriminatory and dysfunctional health system.”

After a little more haranguing, she finally gets to her point, “Join Amnesty International USA in calling on President Obama to establish an Office of Maternal Health to lead government efforts to reduce the appalling U.S. death rate for women having babies.”

If you click on this highlighted link, it will take you to an Amnesty International site where you can sign and submit a form letter. So, have at it, but … before you do …, think … and do a little of your own research.

A little “googling” will, fairly quickly, reveal some sites that present some data on maternal mortality. Maternal mortality (most recent) by country presents data gathered by UNICEF between 1985 and 1999 which was published in 2002. WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA/The World Bank Estimates of Maternal Mortality 2005 is self explanatory and more recent.

Data is data and, unfortunately, can frequently be cherry picked to try to prove one’s point … if one is so inclined.

For instance, let’s look at Ms. Yamin’s claim that the maternal mortality rate in the U.S. is five times that of Greece’s. She needs to check her math. A look at the 2005 data reveals that the U.S. rate is 3.67 times that of Greece, down from 8 times that of Greece in 2002.

A little “cherry-picking” of data will quickly reveal that while Greece’s maternal mortality rate between 2002 and 2005 has increased by 300%, the U.S. maternal mortality rate has only increased by 37.5%. Does this mean that Greece’s maternal healthcare system has collapsed along with their socialist economy?

And what does this prove? The incidence of maternal mortality is so minuscule in the countries cited that slight changes can produce exaggerated and preposterous claims. Between 2002 and 2005, maternal mortality in both the U.S. and Greece varied by two to three deaths per 100,000 births.

Frankly, comparing Greece’s rather homogeneous population of 11 million with the rather diverse U.S. population of 300 million is a bit of a stretch. Review of the data reveals that the U.S. maternal morbidity rate is actually on par with other industrialized nations which, quite frankly, is rather remarkable considering its diversity in many ways. And, I think the U.S. Constitution was designed to guarantee individual freedom with the right to make choices, good or bad, and not an inherent “right to the highest attainable standard of health” as conceived by and forced upon the population by a central government.

In 2002, U.S. maternal mortality per 100,000 births was 8 … the same as Germany and Japan. In the short span of three years the numbers changed to 11, 4 and 6 for the U.S., Germany and Japan, respectively. Does this mean that, in three short years, the U.S. has degenerated into a chaotic state of crisis brimming with anti-feminine discrimination, while Germany and Japan have become absolute models of virtue and feminine equality?

Of further interest, while, from 2002 to 2007, the birth rate in the U.S. increased from 13.9 to 14.3 per 1000 population; from 2003 to 2009, the birthrate in Greece declined from 9.79 to 9.45/1000. During the same period Germany declined from 8.6 to 8.18 and Japan declined from 9.61 to 7.64.

Could there actually be causes other than Ms. Yamin’s claimed U.S. “violations” of women’s inherent ”
right to the highest attainable standard of health” and “widespread violations of women’s human rights“?

For instance, illegitimacy, … excuse me … births out of wedlock, in the U.S. currently is 26% for Caucasians, 50% for Latinos and 70% for African Americans. The overall illegitimacy rate for the U.S. in 2007 was 39.7% compared to a reported 20% in 2004. I think that has something to do with “freedom of choice” along with  a lack of “responsibility”. Should the government control that too? And what does Amnesty International have to say about that?

In 2004, when the overall illegitimacy rate in the U.S. was around 20%, in Japan, it was about 1%. A current rate, although the year was unspecified, for Greece is 9%. The most recent data I could find on Germany was about 23% in the year 2000.

So, Greece, with a low illegitimacy rate, falling birth rate,universal healthcare and relatively homogeneous population has seen its maternal mortality rate triple. Germany, with a moderately high illegitimacy rate, falling birth rate, universal healthcare and, again, a relatively homogeneous population has seen its maternal mortality decline by half. Japan, on the other hand, also with universal healthcare, an extremely low illegitimacy rate, markedly falling birth rate and very homogenous population has only decreased their maternal mortality rate by 25%.

What does all of this prove? Nothing … the same as Ms. Yamin’s irrational, albeit Amnesty International inspired, rant against the U.S. But, it might bring to question some of Ms. Yamin’s more irrational contentions.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but … don’t women, as a rule, avail themselves of the healthcare system a lot more than men. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticizing women for following recommended guidelines regarding their health, but it hardly makes a case for the healthcare system discriminating against the very people who use it most frequently. It could also be the reason that the healthcare costs for women are more than for men. Anyone with a ounce of sense knows that it cost more to drive your car 20,000 miles than it does if you only drive it 10,000 miles. That doesn’t mean you didn’t need to drive it more, but you should expect it to cost more.

And, why would a system with an overwhelming number of women as a part of it discriminate against its most frequent users, women? If anything, the greatest conflict within the system is trying to balance the desires and needs of the changing lifestyles of the women that work in the system with the desires and needs of the changing lifestyles of the women that use it. Physicians, both male and female, in private practice frequently find themselves trying to work out this quandary of staff versus patients while frequently neglecting their own lives and families.

I do think that the more educated a woman is, the more likely she is to make educated and informed decisions about her health. It would be nice if young women would wait to make important life changing decisions about their personal health and welfare until they are older and more capable of making more informed decisions. It might have a tremendous impact on the data. I haven’t seen the demographic breakdown regarding the ages involved in maternal mortality, but I was taught that a teenage pregnancy was “high risk” by definition. I wonder if that has anything to do with the data.

Shoddy, sophomoric propaganda, … even from a Harvard professor …, is still … shoddy, sophomoric propaganda. And picking Greece, a failing socialist economy with rising maternal mortality, for comparison was just plain dumb.

My Director of Medical Education would have filed this article under the heading of “worthless crap” … more suitable for brainwashing a class of first graders than being brainlessly assimilated by adults. But she does know her usual audience, right?

Amnesty International … it figures. Ms. Yamin, Harvard University … SHAME!!!

Obama, Obama … Wherefore art thou, Obama???

Or subtitle: “Is This Dud(e) Totally Whacked … or still snorting or smoking something?”

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Third planet on the left or totally out of the solar system?

Well, he certainly isn’t functioning like he’s in the United States much less Washington, D.C. … well, maybe Washington, D.C. It seems to be disconnected from the rest of the country also … maybe another galaxy.

Egocentric, narcissistic, referring to himself in the third person …

Are these the characteristics of a person functioning on all cylinders? Is he, was he or has he ever functioned on all cylinders?

Maybe the president is watching too much MSNBC. They seemed to be the only “major” cable news network that didn’t comprehend the ramifications of the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts. After the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, conceded the race, CNN and Fox News understood what had happened, but those loons on MSNBC … Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews … totally out in left field … figuratively and literally. I turned to MSNBC after the election was over just to see their response. It was like watching Saturday Night Live, hilarious … except the joke was on them. They were clueless.

It does appear that a majority of Democrats in Congress got the message and understand it. That, at least, is somewhat comforting since they control both houses of Congress although, thankfully, not as much as before the Massachusetts senatorial special election. It’s amazing how the sensation of being dunked in an ice cold lake can clear the mind to near sobriety … even those like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who have acted in the past year like Roman dictators inebriated with the sense of absolute power.

But not Barack Obama …

He goes on national television and has a temper tantrum … a “hissy” fit … like an over-indulged three year old who’s had his pacifier removed … which he was dreamily nursing on in his personal (induced?) alternate universe. Unfortunately, even after rudely and abruptly being denied his comforter and presumably awakened, he still couldn’t separate his dream state from reality.

I used to think that the President, Mr. Obama, was simply an inherent liar.  Now I’m beginning to have some doubts. I’m beginning to think that this poor man may simply be confabulating his own version of reality … much as he did in his two literary works.

Yesterday, in Ohio, he angrily complained about being falsely accused of cutting Medicare. But, aren’t there over $450 billion in Medicare cuts in his baby, the pending healthcare bill? Isn’t Medicare Advantage going to be eliminated in all states except Florida if the Healthcare bill were to pass?

He angrily defended his government transparency policy? Maybe he missed all of those sweetheart deals that were cut behind closed doors out of the public view, only to be the latest in the lack of transparency that has been prevalent since he ascended to the presidency.

Just a few examples …

The list seems to be endless. His angrily proclaimed perception … versus reality.

Could we be witnessing the first president with Munchousen Syndrome,  a person disguising himself as lucid and brilliant … while actually being delusional and disturbingly mediocre … promoted out of absolute obscurity to a position totally out of his capacity by a population hungry beyond rational thinking for simply … something different?

I think it’s entirely possible that Barack Obama may have another first to his credit in addition to being the first black president.

He may be the first president who is completely delusional … totally out of touch with reality.

Quite possibly, out of this country’s inherent kindness and generosity (which he seems to repeatedly fail to recognize), he should be, simply and quietly, sent back to South Chicago, that comforting womb which nurtured his kindred delusions and Marxist rantings in absolute … and impenetrable … obscurity) where he can also find undeniable comfort in again attending the church of Jeremiah Wright, his self proclaimed father figure and consort in delusional Marxist proclamations and rantings; and, not in the least, where he can do no further harm … hopefully. Pax vobiscum.

Now, there’s some food for thought.

FCC Passes New Regulation Requiring Bloggers to Disclose Free Gifts or Paid Endorsements

Wow. I wish …

Well folks. It’s official. If a blogger gets free gifts or gets paid to endorse a product they have to disclose it.

Okay. Let me “fess” up.

Unfortunately, no one has given me anything … or paid me anything. Bummer.

Usually, I bitch and moan about a product or service. In the process, I may “inadvertantly” mention someone or some business that offers the same product or similar service but actually does it with more integrity based on my experience with that product or service. Nothing ulterior, nothing hidden, no freebies, nothing paid for … except by me … just my personal experience.

So … FCC … go eat a weenie … I mean hot dog. And leave me alone to bitch and moan in my own little corner of the blogosphere.

DISCLOSURE: No one paid me to write this … and No Freebies!!!!!!!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.