By Abraxas

Well, the first rat just left the sinking Obama ship of state.  And he’s writing a tell-all book about it. 

“Former Obama administration car czar Steven Rattner is coming out with a new book that depicts him swashbuckling through the financial crisis and also shows Obama as “out to get” the car companies and the administration making political decisions about how to deal with bankrupt automakers GM and Chrysler.” 

According to Rattner, it wasn’t Obama that dictated plans but instead Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.  Emanuel’s power was so great that he literally dictated Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s “schedule, public appearances and staff selections”.  (One wonders why Geithner bothered to show up for work.)  Emanuel also dictated which Chrysler facility to keep open and close.  He based his decision not on their fiscal soundness but instead on whether the facilities were located in a Democrat or Republican district.  (Since the decision to keep or close facilities was supposedly Rattner’s job as ‘Car Czar’, one also wonders why Rattner bothered showing up.) 

There is one hilarious quote in there – all the more hilarious for the fact that neither Rattner nor Huffington Post realize how stupid it makes Obama look.  To the contrary, both Rattner and Huffington Post see this as a compliment to their Commander in Chief. 

“…when Obama was informed of the plan to give ousted GM Chief Rick Wagoner $7.1 million, his jaw muscles tightened and Rattner writes: “Suddenly I felt that I was indeed in the presence of a community organizer…”

Oh, my God – I nearly sprayed my screen when I read that.  And they’re serious!   

For all the stupidity of this book, there most certainly have to be a few time bombs ticking inside it.  The reason I say this is because of the effort Huffington Post is taking to kill the messenger.  As Huffington snips, Rattner’s scandalous stories about the Obama administration don’t matter because “Rattner hardly mentions (his own) scandal — paying $1.1 million to a placement agent to win business with powerful state pension funds…”  I find this attack interesting – in my experience, one never attacks the messenger unless the message is bad.  

Yes, methinks this book is going to make Obama look a fool.  Not that he needs any help, of course, but with the disaster looming for this November, the Good Ship Obamapoop doesn’t need another tattle-tale iceberg slicing its hull below the water line. 

Should be interesting reading.  (I wonder which rat is next?) 

Tweet This Post

By Jane Jamison

Can Dave Harmer put at least ONE Republican Congressional seat in the Northern California “blue zone” of San Francisco and environs?

His is the race given the best chance of success.   Harmer is an interesting mix of devout family man, Reagan ties, and big-shouldered football-player good looks. 

 Harmer is pitted against the imported, Democrat waterboy who was brought in by the powers-that-have-been to knock out long-time Republican Congressman Richard Pombo.  Jerry McNerney didn’t even have a “real job” when he was first elected to the seat, but it didn’t matter.  Big bucks poured in, the mud and “blood” spattered, and McNerney won.

McNerney has been one of the most studiously low-profile Congressmen evah.  He now uses his franking privileges to send out 4 mailers to the district and is trying to sound “moderate” to appeal to his nearly 50-50 split GOP-Democrat voters. 

In reality, McNerney is the farthest thing from moderate.  

Jerry the Pushover has just voted yes on liberal issues.

In August, David Harmer challenged McNerney to a series of debates.  There has been no response. 

McNerney’s town halls have been few in number.  Some were even “phone-in” affairs, where callers had to sign up (ostensibly to be screened ahead of time) and wait in queue for the wimp McNerney to pick and choose his topics and/or questions. 

Clearly, this freshman Democrat who has a lot to answer for with all his pro-Pelosi bobble-heading, is just going to hunker down, hide and hope his district will vote blindly for the “D” candidate.   Who knows?   The far-flung jerry-mandered nature of the district, CA-CD-11,  stretching from upscale bedroom suburbs like Danville, through the Altamont Pass, all the way to blue-collar hoods in Stockton, means there is little sense of “community.”

This is fairly typical San Francisco bay area politics.  The Democrats can count on union support at rallies, town halls, debates and speaking engagements.   Not all the “Republicans” running against entrenched incumbents in the bay area look to be “legitimate” Republicans.  We may never know the story with all of them, but if straw men are being used, it would not be a surprise.  The power and resources of the labor unions and liberal special interests in California are oppressive, wide-reaching and well-funded.

In the suburban CA-CD-11, Harmer and McNerney are now virtually tied with Harmer trending up.  The campaign emails today: 

A few highlights:  

57% said the economy, unemployment and jobs were the most important issue facing our country. We agree.  

52% said it’s time for someone other than Jerry McNerney to represent California’s 11th District. Again, we agree.

In a head-to-head match up, the results are Harmer 45%, McNerney 44%.

The candidates financing is lop-sided going into the final stretch.  Harmer had to spend a lot in a contested primary and is now out-funded. 

From Open Secrets:

Jerry McNerney (D) *

Raised:		$1,692,907
Spent:		$579,069
Cash on Hand:		$1,246,577
Last Report:		June 30, 2010

 

David Jeffrey Harmer (R)

Raised:	$1,815,523
Spent:	$1,437,912
Cash on Hand:	$233,046
Last Report:	June 30, 2010

 

Dave Harmer for Congress

(Previous stories on UNCOVERAGE.net on the Harmer campaign)

Tweet This Post

UNCOVERAGE.net

Reveille    

    

September 3, 2010

Due to the heightened security situation, here are headlines from Debka.com.   These are very background that you will not get from the mainstream media here in the U.S.

• Iran’s revenge: Syria and Hizballah join to sink Israeli warships
• Syria & Hizballah Conclude Secret Pact for War on Israel
• Hamas gunmen murder four Israelis in ambush near Hebron
• US Intel: Tehran pushes Hizballah hard to attack Israel
• Mysterious death of Russian military intelligence high-up in Syria
• Obama weighs dramatic security perks if Israel scraps Iran strike
• Hamas plots big terror offensive to torpedo talks
• Arab sources: A major military surprise is close. Galant scandal a smokescreen

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

THIS is the Abercrombie and Fitch look!

Let’s all buy a LOT OF ABERCROMBIE…..hang in there and STOP CREEPING SHARIA!!!! 

You KNOW that some teenaged Muslim isn’t going to randomly go choose and apply to work at Abercrombie.   This is all about CONTROL and trying to impose a point of view and create some sort of perceived  “constitutional” crisis.  Don’t fall for it!  Abercrombie’s sexy ads and clothes epitomize the evil Western empire so villified by Islam.  

  From the San Francisco Chronicle:

A federal civil rights agency sued Abercrombie & Fitch on Wednesday on behalf of an 18-year-old woman who said she applied for her first job at the company’s store at the Great Mall in Milpitas and was turned down because she wore a Muslim headscarf.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission went to court against Abercrombie & Fitch last year over a similar incident in Tulsa, Okla. In Wednesday’s suit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the agency again accused the Ohio company of discriminating on the basis of religion.

“This retailer that targets a youth market is sending the message that you cannot aspire to their ‘All American’ brand if you wear a head covering to comply with your faith,” said William Tamayo, the agency’s regional attorney.

Company representatives could not be reached for comment. In court filings in the Oklahoma case, which is pending, lawyers for Abercrombie & Fitch denied discriminating and said allowing the employee to wear a hijab, or headscarf, “would have created an undue hardship” for the company’s business.

Federal law requires employers to accommodate their workers’ religious practices unless they would cause an undue hardship. Abercrombie & Fitch’s employee dress code bans head coverings.

The federal agency said the Milpitas teenager, who was not identified, applied in March 2008 for a job stocking merchandise at the Abercrombie Kids store. She said she wore a colorful hijab that matched her outfit.

The manager asked her if she was Muslim, then marked “not Abercrombie look” on her interview form, the agency said.

“The interview crushed me, because I never imagined anyone in the Bay Area would reject me because of my headscarf,” the applicant said in a statement released by the civil rights agency. “They didn’t just miss out on a hard worker. They lost a customer.”

This is NOT the Abercrombie and Fitch look! DEAL WITH IT!

Tweet This Post

If things were progessing as fast as the left would like, we would be staring down a vote right now.  As usual, the proposed legislation isn’t “radical” enough for the left, so things are getting gummed up in the Congress.  That’s a GOOD thing.  Still, this bears watching.

From the Foundry at Heritage Foundation:

The FCC’s plans for regulating the Internet through “neutrality” regulation—once considered on a fast track—was sidetracked once again yesterday as the agency announced a new round of public comments on possible regulation. It is one more twist in the drama that net neutrality has become, at least for those who see administrative procedure as exciting.

It’s a welcome twist, affording an opportunity to more fully consider some key dangers of regulation. At the same time, the delay underscores the difficulty that regulation supporters face in putting together a plan for controlling the Internet.

The agency had been expected to act this month to reclassify broadband Internet service as a “telecommunications” service, allowing it to regulate the industry. But that was before Google and Verizon—arguably the leading industry supporter and opponent, respectively, of neutrality—announced a compromise plan. The plan would allow for some regulation of Internet service providers but specifically exempt wireless service and “managed” services (such as Internet-based video services and phone services) from the rules.

The plan actually looked a lot like the FCC’s original outline for regulation. Nevertheless, the proposal was attacked by many hard-core supporters of regulation, such as Free Press and MoveOn.org, for not going far enough. In their view, Google had sold out. “Google is evil” (mocking Google’s corporate motto “Don’t be evil”) became a mantra, repeated by these groups and on left-wing blogs throughout the cybersphere.

Faced with this growing civil war between Google and its former allies in the pro-regulation camp, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski had little choice but to step back.

This does not mean Genachowski is giving up on regulation (despite scattered reports to the contrary). The specific questions to be addressed in the new round of comments—whether to impose mandates on highly competitive wireless industry and on investment-intensive managed services—are of course important. But they concern only how far regulation should go, not whether it should go. A market-based approach, apparently, is still not an option.

But the delay does underscore the problem faced by the chairman in getting the rules adopted. With the hard left insisting on an extreme version of regulation, it will be difficult for Genachowski to assemble a winning coalition for any regulatory plan. The end result may be no new regulation at all.

That’s a policy failure we could live with.

EWeek says the decision could be pushed back to November…watch the lame ducks.

Tweet This Post

By Abraxas

Folks, I just got a letter today from Aetna.  My medical insurance is jumping up 20% in October.  This is outrageous because I cost them nothing – to the contrary, I make money for them.  Despite paying several hundred dollars a month in premiums, I seldom use my benefits.  Indeed, this year I have had only two office visits, that’s it.  No injuries, no medicine, no nothing – and I am in excellent health.  And yet my insurance is jumping 20%. 

The ‘reason’ given by Aetna is that medical costs have risen in California.  They immediately added that I might try for a lower rate by taking a higher deductible, etc.  But in the very next sentence, they warned me that this might not be such a good idea.  I now quote Aetna’s letter.

“If you decide to switch to one of our lower priced individual plans you will lose your “grandfathered’ status.  This means your new plan will be subject to all changes in the recently passed health care reform act.  These changes may expand your current benefits, which could add to your premium costs now and in the future.” 

In other words, I’m screwed.  If I stay in, I’m hit by high rates.  If I gamble and go out, I’m conceivably hit by even higher ones.

Lord, I’m furious.  I am absolutely furious. 

Has any of this happened to any of you?

Tweet This Post

Sheriff Lee Baca

Proposition 19 on California’s November ballot will legalize marijuana use, distribution and production in the state if approved.

While it is being touted by many state lawmakers as a way to “save” California’s budget deficit by taxing the plant at all stages,  there is a concern from the California Chamber of Commerce that the new law will hamstring employers and create a whole new area of liability legislation.  This is because the new law would create a new “protected class” of employees.   Smoking marijuana at work would be legal under the law, and accidents which might occur involving “stoned” workers would have to be proven to be caused by impairment due to pot use.  (see previous story on UNCOVERAGE.net)

Though polls in recent months have shown Proposition 19 is popular with California voters, the negative news about the implications of wide-open marijuana laws is building.

Recently, a California organization of addiction clinic doctors spoke out against the law, as did the police chief of San Mateo.  (see here) 

One of the arguments made by those in favor of legalization is that it will take the “criminality” and drug cartels out of the loop of the drug business in California.

Recent events in southern California show that the partial legalization of pot, for medicinal use, have INCREASED the activity of drug gangs and violence.

Los Angeles Times:

Sheriff Baca says state’s medical marijuana program has been hijacked by criminals, citing triple slaying

September 1, 2010 

Sheriff Lee Baca said Wednesday that the recent triple murder in West Hollywood during an illegal sale of medical marijuana is another example of how the industry has been taken over in part by enterprising criminals.

“The medicinal marijuana program that voters authorized years ago has been hijacked by underground drug dealing criminals who are resorting to violence in order to control their piece of the action,” Baca said.

He said the criminal element has flooded the business because of the outrageous profits to be made. “There are predators armed and seeking easy dollars in sales of marijuana,” Baca said.

Baca said his detectives have found marijuana collectives buying from cartel sources and selling to people in large amounts. In the triple slaying case, two of the dead men did business with at least four dispensaries.

A man charged Wednesday with capital murder in the slayings confessed to the crime during an interview with detectives, investigators said.

Harold Yong Park, 31, told investigators he previously bought and sold marijuana from two of the men and that a dispute erupted when he came to the West Hollywood apartment Thursday evening, where the victims were shot to death.

Sheriff Lt. Pat Nelson said Pirooz Moussazadeh and Bernard Khalili had bought high-grade medical marijuana from local pot dispensaries — some in L.A. and two in West Hollywood — and then resold it. In this case, Park had stolen 4 to 5 pounds of high-grade hydroponically grown marijuana after killing the trio.

The third man killed, Shahriar Moussazadeh, was not involved in the drug deal and was a man in the wrong place at the wrong time, Nelson said.

He said Park did not bring enough money to the deal to buy the drugs he wanted. But detectives are not certain when he decided to kill the men. Nelson said Park has a prior drug conviction and worked previously for a marijuana collective.

Park is expected to appear in a Beverly Hills court Wednesday on murder, robbery and burglaries charges. He is being held without bail. He was arrested Monday in Lomita after his license plate that had been entered into a wanted car database was spotted using a sheriff’s patrol car with an automatic license plate reader.

Meanwhile, the campaign to defeat Proposition 19 announced Wednesday that Baca and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) will head up the effort to defeat the marijuana legalization measure on the November ballot. 

San Jose Mercury News:

Marijuana dispensaries, also known as collectives, have been linked with a rash of violence in Los Angeles. On June 24, four robbers shot to death an employee and wounded another at Higher Path Collective in Echo Park. A few hours later the owner of another dispensary, Hollywood Holistic, found the body of an employee who had been shot to death.

Tweet This Post

I am honored to be a guest with the great  Patriots Jaz McKay and producer “Puck” 

Thursdays   1:00 p.m.  (PST)

KZNR  1560 AM– Bakersfield

  A live listen/camera  bar comes on at noon (PST) on the left side of this link….

 Click  here to listen live to Jaz McKay show.

Jaz McKay--KNZR Radio Bakersfield, CA

Tweet This Post

Look on the right column of my website for the California deficit clock…it’s still adding an oxygen-sucking $52.3 million per day in interest as the state is now more than 64 days late.

The state of California is more than $20 Billion in debt, more than two months late with a spending plan for the new year and what have  the California state lawmakers been doing?  Are they working around the clock trying to hammer a a new budget?

Why no, last week they were arguing about the declawing of cats and pet licenses.

Yesterday, they were obssessing  neurotically once again about the “dangers” of plastic bags.  One would think millions of porpoises, pelicans and otters must be washing up weekly on California shores with Vonn’s shopping bags tied around their necks.   

Luckily, in Sacramento, a few reasonable minds were able to prevail over the goggle-eyed hysterics.   But how much time, money and effort was wasted on  PLASTIC bags while California’s economy and budget are on life support?

California lawmakers have rejected a bill seeking to ban plastic shopping bags after a contentious debate over whether the state was going too far in trying to regulate personal choice.

The Democratic bill, which failed late Tuesday, would have been the first statewide ban, although a few California cities already prohibit their use.

The measure offered California an opportunity to emerge at the forefront of a global trend, said Sen. Gil Cedillo, who carried the measure on the Senate floor.

“If we don’t solve this problem today, if we don’t create a statewide standard, if we don’t provide the leadership that is being called for, others will,” the Los Angeles Democrat said during Tuesday evening’s debate.

Discouraging plastic bag use through fees or bans first gained traction outside of the U.S. in nations such as South Africa, Ireland, China and Bangladesh. In January, Washington, D.C., implemented a 5-cent surcharge on disposable paper and plastic bags.

A handful of California cities already ban single-use plastic bags, after San Francisco became the first to do so in 2007.

Palo Alto, Malibu and Fairfax in Marin County have since followed, while a ban approved in Manhattan Beach is tied up in litigation, said Matthew King, a spokesman for Heal the Bay, the Santa Monica-based nonprofit that sponsored AB1998.

Supporters of the bill said the 19 billion plastic bags state residents use every year harm the environment and cost the state $25 million annually to collect and transport to landfills. It had been the subject of a furious lobbying campaign by the plastic bag manufacturing industry, which called it a job killer.

The bill’s author, Democratic Assemblywoman Julia Brownley of Santa Monica, said lawmakers had failed Californians by defeating the measure. But she said the movement to ban plastic bags would continue despite the setback.

“It’s not a matter of if, but a matter of when consumers bring their own bags and become good stewards of the environment,” Brownley said in a statement early Wednesday morning.

The bill, AB1998, called for the ban to take effect in supermarkets and large retail stores in 2012. It would have applied to smaller stores in 2013.

Republicans and some Democrats opposed it, saying it would add an extra burden on consumers and businesses at a time when many already are struggling financially.

“If we pass this piece of legislation, we will be sending a message to the people of California that we care more about banning plastic bags than helping them put food on their table,” said Sen. Mimi Walters, R-Lake Forest.

Besides the fact that there is 12.3% unemployment in the state, bleeding red ink and jobs and companies fleeing California on a weekly basis, the hysteria over plastic bags killing marine animals is MORE JUNK SCIENCE.

Campaigners say that plastic bags pollute coastlines and waterways, killing or injuring birds and livestock on land and, in the oceans, destroying vast numbers of seabirds, seals, turtles and whales. However, the Times has established that there is no scientific evidence to show that the bags pose any direct threat to marine mammals.

They “don’t figure” in the majority of cases where animals die from marine debris, said David Laist, the author of a seminal 1997 study on the subject. Most deaths were caused when creatures became caught up in waste produce. “Plastic bags don’t figure in entanglement,” he said. “The main culprits are fishing gear, ropes, lines and strapping bands. Most mammals are too big to get caught up in a plastic bag.”

He added: “The impact of bags on whales, dolphins, porpoises and seals ranges from nil for most species to very minor for perhaps a few species.For birds, plastic bags are not a problem either.”

The central claim of campaigners is that the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals and one million seabirds every year. However, this figure is based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that, between 1981 and 1984, more than 100,000 marine mammals, including birds, were killed by discarded nets. The Canadian study did not mention plastic bags.

Fifteen years later in 2002, when the Australian government commissioned a report into the effects of plastic bags, its authors misquoted the Newfoundland study, mistakenly attributing the deaths to “plastic bags.”

The figure was latched on to by conservationists as proof that the bags were killers. For four years the “typo” remained uncorrected. It was only in 2006 that the authors altered the report, replacing “plastic bags” with “plastic debris”. But they admitted: “The actual numbers of animals killed annually by plastic bag litter is nearly impossible to determine.”

In a postscript to the correction they admitted that the original Canadian study had referred to fishing tackle, not plastic debris, as the threat to the marine environment.

Regardless, the erroneous claim has become the keystone of a widening campaign to demonise plastic bags.

Also, the COST of making paper bags out of trees is much higher than the cost of making plastic bags, paper takes just as long as plastic to decompose in landfills,

Issue 1: Energy and natural resources

It takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag as it does to manufacture a plastic bag.

ENERGY TO PRODUCE BAG ORIGINALLY (BTUs)

Safeway Plastic Bags: 594 BTUs

Safeway Paper Bags: 2511 BTUs

Source: 1989 Plastic Recycling Directory, Society of Plastics Industry.

Of course, most paper comes from tree pulp, so the impact of paper bag production on forests is enormous.In 1999, 14 million trees were cut to produce the 10 billion paper grocery bags used by Americans that year alone. Paper bag production delivers a global warming double-whammy forests (major absorbers of greenhouse gases) have to be cut down, and then the subsequent manufacturing of bags produces greenhouse gases.

Issue 2: Pollution

The majority of kraft paper is made by heating wood chips under pressure at high temperatures in a chemical solution. As evidenced by the unmistakable stench commonly associated with paper mills, the use of these toxic chemicals contributes to both air pollution, such as acid rain, and water pollution. Millions of gallons of these chemicals pour into our waterways each year; the toxicity of the chemicals is long-term and settles into the sediments, working its way through the food chain. Further toxicity is generated as both plastic and paper bags degrade.

POLLUTANTS PAPER V.S. PLASTIC

Paper sacks generate 70% more air and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags.

Source: “Comparison of the Effects on the Environment of Polyethylene and Paper Carrier Bags,” Federal Office of the Environment, August 1988

Issue 3: Recycling

It takes 91% less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than it takes to recycle a pound of paper. But recycling rates of either type of disposable bag are extremely low, with only 10 to 15% of paper bags and 1 to 3% of plastic bags being recycled, according to the Wall Street Journal.

ENERGY TO RECYCLE PACKAGE ONCE (BTUs)

Safeway Plastic Bags: 17 BTUs

Safeway Paper Bags: 1444 BTUs

Source: 1989 Plastic Recycling Directory, Society of Plastics Industry.

Although paper bags have a higher recycling rate than plastic, each new paper grocery bag you use is made from mostly virgin pulp for better strength and elasticity.

Issue 4: Degradability

Current research demonstrates that paper in today’s landfills does not degrade or break down at a substantially faster rate than plastic does. In fact, nothing completely degrades in modern landfills because of the lack of water, light, oxygen and other important elements that are necessary for the degradation process to be completed. A paper bags takes up more space than a plastic bag in a landfill, but because paper is recycled at a higher rate, saving space in landfills is less of an issue.

At the end of the day using reusable shopping bags is the real answer!

Or let’s bag up those lawmakers TO GO!!!!

Tweet This Post