Liberal Forum

Fox’s chair Roger Ailes told Petraeus he’d quit to manage his prez campaign (AUDIO) Fox News likes to call itself “fair and balanced.” Key words: “call itself.” The latest blunder for the cable news ratings leader is rooted in the new revelation that founder and chair Roger Ailes sent an emissary — Fox’s national security analyst K.T. McFarland — to offer General David Petraeus political advice and tell The General that he’d be willing to quit Fox to run his presidential campaign. For realz. Comes from Bob “Watergate” Woodward in the Washington Post. And for those about to whine that this is mere conjecture from the liberal media, here’s a link to the audio of the conversation between McFarland playing bag man for Ailes to Petraeus. Ah, yes. General Petraeus. You may remember him for the spectacular sex scandal that crashed his career a few weeks back. That Roger sure can pick ‘em. Listen to the audio recording of the conversation because it is full of gems — starting with how McFarland tells the General that “everybody at Fox loves you.” Just because they’re “fair and balanced” perhaps. Fox loves Dave so much that they want to know if there’s any suggestions he has, you know, when they’re covering the news in a “fair and balanced” way. Dave says he’s a bit worried about the “slant” he’s seeing at Fox. They’re sounding a little “skeptical”…you know, like journalists. “The editorial policy of Fox had shifted,” Dave said. “It was almost as if, because they’re going after Obama, they had to go after Obama’s war as well.” “Papers and news outlets have editorial policies,” the General said. “They know sort of how their bosses feel about things . . . and it causes a certain shading.” Hmmm. Like say — hypothetically speaking of course — if the chair and founder of a network that bills itself as “fair and balanced” told a General that his network was COVERING that he’d quit to run his campaign for president. Would it be any wonder if the employees at that network “loved” that person. And nice job by McFarland, who is supposed to “analyze” national security affairs for Fox. If she fawned over Petraeus any more than she did in this conversation, she could be his biographer. Roger’s response to Woodward? “It was more of a joke, a wiseass way I have,” he said. “I thought the Republican field [in the primaries] needed to be shaken up and Petraeus might be a good candidate.” Nothing breeds credibility more than the I-was-just-joking defense from the leader of the network. As they say on Fox, “We

No extra rights or preferential treatment. The treaty was designed to 'promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity'. I'm flattered. Yet under the US Constitution they are not denied the rights that every other person enjoys. Correct?

Blake Page, West Point Cadet, Quits Military Academy Over Religion (VIDEO) ALBANY, N.Y. — A cadet quitting West Point less than six months before graduation says he could no longer be part of a culture that promotes prayers and religious activities and disrespects nonreligious cadets. Blake Page announced his decision to quit the U.S. Military Academy this week in a much-discussed online post that echoed the sentiments of soldiers and airmen at other military installations. The 24-year-old told The Associated Press that a determination this semester that he could not become an officer because of clinical depression played a role in his public protest against what he calls the unconstitutional prevalence of religion in the military. "I've been trying since I found that out: What can I do? What can I possibly do to initiate the change that I want to see and so many other people want to see?" Page said. "I realized that this is one way I can make that change happen." Page criticized a culture where cadets stand silently for prayers, where nonreligious cadets were jokingly called "heathens" by instructors at basic training and where one officer told him he'd never be a leader until he filled the hole in his heart. In announcing his resignation this week on The Huffington Post, he denounced "criminals" in the military who violate the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution. "I don't want to be a part of West Point knowing that the leadership here is OK with just shrugging off and shirking off respect and good order and discipline and obeying the law and defending the Constitution and doing their job," he told the AP. West Point officials on Wednesday disputed those assertions. Spokeswoman Theresa Brinkerhoff said prayer is voluntary at events where invocations and benedictions are conducted and noted the academy has a Secular Student Alliance club, where Page served as president. Maj. Nicholas Utzig, the faculty adviser to the secular club, said he doesn't doubt some of the moments Page described, but he doesn't believe there is systematic discrimination against nonreligious cadets. "I think it represents his own personal experience and perhaps it might not be as universal as he suggests," said Utzig, who teaches English literature. One of Page's secularist classmates went further, calling his characterization of West Point unfair. "I think it's true that the majority of West Point cadets are of a very conservative, Christian orientation," said senior cadet Andrew Houchin. "I don't think that's unique to West Point. But more broadly, I've never had that even be a problem with those of us who are secular." There have been complaints over the years that the wall between church and state is not always observed in the military. The Air Force Academy in Colorado in particular has been scrutinized for years over allegations from non-Christian students that they faced intolerance. A retired four-star general was asked last year to conduct an independent review of the overall religious climate at the academy. There also has been a growing willingness in recent years by some service members to publicly identify themselves as atheists, agnostics or humanists and to seek the same recognition granted to Christians, Jews and other believers. Earlier this year, there was an event at Fort Bragg that was the first known event in U.S. military history to cater to nonbelievers. Page said he hears about the plight of other nonreligious cadets in part through his involvement with the West Point affiliate of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The founder and president of that advocacy group said Page's action is a milestone in the fight against "fanatical religiosity" in the military. "This is an extraordinary act of courage that I do compare directly to what Rosa Parks did," said Mikey Weinstein. Page, who is from Stockbridge, Ga., and who was accepted into West Point after serving in the Army, said he was notified Tuesday of his honorable discharge. He faces no military commitment and will not have to reimburse the cost of his education. West Point confirmed that it approved his resignation and that Page had been meeting the academic standards and was not undergoing any disciplinary actions. Page said he had been medically disqualified this semester from receiving a commission in the Army as a second lieutenant – like his classmates will receive in May – because of clinical depression and anxiety. He said his condition has gotten worse since his father killed himself last year. It's not unusual for cadets to drop out of West Point, an institution known for its rigorous academic and physical demands. But the window for dropping out without the potential for a penalty is in the first two years. Dropouts are rare after that point. Page expects to leave for his grandparents' home in Wright County, Minn., in the coming days. He plans to remain an activist on the role of religion in the military. "I'd really love to be able to do this for the rest of my life," he said.

MistyBlue, on 05 Dec 2012 - 12:07, said: No extra rights or preferential treatment. The treaty was designed to 'promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity'. Yet under the US Constitution they are not denied the rights that every other person enjoys. Correct? If they don't have things like access to buildings or public transportation, then theyARE denied rights that every other person enjoys. Shouldn't a blind voter have access to a braille ballot, so they can cast their vote in private like the rest of us? Since when is the acknowledgementthat we may have to make a few special accommodations for the disabled a partisan issue?

If they don't have things like access to buildings or public transportation, then theyARE denied rights that every other person enjoys. Shouldn't a blind voter have access to a braille ballot, so they can cast their vote in private like the rest of us? Since when is the acknowledgementthat we may have to make a few special accommodations for the disabled a partisan issue? you look at your missy poo email yet?

you look at your missy poo email yet? Not lately. I'll check it now.

you look at your missy poo email yet? Not lately. I'll check it now. please do

If they don't have things like access to buildings or public transportation, then theyARE denied rights that every other person enjoys. Shouldn't a blind voter have access to a braille ballot, so they can cast their vote in private like the rest of us? Since when is the acknowledgementthat we may have to make a few special accommodations for the disabled a partisan issue? How are the disabled being denied? Because they can't get up the stairs? I thought they were"handi-capable"or some other feel-good terminology. Yet their position, for the ones that shriek, they say they can do everything an able-bodied person can do. Apparently they cannot if they need a law in place that requires special accomodations. If they're "equal" to everybody else, then no government mandated handicap parking. No government mandated wheelchair ramps. No government mandated elevators. No government mandated latrines with the handles and wider stalls. Let the business owner install those of his own accord. Otherwise just admit they are inferior because they insist upon special accomodations and use the force of government to get it.

wow. with the secession news and this news....this is really turning out to be a "good news" week. i truly thought real americans were just gonna roll over and die under the fed tyranny. i'm feeling better everyday. Employers that don't provide health insurance have to pay a 2k fine. Individuals who are self-employed are required to self-insure, or pay a fine (which covers their insurance cost). What you call tyranny, the CATO Institute (the right wing think tank that actually CAME UP with this policy idea) calls "individual responsibility." How are the disabled being denied? Because they can't get up the stairs? I thought they were"handi-capable"or some other feel-good terminology. Yet their position, for the ones that shriek, they say they can do everything an able-bodied person can do. Apparently they cannot if they need a law in place that requires special accomodations. If they're "equal" to everybody else, then no government mandated handicap parking. No government mandated wheelchair ramps. No government mandated elevators. No government mandated latrines with the handles and wider stalls. Let the business owner install those of his own accord. Otherwise just admit they are inferior because they insist upon special accomodations and use the force of government to get it. When you hire someone, you ask them on the app if they can do the job "with or without reasonable accomodations." No one is asking for anything unreasonable - indeed, the laws are written so as to OUTLAW anyone requesting something unrerasonable. If you have a fellow with a bad back and he wants to bring his own chair to work, that's reasonable. It does not disrupt the work environment. Personally, I WANT to live in a society where we accomodate our fellows. I get that you don't. We can vote it out. When we're done, you can whine. Oh, wait. We HAVE voted it out, we ARE done, and you ARE whining. Please, continue. If they don't have things like access to buildings or public transportation, then theyARE denied rights that every other person enjoys. Shouldn't a blind voter have access to a braille ballot, so they can cast their vote in private like the rest of us? Since when is the acknowledgementthat we may have to make a few special accommodations for the disabled a partisan issue? It has ALWAYS been. The wannabe Galts are all about snickering at gimps.

Employers that don't provide health insurance have to pay a 2k fine. Individuals who are self-employed are required to self-insure, or pay a fine (which covers their insurance cost). What you call tyranny, the CATO Institute (the right wing think tank that actually CAME UP with this policy idea) calls "individual responsibility." When you hire someone, you ask them on the app if they can do the job "with or without reasonable accomodations." No one is asking for anything unreasonable - indeed, the laws are written so as to OUTLAW anyone requesting something unrerasonable. If you have a fellow with a bad back and he wants to bring his own chair to work, that's reasonable. It does not disrupt the work environment. Personally, I WANT to live in a society where we accomodate our fellows. I get that you don't. We can vote it out. When we're done, you can whine. Oh, wait. We HAVE voted it out, we ARE done, and you ARE whining. Please, continue. It has ALWAYS been. The wannabe Galts are all about snickering at gimps. What I want people to realize, is that with these laws in place, whether it's the ADA or Civil Rights Act or Affirmative Action, the government is taking a certain segment of the population and declaring them inferior deserving of head-patting and belly-rubbing. Cause you know, they're special. If they say they can do anything an able-bodied person can do, then prove it. That's all I ask. Demanding special accomodations = Inferior.

What I want people to realize, is that with these laws in place, whether it's the ADA or Civil Rights Act or Affirmative Action, the government is taking a certain segment of the population and declaring them inferior deserving of head-patting and belly-rubbing. Cause you know, they're special. If they say they can do anything an able-bodied person can do, then prove it. That's all I ask. Demanding special accomodations = Inferior. Oh, I could not agree more - just as a family that lets grandpa live in on the ground floor when he gets to old to walk up the flight of stairs to his bedroom is actually DIS-respecting and DIS-honoring the man. Believe me - I GET it. They should respect grandpa's equality, and make him crawl up and down those stairs.

Oh, I could not agree more - just as a family that lets grandpa live in on the ground floor when he gets to old to walk up the flight of stairs to his bedroom is actually DIS-respecting and DIS-honoring the man. Believe me - I GET it. They should respect grandpa's equality, and make him crawl up and down those stairs. Completely different. What the family is doing is voluntary. Using the force of the government to demand special accomodations from another persondoes not make one equal.

Completely different. What the family is doing is voluntary. So is what society is doing. We, as a people, are voluntarily - through the process by which we volunteer (legislation) - making REASONABLE accomodations for people with disabilities. And it is NOT to put them down, as you pretend. Whoever fashioned the prosthetic device that YOU use, for example, is not "making fun" of micro-penis. He's just helping you function like a norm.

So is what society is doing. We, as a people, are voluntarily - through the process by which we volunteer (legislation) - making REASONABLE accomodations for people with disabilities. And it is NOT to put them down, as you pretend. Whoever fashioned the prosthetic device that YOU use, for example, is not "making fun" of micro-penis. He's just helping you function like a norm. Voluntaryism doesn't require the force of law via the government. I don't think a micro-penis qualifies under the ADA. At least I haven't been able to get my employer to cover one. But my stuttering does. Somebody's smoking a feel-good, politically correct crack pipe. I stutter. I deal with it.

Voluntaryism doesn't require the force of law via the government.I don't think a micro-penis qualifies under the ADA. At least I haven't been able to get my employer to cover one. But my stuttering does. Somebody's smoking a feel-good, politically correct crack pipe. I stutter. I deal with it.I think you are quite wrong, here. When a family decides that grandpa gets special consideration due to advanced age, there could be one refusenik - someone like you - who wants to let grandpa die taking the stairs. But he's over-ruled, and the family majority view holds. The decision has the force of law in that household, notwithstanding that for some members of the household it is not strictly "voluntary," as they disagree. They can live with it, or leave. The majority has spoken (or the autocrat, depending on the family).The same is true here. It IS voluntary. And you have the right to be pissy about it, as one who doesn't WANT to volunteer, but has been over-ruled.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNAQ8LLptUo%5B/media%5D

I think you are quite wrong, here. When a family decides that grandpa gets special consideration due to advanced age, there could be one refusenik - someone like you - who wants to let grandpa die taking the stairs. But he's over-ruled, and the family majority view holds. The decision has the force of law in that household, notwithstanding that for some members of the household it is not strictly "voluntary," as they disagree. They can live with it, or leave. The majority has spoken (or the autocrat, depending on the family).The same is true here. It IS voluntary. And you have the right to be pissy about it, as one who doesn't WANT to volunteer, but has been over-ruled.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNAQ8LLptUoUsing your logic it would be acceptable for the business owner to require the patron or employee to cover the costs of "reasonable" accomodations. Because sometimes, reasonable is in the eye of the beholder, that being the government bureaucrat who has no skin in the game.Now most people would just go along and let grandpa get the bottom bedroom. I'm fine with that. I still hold open doors for women and sexy old ladies. Cause all old ladies be sexy.But there's a big difference between the rules of the household, property owner, and government, who does not own the property in question. By the by, I hold the same position on the Civil Rights Act. Fine if it only applied to government.

Using your logic it would be acceptable for the business owner to require the patron or employee to cover the costs of "reasonable" accomodations. Because sometimes, reasonable is in the eye of the beholder, that being the government bureaucrat who has no skin in the game. Now most people would just go along and let grandpa get the bottom bedroom. I'm fine with that. I still hold open doors for women and sexy old ladies. Cause all old ladies be sexy. But there's a big difference between the rules of the household, property owner, and government, who does not own the property in question. By the by, I hold the same position on the Civil Rights Act. Fine if it only applied to government. Using ANY logic the patrons pay for those accomodations. Only the very ILLOGICAL would ever assume otherwise. Of COURSE patrons pay the costs of doing business - and a little something on top, called profits. And we have agreed, as a society, to foot that bill. We are family, son. And we have decided. And the difference that you tout is really an illusion. The truth is, some folks make rules that other folks don't agree with. Your mistake is an unhealthy fixation on so-called property rights. You don't really have any, since you're a dot in time and a nothing in the grand scheme - dust in the **** wind, son. How old is the world? We don't even KNOW. Who "owned" your real estate 10,000 years ago? Again, we don't know - and it's not relevant. What you think is going to be likewise irrelevant in the blink of an eye. Every vestige of your existence will be erased, soon. Your cherished property rights will mean nothing a century from today. There are human rights - granted by the Creator of the universe. And there are property rights - created entirely out of thin air by social agreement. Why you would elevate one above the other is a mystery to me.

Using ANY logic the patrons pay for those accomodations. Only the very ILLOGICAL would ever assume otherwise. Of COURSE patrons pay the costs of doing business - and a little something on top, called profits. And we have agreed, as a society, to foot that bill. We are family, son. And we have decided. And the difference that you tout is really an illusion. The truth is, some folks make rules that other folks don't agree with. Your mistake is an unhealthy fixation on so-called property rights. You don't really have any, since you're a dot in time and a nothing in the grand scheme - dust in the **** wind, son. How old is the world? We don't even KNOW. Who "owned" your real estate 10,000 years ago? Again, we don't know - and it's not relevant. What you think is going to be likewise irrelevant in the blink of an eye. Every vestige of your existence will be erased, soon. Your cherished property rights will mean nothing a century from today. There are human rights - granted by the Creator of the universe. And there are property rights - created entirely out of thin air by social agreement. Why you would elevate one above the other is a mystery to me. One of those human rights granted by the creator is to exertcontrol against another person?

Billionaire Forbes Writer, Ken Fisher, Attempts To Argue That The U.S. Actually Needs Fewer Jobs And Job Growth Is Overated. For years Americans have pondered the mystery of how to create more jobs. Turns out we've been thinking about it all wrong: What we need are fewer jobs. Billionaire investor and author Ken Fisher explains in Forbes -- the Christmas Eve issue, on newsstands soon! -- that "Job Growth Is Overrated." "Believe it or not, I’m for fewer jobs, not more," he starts out. OK, this is a good start: It is good to acknowledge right up front that readers might not quite believe that a sentient human being is somehow against more jobs. But you expect that maybe Fisher is then going to do a bait-and-switch of some kind: He says he's against jobs, but what he really means is that he is for some other mind-blowing kind of employment that's not exactly a "job" as we commonly think of the term. Like being a financial advisor, say. Or maybe Fisher is sort of like a Situationist, somebody who believes the entire social construct of "work" is a sham that keeps people from ever truly enjoying life. Fine, sounds good. But, no, what Fisher means is that he really, really can't stand jobs, or people who want them, or people who want to create them: "Throughout 2012 we heard politicians and pundits of all stripes yammering endlessly on the need for job growth—that we don’t have enough jobs," he continues. "It’s pure rubbish." Oooo...k? Jobs, Fisher explains, are actually signs of weakness in the economy. Jobs mean we can't produce stuff without human beings lousing up the place, instead of nice, clean robots, which are not constantly pestering you for health care and maternity leave and breaks. The greater our economy's productivity, the less we need of such nuisances. Then we can all sip cocktails on the beach for the rest of our days. Sous les paves, la plage. "In the long run we will all benefit," Fisher says, by nobody having any jobs any more, forever. He then goes on to extol the virtues of investing in a handful of companies he says will be top-notch at destroying jobs, including Anheuser-Busch InBev and Walmart. The massive mistake Fisher is making is understandable: People often think that productivity and jobs are mutually exclusive. The government's official measure of productivity is calculated by dividing output by worker hour. If you can get more output with fewer worker hours, voila, productivity. But history shows that higher productivity and more jobs typically go hand in hand, according to a paper a few years back by William Nordhaus of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Nordhaus looked at times in ye olde American history when productivity was rising and found, what do you know, jobs were rising then, too. When productivity is high, prices fall, which gives workers the ability to buy more stuff. Higher demand leads to more production and more jobs. One notable exception was around the late 1990s, early 2000s, when computers were boosting American productivity like crazy, but China was taking all of our jobs. That experience maybe colors our thinking about productivity as a job-killer. But China, at the very same time, was enjoying both rising productivity and more jobs. More recently, China is no longer undercutting the rest of the world on labor costs quite as much as any more. And some of those jobs the U.S. lost to China might be coming back here. Exhibit A: Apple, which said on Thursday it is going to start making stuff in the U.S. again. We don't have to live in Ken Fisher's zero-jobs world. Although we could all use more days at the beach.

Sen. Mitch McConnell Filibusters His Own Debt Ceiling Bill Yesterday marked another low point in American congressional politics. On the heels of the embarrassment that was Republicans blocking a UN treaty that was modeled after American law and which helped disabled veterans around the world because the homeschooling association took a John Bircher type issue with it, now comes Sen. Mitch McConnell filibustering his own bill on the debt ceiling that he approached Sen. Harry Reid about from earlier in the day. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wanted to prove on Thursday that Democrats don’t have the votes to weaken Congress’ authority on the debt limit. Instead they called his bluff, and he ended up filibustering his own bill. The legislation, modeled on a proposal McConnell offered last year as a “last-choice option” to avert a U.S. debt default, would permit the president to unilaterally lift the debt ceiling unless Congress mustered a two-thirds majority to stop him. President Obama has championed the idea. McConnell brought up the legislation Thursday morning. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) initially objected, seemingly proving the Republican leader’s point that it cannot pass the Senate. But then Reid ran it by his members and, in the afternoon, agreed to hold that same vote. This time it was McConnell who objected. “The Republican leader objects to his own idea,” Reid declared on the floor. “So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill.” McConnell claimed he never agreed to hold a simple majority vote on the bill. “What we’re talking about here is a perpetual debt ceiling grant in effect to the president. Matters of this level of controversy always require 60 votes,” the GOP leader said. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) scoffed at that notion that a senator would ask for a vote on a bill in good faith while requiring that it be “filibuster-proof.” “This may be a moment in Senate history, when a senator made a proposal that, when given an opportunity for a vote on that proposal, filibustered his own proposal,” he said. “I don’t think this has ever happened before.” McConnell came up with this idea in 2011 which was to give President Obama the power to raise the debt ceiling and force Democratic politicians to go on record and vote for it. Now that Obama won, he's lost his taste for it. But why would he then bring it up to Senator Reid at all? These people have fried green tomatoes for brains at this point. That's the best I could do. What about you?