RNC Tax Attack Goes Too Far | FactCheck.org

Read The FACTS Here
FALSE Facts on Video commercial – Read the FACTS at FactCheck

The Republican National Committee’s NEW commercial goes too far with their Tax Attack

Enough is Enough – Setting the Records Straight About Health Care Reform

Get the TRUTH here…

Childcare outsourcing Video

Report: Many U.S. Parents Outsourcing Child Care Overseas | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source

Sending Child Overseas in a BOX for daycare!

more about "Childcare outsourcing Video", posted with vodpod

Transparency- People Can Connect with White House

Excellent! About Time! Long Overdue!!
This White House Administration believes that the American People are SMART, and the American People have things to say! They are making it easier for the American People’s voices to be heard.

“Voices of Power: Salazar…”

Bush Administration Left a ‘Mess,’ Interior Secretary Says

By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Ken Salazar and Barack Obama both arrived at the U.S. Senate in 2004, and if anyone is wondering just how close they are, consider this little-known fact: They looked for housing together and ended up renting in the same building on the same floor.

“We’ve been close. . . . He was number 99 in the Senate, and I was number 100,” the new interior secretary said during an interview at his office. “He and I were tied for seniority in the last place, and under the rules of the Senate, when you have that kind of a tie, they determine seniority based on the population of the state.”

A fifth-generation Coloradan, Salazar, 54, grew up on a ranch, where his mother still lives. You can still hear the slight lilt of his native “old” Spanish when describing his poor upbringing. It wasn’t until he graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 1981 that he brought electricity to the ranch.

Soft-spoken and cautious, Salazar bluntly declares that one of his major challenges is to “clean up” an agency that has been riddled with scandal, including the Minerals Management Service (MMS), which was found by the agency’s inspector general to have “a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity”

Most recently, Salazar has focused on battling Republican senators holding up his choice for his deputy because the secretary rescinded Bush-era oil leases in Utah, saying they are too close to national parks. Senate sources predict that David J. Hayes will be confirmed as early as this week.

(For a full transcript of the interview, go here, or see the complete Voices of Power archive.)

Romano: Your former Republican colleagues in the Senate are blocking David Hayes, your pick to be deputy secretary. What’s happening with that?

Salazar: There was a mess that was left here by the prior administration, and it essentially revolves around a perspective around here that the laws were to be skirted, and the consequence of that is that we’re dealing with many decisions that have had to be revisited. It’s in the context of cleaning up the mess and bringing about . . . a new direction that there has been a swing back by some in the Republican Party. . . . The unfortunate legacy of the Bush administration is at the political level, there were ethical lapses and illegal activity that occurred that created a blemish on this department probably like no other . . . when you have deputy secretaries who have been sent to prison, when you have criminal conduct that essentially has taken place in MMS.

Romano: Are you reconsidering the Utah leases in light of the fact that they have thrown up these barriers to Hayes’s confirmation?

Salazar: No. I am reconsidering the leases in the context of my decision, but not because of whatever it is that is going on in the Senate today. I made the determination that I was going to pull back on those leases and basically call a timeout so that I could review what had happened and make a decision on how to move forward.

Romano: It has been suggested that a lot of heads have to roll here [at Interior] . . . and that you are too nice, maybe, to do it. Are you too nice?

Salazar: I think that anybody who looks at my record will find out that I may be nice, but I think people will also tell you I’m tough as nails, and I have no problem in taking the right measures to make sure that this department is changed and that we get down to the bottom of some of the bad decisions that have happened here.

There were many decisions that were made which essentially, I think, were a reckless abandonment of the law and environmental considerations.

Opinions/Observations about Obama

The Slate author notes, “…Obama has a healthy disdain for the overrated virtue of political loyalty. Around the nomination process, this has been slightly chilling to watch. If you’re useful, you can hang around with him. If you start to look like a liability, enjoy your time with the wolves. Before the inauguration, Christopher Hitchens described Obama as feline in his demeanor. The president is catlike also in his lack of evident affection for the people who take care of him. His cracks at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner about Hillary Clinton being an envious loser, Larry Summers’ woman problem, and training his dog not to pee on Tim Geithner skirted cruelty. Obama’s jokes about himself were about how great everyone thinks he is…”

I believe the American people find the stated remark that Obama has a healthy disdain for the overrated virtue of political loyalty, rather refreshing! And I do agree that Obama is NOT ‘an ass-kisser’.
We have had too much of that in previous administrations.

I also believe that Obama will steer himself clear of any association with dishonesty and self-preservation that may harm the American people. In other words, move out of his way you ‘ass-kissers and dishonest dipsticks’, Obama is not going to fly with your ‘tunes’. Obama is a ‘healthy straightforward-shooter”, he says it like it is!

Due to the mess he “inherited” from Democrates and Republicans, alike; Obama may have to walk on thin ice at times if that is what it takes to help the American people.
KCM Crikket

Slate Magazine
the big idea
Notes Toward a Theory of Obama
What we’ve learned so far about the president.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Saturday, May 16, 2009, at 7:11 AM ET

Barack Obama began his presidency with an unusual attribute: that the country already understood him, or thought it did, from his books. The story he told in Dreams From My Father and reinforced in The Audacity of Hope was about a man of multiple worlds who struggles to come to terms with his father’s abandonment and a confounding racial identity. Obama resolves his rootlessness and anger by committing himself socially, religiously, and, eventually, politically. He depicts his mature self as unusually grounded, able to see other points of view and to bridge chasms.

The protagonist of these books is a persuasive and appealing character—so much so that he left little demand for alternative explanations. As time goes by, though, Obama’s Obama feels less and less satisfying. It’s not that the author’s projection of himself is distorted in any obvious way, but rather that it leaves too much unexplained—his ambition, his aloofness, his fundamental beliefs, if any. It’s too soon to offer an interpretation of our president. But after four months in office, we can see some emerging themes.

He sees the middle ground as high ground. Candidates who talk about bringing people together, being uniters not dividers, or changing the tone in Washington are usually blowing happy smoke. At this point, however, Obama’s focus on reconciliation is clearly more than shtick. We saw this impulse at work when he made pre-emptive concessions on his stimulus package in an unsuccessful effort to win Republican support. We saw it in another way when he personally brokered a compromise between the French and Chinese presidents at the G20 summit in London. Every few days, it seems, Obama, tries for a “new beginning”—with Iran, Cuba, the Muslim world, even Paul Krugman. Engaging with opponents animates him more than hanging with friends.

This is a wonderful instinct that is bettering America’s image and making domestic politics more civil. But listening is not a moral stance, and elevating it to one only highlights the question of what Obama really stands for. The consensus-seeker repudiates torture but doesn’t want to investigate it; he endorses gay equality but not in marriage or the military; he thinks government’s role is to do whatever works. I continue to suspect him of harboring deeper convictions.

He’s the decider for real. Accounts of Obama’s decision-making depict him driving process as well as result. Faced with a tough call about whether to declassify additional Bush administration torture memos, Obama called a debate, listened intently, and finished by dictating the next day’s press release announcing the release of the documents. Another insider ticktock has him personally directing the futures of GM and Chrysler. Advisers who play what are supposed to be honest-broker, facilitating roles at the White House either play different roles (Larry Summers) or don’t play much role at all (Jim Jones). Obama sees himself as ringmaster as well as star performer.

The president’s knack for deep dives into policy questions is undeniably impressive. But as quick a study as he is, his supreme self-confidence may shade into overconfidence. He shows signs of suffering from the arrogance that often accompanies brilliance. It’s unlikely, for instance, that Obama can function as his own grand strategy guru on foreign policy. But he doesn’t seem inclined to give that job to anyone else.

He likes it hot. If you have a friendly conversation with someone close to Obama, he or she is likely to marvel at the president’s comfort level with crisis. This is a man who plays it cool at all times but has never liked standing still. He ran for Congress prematurely and lost, then ran for the Senate prematurely and got lucky. He was quickly bored in the Senate, where it took too long to get things done. When he was thinking about running for president, his question was whether the moment would be ripe for a great leader.

He needn’t have worried. Obama has more troubles to deal with, foreign and domestic, than any president since FDR. One day last month, he faced decisions about the fate of the auto industry, a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, a North Korean missile threat, and a flood in Fargo, N.D. “What is this, a West Wing episode?” David Axelrod quipped, according to the New York Times. The question here is capacity, not capability. Can any one person simultaneously manage so many issues in the hands-on way Obama insists on managing them?

He’s ruthless. In a recent interview with the New York Times, Obama described his economic policy as “ruthless pragmatism.” Interesting choice of modifiers. Obama has a healthy disdain for the overrated virtue of political loyalty. Around the nomination process, this has been slightly chilling to watch. If you’re useful, you can hang around with him. If you start to look like a liability, enjoy your time with the wolves. Before the inauguration, Christopher Hitchens described Obama as feline in his demeanor. The president is catlike also in his lack of evident affection for the people who take care of him. His cracks at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner about Hillary Clinton being an envious loser, Larry Summers’ woman problem, and training his dog not to pee on Tim Geithner skirted cruelty. Obama’s jokes about himself were about how great everyone thinks he is.

A version of this article also appears in this week’s issue of Newsweek.
Jacob Weisberg is chairman and editor-in-chief of the Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy.

Slate Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2218357/

Twitter is a Surfin’ BIRD

If this isn’t Twitter’s Theme Song; Then It Should Be! Perfect!!!
Now I gotta figure out how to put the URL in.

Just Click on PLAY or Pause

more about "Music Fan or DJ", posted with vodpod

Copyright in Digital Age

Getting The Network The World Needs – Lawrence Lessig
Video (Lawrence Lessig)
The question is HOW to preserve “Copy”, while creating change in Law for “FairUse”. The video starts out somewhat boring, however, interest increases as it continues.

The key concern seems to be what impact the ‘copyright vs. future generation FairUse’ will have on our children. The suggested “War of Copyrights”-”War of Prohibition”, has resulted in the questions: Will our children become – Deviant Pirates – A generation of criminals; and how to provide a Change in Platform, Change in Law, for greater balance to get the network that the world needs.

Changing the dynamics of the “failed copyright wars” appears to be warranted, but the question remains “How” to regulate and unregulate the vast “ReWrite”-”ReMix” technology. The challenge is a legal challenge of the architecture of the copyright law, and the need to change the law for greater balance in a “ReUse Culture”. The evolution to the 21st century, and beyond, have developed into a culture “Need” for consumption and expression for a value driven community of networking and legal infrastructure connections.

Zeitgeist: Addendum

Please NOTE: This site does not endorse everything that is presented on this video. If you can get past those things that bother or offend you, then you will find that there is some value to the information presented.

The COMPLETE video in Full screen.

more about "Zeitgeist: Addendum", posted with vodpod

An informal draft of self-rattling of my thoughts…

With Comments

401s – were they not a matter of choice. were people not asked if they wanted to participate in the 401 plan. was it not a form of gambling in the stock markets with their money? so, looking at it that way, I find myself taking on a different view than my initial outrage that these poor people lost their money. certainly I have compassion for these people, yet, is it not true that when you choose to gamble, you need to take responsibility for the outcome.

banks, wall street, car companies, insurance industry…would it not be the same truth for them. whether is was gambling, incompetence, poor management, or whatever, should they not be responsible and held accountable for their own mistakes or failures. it is true that in some instances concerning these companies or people, there was outright greed and theft. but does not an individual have the recourse of the legal system to pursue the culprits.

as we look back on history, has it not been the way of life that “in with the new, out with the old”? companies come, and they go, for whatever reasons; resulting in change. in some cases, much needed change. the fat cat on the block had his run, now the new “change” on the block is in the “power” or “money-making” chair. has this not been the way of life?

so what is so different in today’s economy. why was it decided to throw all the taxpayers money in those particular people’s ocean of “historical wealth”. why do they get a re-run at the expense of the innocent?

looking at it in these terms called reality, then I have to go back to my beliefs that “you reap what you sow”, or thats called life buddy, so move over, and you take responsibility for yourselves.

i think of all the innocent taxpayers that were minding their own and living within their means. yet they are being expected to pay for those who lived in those fancy houses, drove all those fancy cars, lived outside their means, and gambled with their money.

so instead of stepping up to the plate and being accountable, they are yelling for and taking bailouts. what is the sense in all this? were is the fairness for those who lived a responsible reality?

Just my draft, notes of my thoughts.