Showing posts with label my report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label my report. Show all posts

Friday, September 3, 2010

Daily schedules for our politicians

Each weekday (and weekend day when they've got something scheduled) I share here the schedules for the President, Vice President and SoS Clinton and her staff.

Frankly, I find the schedule for SoS Clinton's staff extremely interesting, all those diplomatic missions to various countries, on various topics...

I've also gathered the schedules together in pamphlets, which I've published on the Kindle. All of the info is public domain and available at their websites, but I've put them all together in one book for ease of use.

They are:
Your Government in Action: July 2010 (Miniscule Guides)
Your Government in Action: August 2010 (Miniscule Guides)

and I charge 99 cents each for the effort of putting 'em all together.

Starting with September, I'll also be including the Sec of Defense as well (though I won't be sharing those schedules here, at the Rush Limbaugh report, because I think I've already got more than enough schedules shared here!)

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Screencaps of Selected Government Websites, Sept 1, 2010

Just to have a record of what they look like now, on Sept 1, 2010.

The White House Open Government website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

This header is used for the schedules of the President and Vice President, biographies of the various Congressmen and Senators, and so on.

President Obama's website:


Department of Education (also no stars and stripes or anything to say, this is the USA)



Department of Transportation


Department of energy



Dept of Veteran Affairs

The US - 200 Years From Now...

It took Europe 6000 or so years before they were united in a single body as the European Economic Union or EEU. Now the US is being drawn into the net.

Elaina Kagan, during her confirmation hearings, was asked if she would draw on decisions made in other countries in order to make decisions on US cases, and her answer, shorn of the obfuscation that seemingly all academics and politicians like to use, was "yes."

And, of course, President Obama has now joined the UN's Council on Human Rights and agreed that the US, the bastion of freedom and civilization in the world, is violating human rights. Oh, yes, there are isolated incidents, which, because of our tremendous population, does add up to quite a few people - who are victims of police ineptitude or desire to close cases by grabbing the nearest convenient guy or gal whom its easy to convict - but overall it is the US that is the bastion of freedom in this country. Our laws say that everyone is to be treated fairly, it is only human frailty that dictates otherwise in certain cases.

But what is coming for us? First it will be a pan-North American and Central American government. Even now we're not allowed to protect our sovereignty from Mexico, and the Mexican government actually sued a United States state, Arizona, because of its anti-ILLEGAL immigration policy, and was joined in by the President. Is there any doubt that open borders will be our future fifty years from now?

Isaac Asimov, a Democrat as well as a science fiction author and science fact prosletyzer, predicted years ago that the only "sensible" government for the planet was a one-world government, and we're certainly headed in that direction.

Will US politicians be at the top of the heap of this one world government, though, or will it be the folks from the European Union... or will it be those from the new economic engine of the world, China, and the growing religious powerhouse, Islam?

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama

The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama

This is a very interesting article, in the latest online issue of The New Yorker. It's 17 pages in length, I'll only share the first two paragraphs. Bite the bullet and visit the complete article on yor Kindle. (Or go to the New Yorker on the web and search it out.)

Really, reading this and what the billionaire Koch brothers are doing to further their own agenda, does make you think. Not so much perhaps on whether or not Obama and the Dem's ideas are good ideas, but just how much power wealthy people have in this country to further their own interests....as we saw with the Wall Street bailouts. ; )

I share page 1 of 10 only. Follow the link to read the complete article:

n May 17th, a black-tie audience at the Metropolitan Opera House applauded as a tall, jovial-looking billionaire took the stage. It was the seventieth annual spring gala of American Ballet Theatre, and David H. Koch was being celebrated for his generosity as a member of the board of trustees; he had recently donated $2.5 million toward the company’s upcoming season, and had given many millions before that. Koch received an award while flanked by two of the gala’s co-chairs, Blaine Trump, in a peach-colored gown, and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, in emerald green. Kennedy’s mother, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, had been a patron of the ballet and, coincidentally, the previous owner of a Fifth Avenue apartment that Koch had bought, in 1995, and then sold, eleven years later, for thirty-two million dollars, having found it too small.

The gala marked the social ascent of Koch, who, at the age of seventy, has become one of the city’s most prominent philanthropists. In 2008, he donated a hundred million dollars to modernize Lincoln Center’s New York State Theatre building, which now bears his name. He has given twenty million to the American Museum of Natural History, whose dinosaur wing is named for him. This spring, after noticing the decrepit state of the fountains outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Koch pledged at least ten million dollars for their renovation. He is a trustee of the museum, perhaps the most coveted social prize in the city, and serves on the board of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, where, after he donated more than forty million dollars, an endowed chair and a research center were named for him.

One dignitary was conspicuously absent from the gala: the event’s third honorary co-chair, Michelle Obama. Her office said that a scheduling conflict had prevented her from attending. Yet had the First Lady shared the stage with Koch it might have created an awkward tableau. In Washington, Koch is best known as part of a family that has repeatedly funded stealth attacks on the federal government, and on the Obama Administration in particular.

With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country, after Cargill, and its consistent profitability has made David and Charles Koch—who, years ago, bought out two other brothers—among the richest men in America. Their combined fortune of thirty-five billion dollars is exceeded only by those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.


•from the issue
•cartoon bank
•e-mail this
The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.

In a statement, Koch Industries said that the Greenpeace report “distorts the environmental record of our companies.” And David Koch, in a recent, admiring article about him in New York, protested that the “radical press” had turned his family into “whipping boys,” and had exaggerated its influence on American politics. But Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said, “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”

A few weeks after the Lincoln Center gala, the advocacy wing of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation—an organization that David Koch started, in 2004—held a different kind of gathering. Over the July 4th weekend, a summit called Texas Defending the American Dream took place in a chilly hotel ballroom in Austin. Though Koch freely promotes his philanthropic ventures, he did not attend the summit, and his name was not in evidence. And on this occasion the audience was roused not by a dance performance but by a series of speakers denouncing President Barack Obama. Peggy Venable, the organizer of the summit, warned that Administration officials “have a socialist vision for this country.”

Five hundred people attended the summit, which served, in part, as a training session for Tea Party activists in Texas. An advertisement cast the event as a populist uprising against vested corporate power. “Today, the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests,” it said. “But you can do something about it.” The pitch made no mention of its corporate funders. The White House has expressed frustration that such sponsors have largely eluded public notice. David Axelrod, Obama’s senior adviser, said, “What they don’t say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens’ movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires.”

The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama

Friday, August 27, 2010

Do you consider Social Security to be Welfare?

I was curious to see what percentage of whites, as opposed to blacks, were on welfare. (Bearing in mind that in the US, 12% of the population is black (as of 1990.)

Found an article from BNet.com that addressed the issue. But I have some issues with it.

It's all in semantics. As far as I'm considered, Social Security, which is admittedly a bankrupt system, isn't welfare, because people who work their entire lives pay into it, and get out of it what they pay into it.

Yet the authors of the article at BNet.com mix Social Security payments into their Welfare payments to come up with the following statitistics:

Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.

The federal government defines welfare as all entitlement programs funded through taxes. These programs, listed as "direct benefit payments for individuals" by the Office of Management and Budget, make up $730 billion or 43 percent of the $1.47 trillion the government will spend this fiscal year.


(I'd like to know why the "latest figures available" are from 1990! Wasn't there a census in 2000?)

And:

Social Security is the nation's largest welfare program, although many Whites prefer to call it a retirement plan. The government writes retirement and disability benefit checks to 35.4 million recipients of whom 88.7 percent are White and 9.6 percent are Black.

Source: Who gets welfare? Despite prevailing stereotype, whites, not blacks, collect greatest share of public aid dollars

So knock those numbers out of the mix, and what does it add up to?

However, also from this article, regarding 1990 numbers:

Among the poorest of the poor--single mothers, living below the poverty line with minor children to support 39.7 percent of AFDC clients are Black single mothers and 38.1 percent are White women with children. Food stamp recipients are 37.2 percent Black and 46.2 percent White. Medicaid benefits are paid to 27.5 percent Black recipients compared to 48.5 percent White clients.


What percentage are Latinos, I wonder?

In any event, whatever misconceptiosn one may have about what races are getting the most out of welfare, the fact remains that too many people are on welfare, and are thus a drag on taxpayers. The question is, how to get them off?

Especially today, when the economy is in the tank?

Bearing in mind that once you start giving out "entitlements" people -across the spectrum of races- will never want to give them up.

Perhaps the only thing to be done is demand that all politicians are paid only $100,000 a year, and can't vote themselves raises, and have to pay to do all their own campaigning, and so on. Stop taking that chunk of money out of what we give to taxes, and who knows how much could be saved? (In addition, if there's even a sniff of an improper payment or some impropriety, the politician gets fired, gets no pension, and cant' use tax-funded lawyers for his or her defense! If it were their own dime on the hook, maybe they'd be a bit more honest in their dealings.

Urbanski = fail

I only listened to the first 10 minutes or so, and the last ten minutes or so, of Urbanski on Rush today, and I have to say he really got on my nerves. It "blame Obama, blame Obama" every single second.

At least Rush leavens his program with comments about other Democrats as well, but it seems like, admittedly the short bit I listened to, that Urbanski was dumping on Obama the whole time.

And it is getting tiring.

Let us not forget that everything Obama is doing, he is doing with the support of fellow Democrats.

Let us not forget that the Democrats could not have their Super-Majority, and Obama could not have been elected, if Repuublicans had been doing their job properly to begin with.

That means not only doing their best to stop out of control spending, insulating a culture of incompetence, and so on, but also educating the American people about what they're doing.

Blacks think Democrats will treat them better then Republicans will. Whose fault is that? Rush constantly brings up the past, where it was Democrats who fought against integation and so on. That was then, this is now. What are Republicans doing now to get blacks to stop looking to government and start standing on their own two feet?

And what can we do to get everybody working together to accept the American way of life, which at one point consisted of a culture of self-reliance and competence, a way of life that our government has let slip away into the growing nanny state that we have today.

Rush is doing his best to spread education (for the most part, anyway), but Urbanski, at least, just seemed to be on a one-note diatribe.

Why the schedules?

For the last several weeks I've been providing the daily schedules for the President, VP, Secretary of State (and occassionally her staff) and had hoped to expand into the Secretary of Defense and the DoJ's schedules.

I know those are a lot of posts to wade through in one day, but I think it's important for us to know what our elected officials are doing.

Well, what are they doing? Obama has obviously been on vacation for the last week (although of course he did interrupt it for a conference call two days ago) but what have Biden and Clinton been doing? Not much as far as I can see. Are they having secret meetings somewhere, or just not doing anything?

As I blogged about yesterday, I'm surprised at the dearth of info at the Secretary of State's website schedule. She's got lots of undersecretaries and ambassadors and for a while we were apprised of their movements, as well,which I thought were pretty interesting, but for the several days we haven't heard what they're doing, either!

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Now Northern Ireland is getting into the act

The headlines for the last several years have been the terrorist attacks my Muslims, but of course Northern Ireland and England had to endure terrorist attacks for decades.

And that's Catholics vs Protestants.

Attacks raise concerns in Northern Ireland

Attacks raise concerns in Northern Ireland
By DANICA KIRKA (AP) – 4 hours ago

LURGAN, Northern Ireland — Bursts of laughter. Young men playing ping pong. Battles of the bands.

In a Northern Ireland determined to put conflict behind it, the Links teen center bridges the divide between Catholic and Protestant teens in this struggling town, giving them something to do, an alternative to streets that offer a toxic mix of drugs and violence. It's working, but like the peace process itself, it is under strain amid looming budget cuts.

"We're just keeping our heads above water," said Martin Larkham, 52, a youth work manager.

Tough times are hitting promising initiatives like Links — and causing unease about the very fate of Northern Ireland's peace deal. As the troubled territory slogs through the worst economic downturn in decades, dissident Irish nationalist militias are getting increasingly restless — carrying out a string of violent acts including a recent bombing that injured three children.

Deep-rooted poverty and continued religious segregation of Irish nationalists and British loyalists are combining with steep budget cuts in London that lead many to fear that the hard work building bridges between Catholics and Protestants could suffer.

"(The dissidents) have gotten better," said Queen's University political science professor Paul Bew of those launching attacks. "There could be bad events just around the corner."

Protestants and Catholics agreed to a power sharing government a dozen years ago, when the major Catholic and Protestant parties forged an unlikely coalition to end violence that claimed 3,600 lives over three decades.

But those opposed to the deal have increased operations since 2007. In March 2009, Irish Republican Army dissidents shot to death two off-duty British soldiers collecting pizzas and a policeman sitting in his car.

Poverty, unemployment and continued religious segregation are fueling a recruiting drive by groups clinging to the dream of getting the British out of Northern Ireland. The dissidents are recruiting, openly it is said, among poor youths who feel the Irish Republican Army sold out for a chance in power.

Even as the violence has increased, the financial support for the peace accord is being threatened by Britain's economic squeeze. Funding from the British government has already been cut by some 393 million pounds ($606 million) for this financial year and Northern Ireland must find additional savings of 128 million pounds ($197 million).

Though authorities are reticent to discuss the threat of increased attacks, funds earmarked to fight al-Qaida terror plots are being diverted to operations meant to quash attacks by dissidents.

During the summer, always a time of unease because marches by Protestant societies celebrating old battles stir up sectarian passions, tensions grew in places like Lurgan, located in an area once known as the "Murder Triangle" because of the violence that marked the region.

The town southwest of Belfast _built largely on linen making — boasts a broad main street, crossed by lanes dotted with old workers' houses and cottages. One of them, Castle Lane, is the dividing line: Roman Catholics to one side, Protestants to the other.

Community workers intentionally placed a youth center right on the line, a spot acceptable to both camps. Featuring a computer room with glistening white Apple desktops and a common room with ping pong and pool tables, the center offers an oasis from the drugs, alcohol and boredom that lure young people into trouble.

Rioting broke out in one of Lurgan's Roman Catholic public housing developments last month, with young men hurling Molotov cocktails. Youths threw Molotov cocktails at a passenger train, but it failed to catch fire. Earlier this month, two 12-year-olds and 2-year-old were hit by flying debris in a bomb apparently timed to go off as emergency crews responded to an earlier alarm.

Lurgan's youth — many of whom were raised on tales of bravado during the Troubles — are ripe pickings for recruiters promising excitement and a larger cause. In a town that offers little more than convenience stores and shops catering to older people, teens say there little of interest to them.

"There's nothing to do," sighs 16-year-old Danielle Fox, who dreams of studying drama. Without the center to channel her abundant energy, Fox says she might "be rioting" herself.

The unemployment rate among young people between the ages of 18 and 24 is nearly 16 percent in Northern Ireland. Students seeking places in higher education and training will find fewer places amid shrinking budgets. Those seeking jobs face competition from older and more qualified workers.

What concerns observers the most about the attacks is the timing: Northern Ireland's manufacturing base has shrunk, its prospects for growth dampened. Many of those out of work have given up hope. Nearly half of the unemployed — 43 percent — have been unemployed for more than a year. At a time when an influx of cash could defuse sectarian overtures, there's no money to be had.

People can't hide their worry. One rainy day this week, Jennifer Maye, 43, who works in customer service, paused in front of a fruit market in the Catholic side of town to express the fears of many — that more violence could be at hand. But she and many others insist that the troublemakers are few.

"I think the majority of people don't want to go back to that," Maye said. "We thought those days were gone."

The dissidents have rarely been successful in killing their targets or causing widespread destruction with car bombs. But their attacks have been gaining in number and complexity, suggesting the bomb operations are gaining in sophistication. Semtex, most likely from a store garnered by the IRA decades ago, was apparently used in a recent attack.

Sinn Fein, the Catholic-backed party that supported the IRA's unsuccessful bid to force Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom, says it's been trying to talk with dissident groups, but has been spurned.

Dissidents say there is no compromise.

"It's inevitable," said Richard Walsh, 28, a hard-liner who once spoke for an IRA splinter group. "It will continue to happen until the British leave."

But experts like Bew are convinced that voters have persuaded politicians to support the peace process. He believes the accord, and the government, is stable for now.

Teenagers and counselors at the Links youth center also can't imagine going back to the way things were before, and they've tried to etch their dream in a mural on the wall of the front hallway.

It shows the Protestant side of Lurgan, and the Catholic side. In between, they've plotted out a sunburst, and pasted their pictures in its glow.

Will All Hate Crime Victims Get to Meet Mayor Bloomberg?

The Muslim American cabbie who was attacked recently, just because he was Muslim, was invited to meet Mayor Bloomberg, and will probably be making the rounds of htre various talk shows soon as well. In the meantime, the attacker is being charged with a hate crime. Well, certainly if the only reason why he attacked the cabbie was because of his religion, it was of unreasoning hatred.

But there's a larger question. If Bloomberg is going to invite all hate crime victims to meet with him, will that include those Christians, or those Jews, that have been attacked by Muslims, just because of their religion?

Or will white or hispanic victims of black hate crimes be invited to visit him to show that hate crimes occur from all races?

We will see.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

SoS Clinton's Schedule - What goes on?

I find it interesting to read the schedule of SoS Clinton and her department, and there's usually a lot going on, with undersecretary's traveling hither and yon on their duties.

For the last couple of days SoS Clinton has had no public schedule...and yet we're not given any info on the rest of her staff, either, which we used to be given.

I wonder why?

I think this happened once before, and as soon as she started her public appoiontments again, the schedule for the rest of her staff started to appear again as well. We'll see if it happens in this case.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Obama on one end of Martha's Vineyard, black intellectuals on the other

I was searching the web today to see if Obama actually had played golf with Skip Gates on Sunday, and came across this article at The Root (a web magazine founded by Gates).

Elite Playlands, Obama Sightings and Serious Discussions
The president and his family vacationed at one end of Martha's Vineyard. Black intellectuals and academics gathered at the opposite end to talk about religion, crime and justice. Two interlocking worlds kept apart on a small island by the common issue of race.

The first black president of the United States and his family hunkered down at one end of a small island, and some of the best and brightest African Americans gathered at the other end: so close, but yet so far away. Maybe it reflects the breadth and range -- and the limitations -- of what it means to be black in America.

On Thursday night last week, several hundred casually -- and often elegantly -- dressed African Americans (with a generous mix of people of other races) crowded into the 170-year-old Old Whaling Church in Edgartown on Martha's Vineyard for a serious discussion. The event was the latest incarnation of an event that has become a summer feature on the resort island seven miles off Massachusetts' Cape Cod.

On the far side of the 67,700-acre island, President Barack Obama and his family vacationed, with one outing for books drawing an enthusiastic crowd of supporters (after all, this is Massachusetts) that applauded when the heavily guarded president and his daughters came out of the Bunch of Grapes bookstore, waving and smiling. In his current mode of shunning the issue of race, the president would have been unlikely to join the discussion taking place less than 10 miles away.

For each of the past few years, Harvard professor (and The Root's editor-in-chief) Henry Louis Gates Jr. and his W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African-American Research have enticed a cross-section of scholars, journalists and pundits to take time out from their busy schedules or their coincidental vacations on the island to talk about a big issue. This week it was about the phenomenon of the growing incarceration of black men.

Follow the link to read the rest of the article.

Why apologize for something that happened 60 years ago?

The latest "apology" being handed out is by California to its Italian citizens who endured "indignities" during World War II. At that time, the US and its allies were at war with Italy. And Germany. And Japan. And fighting for its life.

I wonder what happened to US, British, Australian and Canadian citizens living in the countries with which we were at war?

Having said that, I knew it had happened to Japanese citizens, and to a lesser extent to Germans. But I hadn't realized it had happened to Italians as well.

Sort of shows that racism against Japanese had nothing to do with the internments, and that it was all predicated on what countries we were at war with at the time.

State apologizes for mistreatment of Italian residents during WWII
Legislature passes resolution expressing 'deepest regret' for the wartime internment, curfews, confiscations and other indignities that thousands of Italian and Italian American families faced.

Reporting from Monterey — When Mike Maiorana was a boy during World War II, his family was like a lot of others in his Monterey neighborhood.

In 1942, his mother was declared an "enemy alien," along with 600,000 other Italians and half a million Germans and Japanese who weren't U.S. citizens. More than once, men in suits searched the Maiorana house for guns, flashlights, cameras, shortwave radios — anything that could be used to signal the enemy.

Like 10,000 others up and down the California coast, the family was suddenly forced to uproot. At their new place in Salinas, they had to be home by 8 p.m. or face arrest. And when the government seized fishing boats for the war effort, Maiorana's dad, a naturalized U.S. citizen, saw his livelihood go down the drain.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
» Don't miss a thing. Get SMS breaking news alerts on your mobile phone. Text BREAKING to 52669.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"He was on the skids for the rest of his life," said Maiorana, 75, who owns a boatyard and marina on the harbor where his father's boat — as well as those of his uncles and several dozen other Italian fishermen — were confiscated.

Families like the Maioranas last week received a formal acknowledgement from California. A measure that swiftly made its way through the Legislature expresses the state's "deepest regrets" over the mistreatment of Italians and Italian Americans during World War II. Not nearly as severe or long-lasting as the internment of Japanese Americans, the wartime restrictions are still little-known throughout California, where they were the most heavily enforced.

The resolution was the brainchild of a 79-year-old San Jose man who entered a legislator's annual "There Oughta Be a Law" contest.

"The treatment Italians received in California was horrible," said Chet Campanella, who recalled his father hiding a radio in a backyard chicken coop. "There wasn't one tiny bit of evidence that any Italian was responsible for spying, sabotage, or doing anything else to hinder the war effort."

Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) sponsored a bill based on Campanella's idea.

"I was wholly unaware of the circumstances he described," Simitian said. "Somehow this story had passed me by."

Simitian, an attorney and former Palo Alto mayor, said he saw "contemporary importance" in the effort: "We're at war on the other side of the world, and I think it's important to remember that there are millions of Americans who are ethnic Arabs or Muslim by faith, and that they're good Americans."

No comparable measure has been passed by the state or federal government on behalf of more than 11,000 interned Germans, including some Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler.

Even before war broke out, the FBI had compiled lists of immigrants who were considered dangerous. Among the Italians, there were journalists, language teachers and men active in an Italian veterans group. After Pearl Harbor, about 250 were sent to camps in Montana and elsewhere.

They were seen — without basis, according to many historians — as ardent supporters of Mussolini. But the dictator's popularity in the Italian community had waned, despite his sponsorship of community centers, Italian language classes and trips back to the homeland for U.S. immigrants.

Gloria Ricci Lothrop, a professor emeritus of history at Cal State Northridge, said her future stepfather, the editor of the Italian-language La Parola newspaper in Los Angeles, was hustled off to Fort Missoula, Mont., in a train with darkened windows. Giovanni Falasca stayed there until war's end. He later started a restaurant on Figueroa Street, where he was beaten to death during a robbery.

Lower on the watch list, Lothrop's mother, Maria Ricci, was a poet and La Parola columnist. The FBI fruitlessly scoured translations of her work for subversive content, Lothrop said. An agent in a fedora and double-breasted suit showed up repeatedly but would end up talking to her about gardening.

In New York, the FBI incarcerated Metropolitan Opera star Ezio Pinza and released him, without charge, three months later. In San Francisco, Joe DiMaggio's father Giuseppe couldn't visit the family restaurant on Fisherman's Wharf: As an enemy alien, he could not travel more than five miles without permission.

Enforcement was chaotic. On the East Coast, with its massive Italian population, there was no forced relocation. In California, the mandate hit Northern California harder than the Los Angeles area.

In the Bay Area, Pittsburg was home to Camp Stoneman, a jumping-off point for Pacific-bound troops. About 2,000 Italians were ousted from the community, with the burden falling most on elderly people who didn't speak much English and hadn't become citizens.

Lucy Gallaro Dube of Orange County recalls her widowed grandmother cramming into a house with half a dozen other displaced women.

"She was just a few months from getting her citizenship," Dube said. "I don't know what they thought these old ladies were going to do."

Sad ironies abounded. In Monterey, Rosina Trovato was told that her son and nephew had died at Pearl Harbor. The next day, she was ordered to leave her home.

Then there was the confiscation of fishing boats from California's mostly Italian fleet. Paying their owners a nominal fee, the government used them to haul targets and refuel PT boats. But the cost of postwar repairs and a vanishing sardine fishery spelled disaster for many.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
» Don't miss a thing. Get SMS breaking news alerts on your mobile phone. Text BREAKING to 52669.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Angelo Maiorana, Mike's father, owned the 95-foot Dux, which was returned to him in bad shape after four years in the Philippines.

"They gave him a $20,000 check, but it cost him $46,000 to get the boat back into condition," his son said. "He was on his back, flat broke."

In 2000, Congress passed a bill formally acknowledging "injustices" during World War II.

One of its most eloquent advocates was Lawrence DiStasi, a writer and historian who put together "Una Storia Segreta," a travelling exhibit on the wartime restrictions.

"When we started, I had trouble getting people to talk about it," he said. "There was still a lot of shame, stress and pain."

Most of the measures ended within a year. The government realized they were logistically impossible — especially with hundreds of thousands of Italian Americans fighting for the U.S. overseas.

On Columbus Day in 1942, U.S. Atty. Gen. Francis Biddle announced the good news in a speech laden with references to Dante, Galileo and Leonardo da Vinci.

"We found," he said, "that 600,000 enemy aliens were, in fact, not enemies."

Saturday, August 21, 2010

The Way Things Ought To Be, Report Pt 2, Introduction

In the Introduction, Rush points out that his initial problem in writing the book was the the Current events that mean so much one week might mean nothing at all the next week.

Political analysts, pundits, and pundits must offer their observations through the analysis of events within the time frame of those events as well as after the event. The analysis and commentary are timeless and instructive.

In truth, events are simply vehicles which allow commentators, philosophers, and analysts the opportunity to illustrate their beliefs and define themselves.


He goes on:

I believe in specific ideas and I believe that those ideas have consequences. I believe in the individual, in less government so as to allow that individual maximum freedom to create and achieve; that societies which are founded on restraining the government rather than the individual are optimum; that the individual is smart enough to solve his own problems and does not need to depend on big government for resolution of all his problems.


and

[I believe...] thatmy belief in individuality and limited government does not preclude me from advocating the requisite amount of governmental authority to ensure law and order in our society, that our ability to enjoy peace vis-a-vis other nations is directly related to our military strength, that the best we can hope for in an imperfect world will most likely be achieved by maximizing individual economic and political freedoms and, conversely, that social utopia cannot be achieved through governmental largesse and socialistic redistribution of wealth;

and that compassion is defined not by how many people are on the government dole but by how many people no longer need government assistance, that political and economic freedom are inexerobly intertwined, that society owes its citizens equality of opportunity but cannot guarantee then equality of outcome, that strong, wholesome family values are at the very core of a productive, prosperous and peaceful society

and

[and] that those values cannot be instilled by government but can indeed be sucked dry and eliminated by well-intentioned but destructive governmental programs; that human life is sacred and that God placed man in a position of having dominion over nature; that environmental awareness is healthy, but that apocoplyptic environmentalism based on disinformation and hysteria is destructive to society and man's best interests; that racial relations will not be enhanced or prejudice eliminated by governmental edict; that there is one God and that this country was established with that foundational belief; that our morality emanates from our Divine Creator, whose laws are not subject to amendment, modification or rescission by man;

and

[that] certain fundamental differences between men and women exist in nature; that men and women are not at war and that their relationship should not be redefined by those who believe that we are; that the meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment should not be stretched beyond its intended dimensions by precluding prayer in our public schools, that the United States of America was founded on the beliefs I have just enunciated and that it is the greatest nation in the history of theworld; and that the USA is the greatest nation, not because Americans are inherently superior but because its government was founded on principles which seek to allow maximum achievement.

Comparing Bush to Obama's vacation time

According to Chip Reid of CBS:

"By the end of his trip, President Obama will have taken nine vacations and visited Camp David 14 times for a total of 80 vacation days since he took office. But at the same point in his first term, President George W. Bush had taken far more time away - 14 trips to his ranch in Midland, Texas, and 40 to Camp David, totaling 225 days."

So are people [or Republicans, if you prefer ; )] being unfair when they critizie the amount of vacations President Obama has taken?

I don't think so. Just because George W. Bush took a lot of vacation days (for which he received a lot of criticism) does not mean that President Obama can take just as many days.

In this place, at this time, the United States is going through the worst depression in 40 years, with no relief on the horizon. President Obama says he "feels our pain" - but has already taken 80 vacation days. Should he not "feel our pain" by saying, "I'm not going to take a vacation until every American can. More than that, I'm not going to take a vacation until everybody in the entire world can."

In addition, Obama has visited places which cost money - specifically Martha's Vineyard. Bush, on the other hand, always went to his own property - no extra strain on the country's purse.

Friday, August 20, 2010

The one major thing Limbaugh and I disagree on

Limbaugh played the audio today, of people he chooses to call NAGS.

To quote from one of our dear friends in the media, social analyst, faux historian, and radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society. Fortunately, no social movement was needed to allow pudgy, unattractive men access to the top.

And of course Limbaugh totally glosses over that, but it's true. Limbaugh, especially when he said that 20 years ago, was hardly slim, trim and handsome. But guys with money can alwasy get beautiful babes.

If you're not a beautiful woman, you're not going to get to the top in any profession. Unless you have a lot of money also, of course.

On the other hand, plain guys do have it tough, also. I'm not going to take the time to search for the article, but there was a poll or some study done that showed that tall, fit men generally were promoted over short, fat men, just as beautiful women would be promoted over plain ones.

The human condition, I'm afraid.

David Limbaugh's blog post from today

I share only half of it, but it does make an interesting point. As an atheist myself, I don't care if I see crosses on the sides of roads, up on a hill somewhere, or in a graveyard. (I can't speak for all atheists, of course. I think it's atheists who are behnd the travesty of justice mentioned below.)

What always concerns me is that I always see people on various message boards mocking Christianity - I do it myself - but not saying word one about Islam! When it's the Muslims who go around rioting if some cartoonist draws a picture of Mohammed! When it's Muslims who make their women wear burkhas, and who stone or kill them should they dare to "dishonor" the male members of the family. There's lots to laugh about in the Islamic religion too...but people don't do it, perhaps because Christians won't kill them for it but Muslims will.


The Judiciary's Culturally Sanctioned Allergy to Christianity Flourishes
Does anyone find it ironic that the very people who protest so loudly over supposed affronts to Islamic religious expression are often so hostile to the slightest Christian religious expressions -- even incidental expressions?

The left is going bonkers over opposition to the ground zero mosque in the name of religious freedom, but the left's assault on Christian liberties proceeds unabated. One very recent example is the ruling by a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that memorial crosses erected and displayed along Utah public roads to honor fallen state highway troopers must be removed as unconstitutional.

In case you are wondering how highway crosses could remotely be considered to have violated any constitutional provision, the court tells us: "We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion."

So here we go again. Our politically correct-intoxicated culture is so allergic to expressions and symbols of Christianity that our courts leap to absurd conclusions to cordon off the chief allergen: Christianity.

To fully appreciate the outrageousness of the court's decision, you must understand that the memorial crosses were placed along Utah public roads by a private -- not public -- organization, the Utah Highway Patrol Association, which also maintains the crosses.


Read the complete post at:
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/08/new_column_the_43.html#more

President Obama - Muslim apostate

This article was published in the New York Times two years ago, but it does rather resonate today (in the fact that one reads it and says, Islam is supposed to be a peaceful religion, and Allah is supposed to be all-merciful and all-compassionate. They must define mercy and compassion different than I do:

President Apostate? By /topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/edward_n_luttwak/index.html">http://topics.nytimes.com...ard_n_luttwak/index.html">EDWARD N. LUTTWAKChevy Chase, Md.

BARACK OBAMA has emerged as a classic example of charismatic leadership — a figure upon whom others project their own hopes and desires. The resulting emotional intensity adds greatly to the more conventional strengths of the well-organized Obama campaign, and it has certainly sufficed to overcome the formidable initial advantages of Senator Hillary Clinton.

One danger of such charisma, however, is that it can evoke unrealistic hopes of what a candidate could actually accomplish in office regardless of his own personal abilities. Case in point is the oft-made claim that an Obama presidency would be welcomed by the Muslim world.

This idea often goes hand in hand with the altogether more plausible argument that Mr. Obama’s election would raise America’s esteem in Africa — indeed, he already arouses much enthusiasm in his father’s native Kenya and to a degree elsewhere on the continent.

But it is a mistake to conflate his African identity with his Muslim heritage. Senator Obama is half African by birth and Africans can understandably identify with him. In Islam, however, there is no such thing as a half-Muslim. Like all monotheistic religions, Islam is an exclusive faith.

As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered — as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy — but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obama’s case.)

It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Iran’s Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities.

For example, in Iran in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and others won a Christian convert a last-minute reprieve, but the man was abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in Afghanistan, a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent his execution, and he was still forced to flee to Italy.

Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama — not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law — another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.

At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.

That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be. But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims is the least realistic.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Harry Reid, What Changed?

Rush played a clip today of Harry Reid, 17 years ago, making a lot of sense about illegal immigrants and anchor babies. He apologized for making these statements in 2006...

REID: If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with US citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides, and that's a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense at county run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?


Wonder what made him change his mind? The prospect of a gazillion more votes ensuring that he'd be re-elected?

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Vindicated! - SOS Clinton's "blog"

Sorry for going on and on about this, but I couldn't believe I'd made that mistake, so I went back into my JPG files. A couple of weeks ago I'd been making screencaps of politicians websites for when I did their bios, for those running for the Nov 2 election (and I'll get back on that in another day or so, by the way!).

As I had hoped, I had taken a screen cap of the Hilary Clinton blog, and as you can see - there's no "This is a private blog". Indeed, you see in the left hand corner that it actually says, "Secretary Clinton's blog." So this "private" author was definitely trying to come across as Hillary Clinton!

Here are the two screencaps:

The one that has been there up until one day ago:


And the one that's there now:



Of course, both of those articles have a sig line at the top, by stacyx, underneath each post title. I suppose that shuld have been a clue, when I was first scoping out the blog, but if I remember correctly, I had just assumed that Hillary didn't do her own posting herself, but had a minion named stacyx do it, but that she wrote what was put there.

In any event, I've learned my lesson. From now on unless a person's blog says it's an Official blog, I'm not going to assume it is. The fault is entirely mine for being fooled, however much I wish I could blame it all on this "Stacyx", who certainly did seem to be doing her best to put doubt into people's minds, and she certainly succeeded with me.

Lesson learned.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

America's Culture of Incompetence

As I listened to Rush Limbaug today, I could not help but shake my head. Of course, today was not the first time. Ever since the news came out of the debacle of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, a year or more ago, I have just watched, aghast, as the pillars of the United States have come tumbling down.

Every day, more and more entrenched incompetence of the United States is being made clear. How could we, the best country in the world, full of American "exceptionalism" and American "know how" have fallen to this state.

Even before this depression that we are now in, 90% of Americans were 2 paychecks away from disaster, because they had no savings. 90% of Americans owed more than $10,000 on credit cards - and no, that was NOT the fault of the credit card companies, that was the fault of the idiots who'd buy things they wanted but couldn't afford, because they didn't know enough math to be able to figure out how much their monthly payments would be.

The incompetence extends to the CEOs of big companies, who could drive their companies into the ground and be fired and still get a golden parachute whie the workers went onto welfare. Worse, those CEOs would then be recycled in some other business, and drive that one into the ground as well.

But the main incompetence has been with our government. Let's assume that the Republicans have always been in the right and Democrats in the wrong. Why then are the Democrats in control now? If the Republicans had done a good job, there should have been no way that Democrats could have gotten a toe in.

Now Republicans are.... supposedly.... set to take back a little power in the November elections. What will they do with that power?

What can we, the people, do to ensure that America's culture of incompetence is replaced - QUICKLY - by a culture of competence?