Showing posts with label POLITICS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label POLITICS. Show all posts

MITT ROMNEY'S WILLIE HORTON ?????




I believe you are going to hear a lot of this story before the primary election season is over. It is about a judge in my neck of the woods, who released a violent criminal who was incarcerated for among other things manslaughter. While behind bars he assaulted guards and was to stand trial for the assault but was realeased without bail by the judge in question. Sadly, we in Massachusetts have seen this movie before and I'm going to give away the ending HERE


(This book was written by my Leutennant and is a very good read if you are a history buff)

Romney should have realized that those who do not take stock in history are doomed to repeat it. He will end up as the Republican version of Michael Dukakis and Massachusetts will again be villified by the rest of America as the Liberal State who is soft on violent criminals.


MASSACHUSETTS STRIKES AGAIN

Court says it’s OK to drive recklessly after being shot

By Associated Press
Thursday, November 29, 2007

The state Appeals Court says it’s o.k. to drive recklessly if you are trying to get to the hospital after being shot.

The court on today overturned the reckless driving conviction of Delano Livington, saying his lawyer should have asked the judge at his trial to instruct the jury on the so-called "necessity defense," which can be used when a crime is committed amid imminent danger and the harm sought to be avoided far exceeds the harm resulting from the crime.

Livington and three of his friends were visiting a community center in Boston in March 2005 when shots rang out. After Livington was hit in the stomach, he sped down the street on the wrong side of the road before he pulled into a gas station and fell out of the car. His erratic driving lasted about 30 seconds.

A loaded handgun was found in Livington’s car, but a jury acquitted him of a charge of carrying a firearm with a license and possession of ammunition without a license, while convicting him of the reckless driving charge.

Livington appealed his conviction.

"Here, the risk of harm posed by the gunshot wound to defendant’s abdomen outweighed the harm posed by his having briefly driven on the wrong side of the road to reach a location where he could obtain assistance," the court said in its written decision.

STORIES FROM IRAQ NOT TOLD ON NETWORK NEWS



It's a tough, but heart-warming story...with a picture of John Gebhardt in Iraq



John Gebhardt's wife, Mindy, said that this little girl's entire family was executed. The insurgents intended to execute the little girl also, and shot her in the head...but they failed to kill her. She was cared for in John's hospital and is healing up, but continues to cry and moan. The nurses said John is the only one who seems to calm her down, so John has spent the last four nights holding her while they both slept in that chair. The girl is coming along with her healing.
He is a real Star of the war, and represents what the Western world is trying to do.
This, my friends, is worth sharing with the WORLD! Go for it!!


You'll never see things like this in the news. Please keep this going. Nothing will happen if you don't, but the public needs to see pictures like this and needs to realize that we're making a difference. Even if it is just one little girl at a time.

We cannot direct the wind but we can adjust our sails...

GEORGE CARLIN ROCKS




YES, I'M A BAD AMERICAN



by: George Carlin





I Am Your Worst Nightmare. I am a BAD American. I am George Carlin.



I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some mid level governmental functionary be it Democratic or Republican!

I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!

I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer, it makes you a smart American.

I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything.

I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, do it in English.

I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.

My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and whoever canceled Jerry Springer.

I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor.

I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time watching or arguing about it.

I've never owned a slave, or was a slave, I haven't burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks and neither have you! So, shut up already.

I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country! This is AMERICA.

I want to know which church is it exactly where the Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution. Can I get an AMEN on that one?

I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry rear if you're running from them..

I also think they have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you are.

And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my drivers license. I think it's good..... and I'm proud that "God" is written on my money.

I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don't want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years.

I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making "donations" to their cause.

I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents.

And what is going on with gas prices... again?

I believe "illegal" is illegal no matter what the lawyers think.

I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed in AMERICA!

If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD American.

We want our country back!

MY HOW TIMES HAVE CHANGED



Sunny days! The earliest episodes of “Sesame Street” are available on digital video! Break out some Keebler products, fire up the DVD player and prepare for the exquisite pleasure-pain of top-shelf nostalgia.Just don’t bring the children. According to an earnest warning on Volumes 1 and 2, “Sesame Street: Old School” is adults-only: “These early ‘Sesame Street’ episodes are intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today’s preschool child.”

Say what? At a recent all-ages home screening, a hush fell over the room. “What did they do to us?” asked one Gen-X mother of two, finally. The show rolled, and the sweet trauma came flooding back. What they did to us was hard-core. Man, was that scene rough. The masonry on the dingy brownstone at 123 Sesame Street, where the closeted Ernie and Bert shared a dismal basement apartment, was deteriorating. Cookie Monster was on a fast track to diabetes. Oscar’s depression was untreated. Prozacky Elmo didn’t exist.

Nothing in the children’s entertainment of today, candy-colored animation hopped up on computer tricks, can prepare young or old for this frightening glimpse of simpler times. Back then — as on the very first episode, which aired on PBS Nov. 10, 1969 — a pretty, lonely girl like Sally might find herself befriended by an older male stranger who held her hand and took her home. Granted, Gordon just wanted Sally to meet his wife and have some milk and cookies, but . . . well, he could have wanted anything. As it was, he fed her milk and cookies. The milk looks dangerously whole.

Live-action cows also charge the 1969 screen — cows eating common grass, not grain improved with hormones. Cows are milked by plain old farmers, who use their unsanitary hands and fill one bucket at a time. Elsewhere, two brothers risk concussion while whaling on each other with allergenic feather pillows. Overweight layabouts, lacking touch-screen iPods and headphones, jockey for airtime with their deafening transistor radios. And one of those radios plays a late-’60s news report — something about a “senior American official” and “two billion in credit over the next five years” — that conjures a bleak economic climate, with war debt and stagflation in the offing.

The old “Sesame Street” is not for the faint of heart, and certainly not for softies born since 1998, when the chipper “Elmo’s World” started. Anyone who considers bull markets normal, extracurricular activities sacrosanct and New York a tidy, governable place — well, the original “Sesame Street” might hurt your feelings.

I asked Carol-Lynn Parente, the executive producer of “Sesame Street,” how exactly the first episodes were unsuitable for toddlers in 2007. She told me about Alistair Cookie and the parody “Monsterpiece Theater.” Alistair Cookie, played by Cookie Monster, used to appear with a pipe, which he later gobbled. According to Parente, “That modeled the wrong behavior” — smoking, eating pipes — “so we reshot those scenes without the pipe, and then we dropped the parody altogether.”

Which brought Parente to a feature of “Sesame Street” that had not been reconstructed: the chronically mood-disordered Oscar the Grouch. On the first episode, Oscar seems irredeemably miserable — hypersensitive, sarcastic, misanthropic. (Bert, too, is described as grouchy; none of the characters, in fact, is especially sunshiney except maybe Ernie, who also seems slow.) “We might not be able to create a character like Oscar now,” she said.

Snuffleupagus is visible only to Big Bird; since 1985, all the characters can see him, as Big Bird’s old protestations that he was not hallucinating came to seem a little creepy, not to mention somewhat strained. As for Cookie Monster, he can be seen in the old-school episodes in his former inglorious incarnation: a blue, googly-eyed cookievore with a signature gobble (“om nom nom nom”). Originally designed by Jim Henson for use in commercials for General Foods International and Frito-Lay, Cookie Monster was never a righteous figure. His controversial conversion to a more diverse diet wouldn’t come until 2005, and in the early seasons he comes across a Child’s First Addict.

The biggest surprise of the early episodes is the rural — agrarian, even — sequences. Episode 1 spends a stoned time warp in the company of backlighted cows, while they mill around and chew cud. This pastoral scene rolls to an industrial voiceover explaining dairy farms, and the sleepy chords of Joe Raposo’s aimless masterpiece, “Hey Cow, I See You Now.” Chewing the grass so green/Making the milk/Waiting for milking time/Waiting for giving time/Mmmmm.

Oh, what’s that? Right, the trance of early “Sesame Street” and its country-time sequences. In spite of the show’s devotion to its “target child,” the “4-year-old inner-city black youngster” (as The New York Times explained in 1979), the first episodes join kids cavorting in amber waves of grain — black children, mostly, who must be pressed into service as the face of America’s farms uniquely on “Sesame Street.”

In East Harlem and Bedford-Stuyvesant in 1978, 95 percent of households with kids ages 2 to 5 watched “Sesame Street.” The figure was even higher in Washington. Nationwide, though, the number wasn’t much lower, and was largely determined by the whims of the PBS affiliates: 80 percent in houses with young children. The so-called inner city became anywhere that “Sesame Street” played, because the Children’s Television Workshop declared the inner city not a grim sociological reality but a full-color fantasy — an eccentric scene, framed by a box and far removed from real farmland and city streets alike.

The concept of the “inner city” — or “slums,” as The Times bluntly put it in its first review of “Sesame Street” — was therefore transformed into a kind of Xanadu on the show: a bright, no-clouds, clear-air place where people bopped around with monsters and didn’t worry too much about money, cleanliness or projecting false cheer. The Upper West Side, hardly a burned-out ghetto, was said to be the model.

People on “Sesame Street” had limited possibilities and fixed identities, and (the best part) you weren’t expected to change much. The harshness of existence was a given, and no one was proposing that numbers and letters would lead you “out” of your inner city to Elysian suburbs. Instead, “Sesame Street” suggested that learning might merely make our days more bearable, more interesting, funnier. It encouraged us, above all, to be nice to our neighbors and to cultivate the safer pleasures that take the edge off — taking baths, eating cookies, reading. Don’t tell the kids.

Caveat teletor: Volumes 1 and 2 of “Sesame Street: Old School” are available on DVD, which you can sample and buy on Sesameworkshop.org. With a few episodes, extras and celebrity appearances by the likes of Richard Pryor and Lou Rawls, “Old School” sounds harmless enough. But are you ready to mainline this much ’70s nostalgia?

FIREFIGHTER TRAGEDY AND TRAVESTY

Our view: Firefighter autopsies raise important questions

There's no question that Boston firefighters Paul Cahill and Warren Payne died doing their jobs, fighting a blaze in a West Roxbury Chinese restaurant.
But information from autopsy reports suggesting that Cahill had three times the legal limit of alcohol in his system while Payne had traces of cocaine in his raise important questions both in this case and about firefighters in general. Among them are:
* Did the presence of the intoxicants in the firefighters' systems inhibit their performance and contribute to their deaths?
* If so, are their families still entitled to the $400,000 in federal and state benefits paid to survivors of public safety officers killed in the line of duty?
* How extensive is drug and alcohol abuse among on-duty firefighters and to what degree does that threaten public safety?
* Does the hero cult that firefighters encourage prevent the public from discovering answers to these important questions?
Last week, someone with access to information about the firefighters' autopsies leaked that information to the Boston media. The firefighters union sought an injunction prohibiting the publication or broadcast of the toxicology reports on the grounds that autopsies are not public records. A court sided with the union but the injunction was overturned on appeal.
According to published reports, Cahill's blood-alcohol level was 0.27 - more than three times the legal limit of 0.08. Payne had traces of cocaine and marijuana in his system, the stories said. Payne and Cahill were killed when the grease-fueled Aug. 29 restaurant fire erupted in an explosion.
It's difficult to say what effect the "traces" of drugs in Payne's system had on his judgment. But a person with a 0.27 blood-alcohol level, as Cahill's report is said to show, is impaired well beyond the legal standard for operating an automobile. It is unlikely that someone that intoxicated was in full control of his mind or body.
Federal law provides a survivors' benefit of just over $300,000 for public safety officers killed in the line of duty. State law adds $100,000 on top of that. But the federal law expressly forbids payment when the deceased is shown to have been voluntarily intoxicated or to be under the influence of drugs. Clearly, by law, the benefits should not be paid. But given the political realities of this case, don't expect anyone to stop payment on the checks.
A Boston paper found that 10 percent of the city's firefighters were forced to undergo substance abuse treatment over the past three years. What are the rates for our local fire departments? Clearly, the Boston incident makes a strong case for mandatory, random drug and alcohol checks for all firefighters.
Anyone who raises questions about firefighters' performance can expect a backlash, led by the firefighters themselves. Firefighters are "heroes" who "risk their lives every day" to save the rest of us from certain death. It is certainly true that firefighters have dangerous jobs and many perform heroic deeds.
But firefighters are well paid, both during their careers and into retirement, for providing this public service. The public has a right to expect that those they pay to provide this protection are doing so free from the influence of alcohol and drugs.
And that's why it is important to discuss this story, despite contrary claims that it besmirches the good names of two men killed in service to their community.


I respectfully disagree with the writer of this article. These two guys died a horrible death and his "read between the lines" approach in this article makes me mad.

As most of you know from reading previous posts, I have the utmost respect for the hosedraggers but there is always a rilvary between the guns and hoses and from that rivalry comes my credo of "Everyone loves firefighters" kinda my take on the Mom always loved you best deal.

I have been listening to this story gain momentum on talk radio for the past week (its been a slow news cycle I guess)

If the firefighter was intoxicated he screwed up BIGTIME. Not his family. His family has been devestated by the loss of their (husband/father)

And for some bean counter to save a few bucks on this familys grief is unconsionable (and I believe) That the illegal leaking of the autopsy info was intentionally meant to further or bolster their argument for not paying out to the families. I firmly believe that it was not the selfless intention of the leaker to inform the public of rampant substance abuse or bring about change in the firehouse. It always comes down to the stack of Benjamin's (cash) And a media that profits (in ratings) from such a tradgedy only makes me realize that Don Henly hit it right on the nose with his song "dirty laundry"

The questions need to be answered. And I believe that an investigation needs to be done on the fire officials and rank but they need to investigate find and expose the leak as well. If their intentions were so noble then why are they un-named sources? If justice is served by denying these families the pensions of professional firefighters. Then justice will not be complete until the leak is also brought to trial.

In my opinion there is no place for intoxicated firefighters, cops or any person who is entrusted with keeping people safe. But if this guy was as they are reporting an 0.27 BAC (which is 3x the legal limit here) then someone HAD to have known. He should have never been let into that firehouse in that condition (if the allegations are true) I'd like to know why every drunk dirtbag I have to deal with "has a legitimate problem, is a victim of their circumstances and should not be judged by society, but if the person in question is a professional, has a job, and is not spounging off the welfare system then they are fair game

I know I am going to piss a few people off, and I do not mean to diminish the sacrifices made by these two brave firefighters.But I am going to throw down the race card here as well.

One of the firefighters was black and the other was white, the white firefighter was allegedly drunk and the black firefighter allegedly had cocaine and marijuana in his system. In the Pollitically Correct Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, you would have to search really hard to find someone voicing concerns or outrage over the cocaine or marijuana but whenever you turn on an am radio station or tv your immediately immersed in info about the drunk Irish Firefighter.

I hate it when people play the race card, but damn if everyone else is going to....

And I'm just calling it as I see it (I invite anyone to check the Boston radio and tv stations and prove me wrong)

Furthermore seeing the Illiterate (seriously folks he needs hooked on phonix) Boston Mayor (who I absolutely dispise with a passion) Backpeddaling away from and demonizing these guys and basically cutting their families hearts out with his recent rhetoric now to save pollitical face (after semi eloquently eulogizing them just weeks ago) really makes my blood boil.

This entire situation was a tragedy. If the allegations are true, then it was a preventable tragedy. Nothing more nothing less and certainly not media fodder. I see what guys just like these guys do on a daily basis. And between you me and the lamp post I wouldn't do their job for a million bucks.

Illustrating my point from last post...

I saw this on Yahoo and it is a perfect illustration of whatI was talking about in my last post. As much as I like Yahoo and its content, this video was put up and there were poll questions

  1. Should this man have been arrested?
  2. Should he have been tazered?

My answers are as follows:

  • I wasnt one of the officers so I can not say 100 percent definitavely, but reading tactics and body language and knowing protocall and such, it does not appear as if the guy was originally placed under arrest. It appears to me that protocall (as well as the statement by officials in the story) that there was an allotted time limit to all questions, this guy went over that time allotment, those in charge attempted to non-physically diffuse the situation by cutting off the power to his microphone. He refused to yield and began to yell his question out, and his anger began to escalate, he saw security and officers moving towards him and began to move around, becoming very animated in his attempt to evade police involvement. (Now, does anyone believe that if these cops are the jackbooted thugs that they are being portrayed as, that they would care whether or not John Kerry answered the skull and bones society question? or is the conspiracy theory being floated that any skull and bones questions required censorship at all costs?) If you read the police officers body language as they approach, none of them are foaming at the mouth, none are jacked up, they are simply doing what they were trained to do. Keep order in a public venue, keep the multitude of people safe, and remove anyone who is becoming disorderly. He was originally just being removed for his disruptive behavior, when he began to flail his arms it became a safety issue. At that point an arrest has to be made. So Yes he should have been arrested with out a doubt. At any point and time he could have stopped resisting and once outside the hall registered his complaints with whom ever he wanted to. He at some point wanted to challenge authority. And thats fine, but if you issue a challenge, it will be met. Don't bitch when it is.
  • Ok if you watch the video closely, once he is at the back of the hall he physically shoves a cop, he is surrounded, he does not comply at any point, so he has shown that he is agressive, if he is given any leeway at that point, he will more than likely fight. He has shown that he does not intend to voluntarily leave before he has made his point. There are several people in the immediate vicinity that could get injured or involved if he does start fighting (can we say the 1968 Chicago Convention?) So we now know that verbal requests and commands didn't work, physical confrontation could result in innocent people getting injured, OC or Pepperspray will contaminate the area causing panic and a possible rush for the door (so that people can get fresh air) which could result in even greater injury. The only way to swiftly and safely diffuse the situation is the taser. So yes he should have been tased.

I find it interesting that even though John Kerry should have known the protocalls for the meeting, he decides to publicly rebuke the officers who are doing their duty by trying to command them to let the guy speak. (he had already gotten his question out John, I never saw you answer it on the video?) And by the way you were paid to speak not make command decisions. Again John Kerry shows that in his world he can pick and choose what rules to follow and which to skip. And this guy in the audience is just following John Kerrys lead.

I also find it interesting that after shoving a police officer this guy starts yelling police brutality.

I NEVER KNEW POLITICS WAS A CONTACT SPORT


I just got back from the City Council meeting and my head is still spinning. I can only say that Masachusetts politics always finds a way to suprise me.



First of all, the police department has been like a morgue for the past few weeks, everyone was holding our collective breath for tonights meeting. All affected workers made damned sure we got their early in order to get seats. When you looked at the city council chambers all you saw was a sea of fire fighters, cops, and dpw workers all standing as one. It was an impressive sight.

The council (which I might add has 2 members that have a personal vendetta against the police department)

This "unbiased" councilor had proposed a budget that targeted the police department with cuts that would have decimated our ranks, equipment and vehicles. Some of the cuts included,letting go of "some" patrol officers, less police cruisers because we should really have more walking beats (yeah I could imagine the response times to calls if we had to walk to the scene) another idea of hers was getting rid of laptop computers because we all know that cops really dont need to run plates in order to find out if were stopping joe sixpack or public enemy number one. Non essential personel which basically would be calltakers and 911 operators.

I was waiting for one of these nitwits to propose that we turn in our kevlar vests because they could garner a lot of money to balance the budget if we sold them on Ebay to the gangbangers and how many times do we actually get shot at anyways? And while were at it maybe throw in a few rounds of ammunition because we really never actually shoot "all" our bullets.

I sat back and listened to this self important wenchbag attempt to decimate our department as she decimated the English language during her "supposedly own written statement" (Note to councillor, proofread your copy before going live in order to ensure you can pronounce all those big words) I was getting angrier and angrier.

By the time the Mayor got up to speak I was fuming, I listened as he chastised the council for their attempts to cut funding to police, fire and dpw. I figgured he would make his case, get his shots in and then there'd be debate and a vote that would in effect cripple the city. But then the knuckleball was thrown. There was a loophole, due to the fact that the mayor had proposed a budget (and sent the balanced budget forward to the department of revenue), it was voted down by the council (thus meaning that they had seen it and acted on it) they (the council) had 45 days to come up with a better plan and have it submitted or else the original balanced budget could be approved or rejected by the department of revenue.

The department of revenue faxed over their approval letter 5 minutes before the meeting got under way. The end of the mayors speech basically informed the council that their feet dragging and grandstanding had in effect rendered them impotent and that "This meeting can now be adjourned, the budget has been accepted by the DOR and now all I can say is that all the good men and women standing behind me in this chamber need to go now to make ready to go back to work.

So yes my head is spinning in a good way. It feels like a weight has been lifted and the clouds have parted. Yes my taxes will go up a little, but the city will stay safe and good men and women will not lose their jobs over pollitical posturing, grandstanding and vote whoring.





POSTSCRIPT:
THIS COMMENT WAS TAKEN FROM A LOCAL NEWSPAPER, AND IF IT IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT (AND I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEV THAT IT IS NOT TRUE) SHOWS THE CHILDISH MINDSET OF OUR CITY COUNCIL

Councilor: We're Going to Make
the mayor Suffer for Backing the police chief



A city councilor, (whose name is being
withheld at this point said of the recent
budget battle:

"We are going to make him suffer, if he wants to
back the chief and let him do whatever
he wants on the police department we are
going to shut down the city. The chief is corrupt
and as long as the mayor defends him we are
not going to pass his budget, Period."



After hearing this comment I cannot begin to describe how good it felt to see these councillors seething when they found out they fucked up. They got to beat their chests, blow their own horns, and in the end they screwed themselves by trying to screw us and the public.