October 23, 2006

NixGuy Uncovers the Strickland Dealbreakers (and They Aren’t What You Think)

This post will stay at or near the top for the rest of Monday.

____________________________________

NixGuy has been doing yeoman work on all things Strickland in the past two weeks, including today’s call for resignation based on consistency with the “Foley standard.” Ted could easily negate the validity of NixGuy’s call by renouncing the tactics orchestrated by his party, but he won’t.

But all of this doesn’t matter any more. That’s because NixGuy has, perhaps inadvertently, uncovered an official BizzyBlog Dealbreaker for Ted Strickland (and it’s not what you think). And there’s another that necessarily goes with it.

As a reminder, a BizzyBlog Dealbreaker is “something that completely justifies a person not voting for you, regardless of your party or your stands on the issues.”

Once any Dealbreaker is in place, discussion of where the candidate involved stands on “the issues” is over. The candidate is unacceptable by the standards of any reasonable voter, PERIOD. The choices are then limited to those candidates who remain.

I’ll have the details on the Dealbreakers Tuesday or Wednesday. Stay tuned.

___________________________________

UPDATE: Past Dealbreakers involving other candidates include the following –

- Before the Dealbreaker name was officially coined, these situations qualified under Dealbreaker standards:

- Official Dealbreakers of the current campaign season

  • Sherrod Brown Dealbreaker #1 — No-show Sherrod’s absence from roll call votes and key committee and subcommittee hearings.
  • Sherrod Brown Dealbreaker #2 — Late payment of taxes (19 months), and then only under legal threat (UPDATE: Brown can’t even remember the taxes he’s pushed on us, so “of course” he won’t remember the taxes he owes).
  • Ted Strickland Dealbreaker #1 — ??? (completed October 25) Voter Deception over where he has been living
  • Ted Strickland Dealbreaker #2 — ??? (completed October 25) Financially Shortchanging His District by not living inside it

Kirsten Powers’ Condition Met

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:04 pm

At her blog last week, the sensible liberal siren had this to say about the Strickland hiring:

If it is true that Strickland knew about these offenses — and this needs to be confirmed — and didn’t a) fire him and b) disassociate himself from this person, then the Republicans have a legitimate issue, especially in light of the criticism Hastert has received for his lack of oversight on Foley (criticism I have made myself).

Condition — met:

The smoking gun in the case against Ted Strickland are the police reports he was provided in 1998 documenting that his then-campaign manager was guilty of sexual misconduct in the presence of minors.

Specifically:

I have now thoroughly documented that at the end of the 1998 campaign, Strickland was sent police reports that documented 1994 criminal offenses in which his ’98 campaign manager had committed sexual violations in the presence minors.

And this:

I have independently confirmed that Strickland was presented with at least the Washington County arrest records in the final phase of the 1998 campaign.

The Kirsten Powers’ Conclusion: Issue — legitimate.

____________________________________

UPDATE: My “sense of the Alliance” is that there should be a subsection (c) added to Article III, Section B, Paragraph (2) of the State of Ohio Blogger Alliance’s Supersecret Charter that reads: “Any post containing a reference to Kirsten Powers shall be required to have a suitable and current photograph of Ms. Powers on display.”

Accordingly, because, and ONLY because of the overwhelming sentiment I am sure I will find in favor of having the additional language added, I am hereby required to display the following (for compliance purposes only, of course):

Powers102306

I Knew the Markets Had a Very Good Day

Filed under: Business Moves,Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 4:34 pm

….. when I received this tersely worded CNN e-mail alert, in its entirety:

Dow closes at record high.

Yeah, I guess (link and text was replaced with market closing info when I found it; oops, the second round read like a close but it must have been a minute or two before; THIS one’s got the real closing numbers  — zheesh):

The Dow Jones industrial average climbed 114.54 points, or 0.95 percent, to end at 12,116.91, a record high. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index added 8.42 points, or 0.62 percent, to finish at 1,377.02. The Nasdaq Composite Index advanced 13.26 points, or 0.57 percent, to close at 2,355.56.

It must have really hurt that e-mailer to type that.

Now I’m waiting for someone to say that the markets are fired up because investors think control of Congress will change hands. Perhaps it’s really because investors are either starting to believe that control really won’t change, or as Jim Cramer has said recently, that it doesn’t really matter.

Confirming the Obvious: BBC Admits Pervasive Bias. Article Commenters Have Solution.

The story from Saturday’s Daily Mail is a definite hard-drive saver, because the BBC will say they’ve cleaned up their act and start denying their bias again a few months from now (link is to the story with comments, so scroll UP for story; HT Michelle Malkin). Go to the link for the whole thing, as I am excerpting just a few paragraphs:

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an ‘impartiality summit’ called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

….. One veteran BBC executive said: ‘There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

‘Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture, that it is very hard to change it.’

In case you didn’t know, TV owners in Britain are required to pay a “license fee” (fiercely enforced) that largely funds the Beeb:

The 2006/2007 colour TV licence costs £10.96 per month (about $21 — Ed.) – about 36p per day for each household. It is free if you are over 75, half-price if you are registered blind.

The annual cost (set by the Government) is currently £131.50 (about $248). A black and white TV licence is £44 (about $83). There is no radio licence. There are regulations governing the licensing of second homes, residential homes, hotels, students or special situations.

A British household with multiple TVs will often (looks like “usually” or even “almost always” but I’m being careful) pay more for just the Beeb than an American household pays for 50 or more channels of basic cable or satellite TV.

Certain commenters at the Daily Mail link know what’s at the root of the Beeb’s bias problem, and have a way to “change it” — quickly (comments are not presented in the same order they appeared):

And with this kind of policy the BBC still demands us to pay for their lifestyle
- T B Hopper, Newcastle

Well shock horror what a surprise but do they care? No, because everyone is forced to fund them no matter what.
– John, Salford

Is there a way I can stop paying my TV licence if I stop watching BBC Channels?
- David Jones, cheshire uk

And I’m biased, I don’t want to pay the BBC a licence fee because I don’t watch it.
- Kim, Hampshire UK

Why are we forced to pay the so called TV licence?! I, for once, would not shed a tear, if BBC will kick the bucket.
- Elena, Bedford

What on earth do you expect from the BLAIR BROADCASTING CORPORATION???Scrap the licence and MAKE them compete in the real world!!
- Mr Ca Galloway, Stockport

Our own 527 Media has shown that being subject to the strictures of the “real world” won’t get rid of bias overnight. But as we’ve seen in recent years, there is eventually a price to pay for going too far, and business owners are willing to pay the price for only so long.

Next up: Privatize NPR.

Quote of the Day: SOB Alliance Member Return of the Conservatives

Filed under: MSM Biz/Other Bias,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:46 am

In reaction to House Member Duncan Hunter’s request to have any embedded CNN reporters removed:

CNN won’t show the WTC towers being hit by terrorists, but they are delighted to show terrorists killing American soldiers in Iraq.

The Latest of 57 Reasons to Reject the Ohio Learn & Earn Initiative (102306)

Filed under: News from Other Sites,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:05 am

From Jill at Writes Like She Talks (original entry relating to Jill’s effort is here) –

  • Reason 19 — “Because the threshold of acceptable behavior in Ohio doesn’t need to sink any lower than it already has ….. Bringing a slots and casino culture here will sink it lower – and who thought that that was possible?”
  • Reason 18 — “Because it fails technically as a constitutional amendment.”

What’s interesting about this very good reason (which is being explained in a series of posts by Jill, starting with this one) is that the Toledo Blade didn’t even get to it in the course of its editorial opposing Issue 3 until near the end. Meanwhile, the constitutional objection is THE only reason the Blade (surprising a lot of people, including me, until I understood their reasoning) is opposing Issue 2, which is all about that liberal article of faith known as an increase in the minimum wage.

Why is the Blade against Issue 2 going into the Constitution?

A persuasive case can be made for increasing the minimum wage, which has plunged to its lowest value in terms of purchasing power since 1955. But any such change should be made by the General Assembly in statutory law, not by inscribing it in an already cluttered and overstuffed state constitution.

….. This is the kind of detail that normally would be included in a statute or in rules promulgated by the legislature to carry out a statute but which we believe does not belong in the constitution. The constitution should be reserved for general principles of state policy, not the minutiae of enacting the policy.

Exactly.

This is indeed a powerful reason, and is in and of itself enough to justify an automatic “no” on Issue 2, even if you are a passionate believer in the minimum wage (which this writer, in case anyone is actually wondering, is not).

Now let’s get back to Issue 3. I count these as the reasons why the Blade opposes the measure in its editorial, in order of appearance:

  1. Issue 3 is primarily about legalized gambling, though it’s not being sold as such.
  2. Social costs of legalized gambling.
  3. TV ads never even mention gambling.
  4. Will be limited to the top 5% of graduating classes for 12 years until fully funded.
  5. Constitution clutter.

The Blade must consider the first four reasons listed even more powerful than the no-brainer constitutional argument it used as its sole justification to oppose Issue 2.

How many good reasons does anyone need?

UPDATE ON REASON 18: The Plain Dealer opposes Issue 2 because it micromanages Ohio’s constitution, but supports Issue 3 pass even though it does even more of that. Horse manure. Schizophrenic horse manure.

  • Reason 17 — “Because, if the people who paid for the proposed amendment language actually sought to have that language accomplish what they’ve been telling the public it does accomplish (improve affordability to a higher education in Ohio for residents of Ohio), then three mandatory conditions would have been included, WITHOUT hesitation.”

Per Jill:

BEFORE A SINGLE SLOT MACHINE was even contracted for:
1. The Gaming Integrity Commission would be in existence and functioning;
2. The General Assembly would have to legislate and the governor would have to sign into law all the laws required to administer the education grants etc.; and
3. The Board of Regents would have to either give access to or provide notice to every citizen eligible for those funds.

NY Times Public Editor Brian Calame Says “Sorry about SWIFT”

I can’t be the only person thinking that this “apology” is a tactic to keep the Feds at bay (link may require free registration).

And talk about needing the world’s smallest violin:

I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press …..

What an unbearable crock.

Question for 2008

Filed under: Scams,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 8:01 am

Is this country ready for four or eight years of this?

Lie, Lady, Lie

Well, I have news, not necessarily of the good variety. The Second Coming will happen in 2008. Yes, Hillary is running for President. How do I know for sure? Simple. The lying about lying has begun, and that is a surefire sign that the Clintons are back in business. Everyone in politics lies, but only the Clintons have perfected the art of lying about their lies.

The proof is in the putting out of an old fire and a new story. Hillary, it turns out, was not really named for Sir Edmund Hillary. But, her office assures us, she thought she was. It was her mother that lied to her about it. Yes, folks, she threw her mother under the bus. Except that she adds a word of understanding, a sense that her mother had good intentions. Why, that wonderful Hillary! She forgives her lying sack of an old lady. Ya gotta love it! The carnival is back in town: it’s Clinton Time!

Here is the synopsis, to bring our latecomers up to snuff. Back in 1995, the then-First Lady was visiting New Zealand and met the great adventurer, Sir Edmund Hillary, then 75 years old. Naturally, her true excitement expressed itself in a lie: she told him that her mother had named her after Sir Edmund, in admiration for his scaling Mount Everest. It did not take long for researchers to discover that Hillary Rodham was born in 1947 while Sir Edmund did not make it up the hill until 1953. This quickly became a synecdoche for all her other fabrications, obfuscations and tergiversations. How big a liar do you have to be to lie about your own name?

The year or so of campaigning will be sheer torture enough.

Obama the Chama Should be Cause for Alama

(in case it’s not clear) Barack Obama the Charmer Should Be Cause for Alarm

The worked-up, temporarily and justifiably R-rated Porkopolis has the details on Obama’s stunning ignorance of what is in the recently passed Military Commissions Act, which Obama voted against. Cynical. Political. Opportunist.

The fact that 2-year senator Obama is treated like a rock star and given presumptive serious-presidential-candidate status by the 527 Media is an indicator of just how thin the Democratic Party’s bench is after Hillary, Kerry, and Gore (oh my).

_________________________________

UPDATE: Since Obama himself is talking about a 2008 run, let me say this — He knows he has no chance, but if he runs, it will be for one reason: to become Hillary’s Vice President. Write, it, down.

Also, not that anyone seems to care about these things any more, but it should be noted for the record that Obama promised Illinois that he would serve his entire Senate term until 2010:

Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged Sunday he was considering a run for president in 2008, backing off previous statements that he would not do so.

The Illinois Democrat said he could no longer stand by the statements he made after his 2004 election and earlier this year that he would serve a full six-year term in Congress. He said he would not make a decision until after the Nov. 7 elections.

Earth to AP: It was a PROMISE, not a “statement.” I may have to open up my blog to R-Rated language if this keeps up.

UPDATE 2: Rush calls the media fawning over Obama an “O-basm.” Too, funny.

NBC (Put a Check by Your Answer) ____ Caves ____ Comes to Its Senses

Filed under: Business Moves,Consumer Outrage — Tom @ 7:51 am

Madonna’s mock crucifixion won’t be shown:

Concert footage of Madonna suspended from a giant cross is to be cut from a US television broadcast.
NBC said the mock crucifixion, staged during the song Live to Tell on the star’s recent Confessions tour, would be cut from next month’s transmission.

US and European church groups have condemned the mock crucifixion.

Don Wildmon and his American Family Association are, understandably, claiming victory.

The fact that NBC is in a serious enough financial situation that it felt the need to lay off 700 employees must have also contributed to the network deciding against pushing the envelope this one time.

Positivity: CFL Lights

Filed under: Marvels,Money Tip of the Day,Positivity — Tom @ 6:03 am

This is a combined Positivity, Marvel, Money-Saving Tip post, about dramatic energy savings. This excerpt is probably less than 20% of a long article on topic that you ought to consider reading:

How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change the World? One.

….. The product is the compact fluorescent lightbulb, a quirky-looking twist of frosted glass.

In the energy business, it is called a “CFL,” or an “energy saver.” One scientist calls it an “ice-cream-cone spiral,” because in its most-advanced, most-appealing version, it looks like nothing so much as a cone of swirled soft-serve ice cream.

Most people have some experience with swirl bulbs, but typically it hasn’t been happy. In the early 1990s, you would step into a room in a business traveler’s hotel, flip on the lights by the door and between the beds, turn on the desk lamp and the floor lamp, then stand in the gloom looking around and thinking, “There must be another switch somewhere that actually turns on the light.” Every one of the bulbs flickering to life was a compact fluorescent–and five of them together didn’t provide enough light to read the card listing the lineup of cable-TV channels.

For two decades, CFLs lacked precisely what we expect from lightbulbs: strong, unwavering light; quiet; not to mention shapes that actually fit in the places we use bulbs. Now every one of those problems has been conquered. The bulbs come on quickly; their light is bright, white, steady, and silent; and the old U-shaped tubes–they looked like bulbs from a World War II submarine–have mostly been replaced by the swirl. Since 1985, CFLs have changed as much as cell phones and portable music players.

One thing hasn’t changed: the energy savings. Compact fluorescents emit the same light as classic incandescents but use 75% or 80% less electricity.

What that means is that if every one of 110 million American households bought just one ice-cream-cone bulb, took it home, and screwed it in the place of an ordinary 60-watt bulb, the energy saved would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people. One bulb swapped out, enough electricity saved to power all the homes in Delaware and Rhode Island. In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads.

That’s the law of large numbers–a small action, multiplied by 110 million.

The single greatest source of greenhouse gases in the United States is power plants–half our electricity comes from coal plants. One bulb swapped out: enough electricity saved to turn off two entire power plants–or skip building the next two.

….. Swirl bulbs don’t just work, they pay for themselves. They use so little power compared with old reliable bulbs, a $3 swirl pays for itself in lower electric bills in about five months. Screw one in, turn it on, and it’s not just lighting your living room, it’s dropping quarters in your pocket. The advantages pile up in a way to almost make one giddy. Compact fluorescents, even in heavy use, last 5, 7, 10 years. Years. Install one on your 30th birthday; it may be around to help illuminate your 40th.

In an era when political leaders and companies are too fainthearted to ask Americans to sacrifice anything for the greater good, the modern ice-cream swirl bulb requires no sacrifice. Buying and using it helps save the world–and also saves the customer money–with no compromise on quality. Selflessness and self-satisfaction, twirled into a single $3 purchase.

So far, the impact of compact fluorescents has been trivial, for a simple reason: We haven’t bought them. In our outdated experience, they don’t work well and they cost too much. Last year, U.S. consumers spent about $1 billion to buy about 2 billion lightbulbs–5.5 million every day. Just 5%, 100 million, were compact fluorescents. First introduced on March 28, 1980, swirls remain a niche product, more curiosity than revolution.

But that’s about to change. It will change before our very eyes. A year from now, chances are that you yourself will have installed a swirl or two, and will likely be quite happy with them. In the name of conservation and good corporate citizenship, not to mention economics, one unlikely company is about haul us to the lightbulb aisle, reeducate us, and sell us a swirl: Wal-Mart.

In the next 12 months, starting with a major push this month, Wal-Mart wants to sell every one of its regular customers–100 million in all–one swirl bulb. In the process, Wal-Mart wants to change energy consumption in the United States, and energy consciousness, too.