Check out the Prez:
"What we've decided for now is not to join a single church, and the reason is because Michelle and I have realized we are very disruptive to services."
Once you attend the Reverend Wright's church for 20 years, its hard to find another House of Hate to replace it.
The president says he does not want to be "disruptive to services". He much prefers that the pastor be disruptive- to the country. Disruptive by teaching racial and ethnic hatred. Disruptive by celebrating 9-11 as a justified attack on our country.
Maybe the good reverend should keep a pew available for him in Chicago.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
20 Minutes
The President flew half way around the world to Afghanistan in a "surprise" visit to see our troops. They say it was a surprise, but somehow the media was there cause the cameras were rolling. Did you know that that he spent a total of 20 minutes with the troops? 20 minutes. And it was his first visit since he took office. 20 minutes. The man spent more time filling out his NCAA brackets than he did with our troops.
Naked Abuse
I just read where Erykah Badu has made a video where she strips naked in public at the spot where President Kennedy was assassinated. But I want to leave that desperate publicity stunt aside. After reading about her naked attention grab, I found a 2008 New York Slimes article on Badu. Check this out:
This is my museum,” Ms. Badu, 37, said of the rent-controlled one-bedroom in Fort Greene where she has lived on and off since coming to New York, demo tape in hand, 11 years ago from her native Dallas, where she was Erica Wright.
This singer who has sold millions of records has a rent controlled apartment in Brooklyn? What a crock. Who knew that rent control laws were designed to put government imposed price controls in place so that famous entertainers can have a place to live? It's like hearing Sting qualifies for Section 8 Housing.
The rent control laws are perfect examples of what happens when the government rolls out an entitlement program. And rent control is arguably one of the worst entitlement programs because the entire cost of the entitlement is put on the private property owner.
The first thing that happens is that once you put an entitlement in place, you can NEVER get rid of it. Rent control laws became effective in New York after World War II. It was enacted as a solution to a housing shortage that occurred as a result of the soldiers coming home from the war. Every year since 1945, the state assembly & senate get together and say that the same shortage that existed in 1945 exists today, and therefore, they extend the rent control laws. Excuse me, but it's been 65 years, I think all of our boys are back from the war, but they still use that same bogus excuse to keep rent control in place.
This is my museum,” Ms. Badu, 37, said of the rent-controlled one-bedroom in Fort Greene where she has lived on and off since coming to New York, demo tape in hand, 11 years ago from her native Dallas, where she was Erica Wright.
This singer who has sold millions of records has a rent controlled apartment in Brooklyn? What a crock. Who knew that rent control laws were designed to put government imposed price controls in place so that famous entertainers can have a place to live? It's like hearing Sting qualifies for Section 8 Housing.
The rent control laws are perfect examples of what happens when the government rolls out an entitlement program. And rent control is arguably one of the worst entitlement programs because the entire cost of the entitlement is put on the private property owner.
The first thing that happens is that once you put an entitlement in place, you can NEVER get rid of it. Rent control laws became effective in New York after World War II. It was enacted as a solution to a housing shortage that occurred as a result of the soldiers coming home from the war. Every year since 1945, the state assembly & senate get together and say that the same shortage that existed in 1945 exists today, and therefore, they extend the rent control laws. Excuse me, but it's been 65 years, I think all of our boys are back from the war, but they still use that same bogus excuse to keep rent control in place.
But they will never get rid of it, because you can never get rid of any entitlement program in this country.
The next thing that happens is abuse. Widespread abuse. A system designed to help soldiers has morphed into addressing the housing needs of a naked hip hop star who desecrates the place where an American president was killed.
Enough.
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Bad Old Days
It was very disheartening to see 2 young men were stabbed to death on the subway yesterday. When I read about it, it sounded like a crime story out of pre-Rudy New York. I can't put any cash on it, but I do sense an uptick in crime & lawlessness in NYC recently. Forget about health insurance, in the bad old days in NYC, crime was so bad, if you were a regular subway commuter it was considered a preexisting condition which would mean insurance companies could deny you life insurance.
Here is the equation that we need to avoid:
NYC + 1970's level of crime - financial services industry = modern day Detroit
Don't say it can't happen.
Don't Believe It
A lot of these ultra liberal socialist politicians are complaining that they have received threats of violence since they nationalized health care on America.
Sorry, unless they have PROOF then these accusations should be dismissed. When you disregard the will of the people, dismiss the rules of the Senate, and spit on the constitution, you really do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Remember how Reagan used to say in his dealing with the Soviets : "Trust but verify"? After what they did, there is no trust. Just verify.
Plus we all know how t much they love to play games. If Baldman says "Obama is a left-wing flame thrower" liberals take that statement and say "Baldman says that Obama wants to set people on fire."
They are twisted. And love to deal from the bottom of the deck.
Right now, they are playing "Change That Tune." They want to talk about anything but the substantive aspects of nationalized health care.
They are bullshit artists.
And if they had any proof, it would have been rammed down our throats a billion times by now.
But there is no proof. And no trust.
Sorry, unless they have PROOF then these accusations should be dismissed. When you disregard the will of the people, dismiss the rules of the Senate, and spit on the constitution, you really do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Remember how Reagan used to say in his dealing with the Soviets : "Trust but verify"? After what they did, there is no trust. Just verify.
Plus we all know how t much they love to play games. If Baldman says "Obama is a left-wing flame thrower" liberals take that statement and say "Baldman says that Obama wants to set people on fire."
They are twisted. And love to deal from the bottom of the deck.
Right now, they are playing "Change That Tune." They want to talk about anything but the substantive aspects of nationalized health care.
They are bullshit artists.
And if they had any proof, it would have been rammed down our throats a billion times by now.
But there is no proof. And no trust.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Be Prepared
Leaving aside how jacked up the substantive aspects of the health care bill are, the actual implementation to get things up and running is going to be a nightmare.
If what currently happens in our chaotic systems can serve as a road map for what will happen, then be prepared to be frustrated beyond anything you have experienced.
One visitor we have here on the Stoop is a lawyer pal of Baldman named CC. CC settled a case where his client will receive some cash. Since Medicaid provided/subsidized services for CC's client, they have lien on the settlement proceeds. So the case can't be officially settled until Medicaid gets its cut. So far so good. Most reasonable would agree that if someone gets a windfall of cash, and prior to that windfall they received substantial help from the government, then the government should be reimbursed.
On paper it sounds good. On paper. But here is what has happened in reality. The case settled in November. Since that time CC has contacted Medicaid numerous times to forward them the cash they are owed. The New York Office refers him to the Philly office. The Philly office sends him to the Saint Louis office. One office tells him to fill out a form. The other office tells him, no that is the wrong form, fill out this one. Endless bureaucracy.
For 6 months, CC has tried to GIVE MEDICAID MONEY. THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. And for 6 months, he can't get a straight answer from that agency.
Think about that. Medicaid has been up and running for almost half a century. And yet, they are still not able to handle a basic transaction.
The mind boggles at what its going to be like to deal with all the moving parts of the socialized medicine middle class entitlement program.
Remember right now, the new law is just words written on a piece of paper. But those words will come to life.
It will be a nightmare.
If what currently happens in our chaotic systems can serve as a road map for what will happen, then be prepared to be frustrated beyond anything you have experienced.
One visitor we have here on the Stoop is a lawyer pal of Baldman named CC. CC settled a case where his client will receive some cash. Since Medicaid provided/subsidized services for CC's client, they have lien on the settlement proceeds. So the case can't be officially settled until Medicaid gets its cut. So far so good. Most reasonable would agree that if someone gets a windfall of cash, and prior to that windfall they received substantial help from the government, then the government should be reimbursed.
On paper it sounds good. On paper. But here is what has happened in reality. The case settled in November. Since that time CC has contacted Medicaid numerous times to forward them the cash they are owed. The New York Office refers him to the Philly office. The Philly office sends him to the Saint Louis office. One office tells him to fill out a form. The other office tells him, no that is the wrong form, fill out this one. Endless bureaucracy.
For 6 months, CC has tried to GIVE MEDICAID MONEY. THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. And for 6 months, he can't get a straight answer from that agency.
Think about that. Medicaid has been up and running for almost half a century. And yet, they are still not able to handle a basic transaction.
The mind boggles at what its going to be like to deal with all the moving parts of the socialized medicine middle class entitlement program.
Remember right now, the new law is just words written on a piece of paper. But those words will come to life.
It will be a nightmare.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Sometimes The Post Office Fu*ks Up
Apparently someone sent a package of white powder to Congressman Anthony Weiner's office. When former DC Mayor Marion Barry heard the news, he exclaimed "I've been waiting for that package all day!"
White Powder Package Sent to Congressman Anthony Weiner's Office
White Powder Package Sent to Congressman Anthony Weiner's Office
Why The Health Care Bill Is Like George Foreman Striking a Dirty Blow
The health care bill reminds me of the Foreman- Frazier fight. George beat the piss out of Smokin' Joe, knocking him down six times in two rounds. During the last knockdown, when George clearly had the fight won and Joe is falling down, George hits him one last time. It was a dirty blow struck against a defenseless man.
With the health care bill, it would not surprise me if it went down like this: once they knew they had the votes locked up, and there was no way they could lose, they added this section to the bill:
that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, “in awarding grants or contracts under this section . . . shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of . . . training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
That section is like George hitting Joe when he was on his way to the canvas. What exactly does racial/ethnic preferences in medical school admissions have to do with subsidizing the health care costs of people without insurance? Like Phil Leotardo, said on the Sopranos: "it's like comparing apples and bowling balls."
The president loves to crow about pre existing conditions. But if you suffer from the pre existing condition of belonging to a racial & ethnic group that the Obama health czar does not favor, you may have trouble getting into medical school.
With the health care bill, it would not surprise me if it went down like this: once they knew they had the votes locked up, and there was no way they could lose, they added this section to the bill:
that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, “in awarding grants or contracts under this section . . . shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of . . . training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
That section is like George hitting Joe when he was on his way to the canvas. What exactly does racial/ethnic preferences in medical school admissions have to do with subsidizing the health care costs of people without insurance? Like Phil Leotardo, said on the Sopranos: "it's like comparing apples and bowling balls."
The president loves to crow about pre existing conditions. But if you suffer from the pre existing condition of belonging to a racial & ethnic group that the Obama health czar does not favor, you may have trouble getting into medical school.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
26
Under the health bill, parents get to keep their children on their health insurance coverage until age 26. You may wonder how they came up with that age-26. It actually is a reflection of the bipartisanship/ reaching across the aisle spirit that Obama is known for. You see if Obama had his way, kids would be able to stay on their parent's plan until age 52. He took that number and split it in half and came up with 26. It's called "splitting the baby." Speaking of splitting the baby, that is also covered under the socialized medicine bill, its under the chapter entitled "Partial Birth Abortion."
Lets steer the ship back to letting children stay on their parents health plans until age 26. What if the father says, "I want my kid to learn the values of independence, therefore, I want him to buy his own insurance." Will the father be fined by the Obama health czars for not providing insurance for his adult child? Doesn't a parent have the right to teach his ADULT child economic independence? If the father refuses, will the son be fined for not getting his own insurance? Pursuant to this bill, there will be 15,000 new IRS agents chasing down everybody for issues like this.
Look at how insane this is: You can be a 25 year old man who is a deadbeat dad, and the government will hardly lift a finger to force you to meet your financial obligations. And yet, because he is under 26, that same deadbeat dad will have the statutory right to have his own health coverage subsidized by his gainfully employed father.
For those scoring at home that means a 25 year old deadbeat dad who decides not to work or more likely hides his income is under no obligation to provide health care insurance to his infant child. But that same deadbeat has the legal right to be on his father's insurance.
Socialism distorts reality folks. It creates DISINCENTIVES that lead people down an unproductive path.
Welcome to that world.
Lets steer the ship back to letting children stay on their parents health plans until age 26. What if the father says, "I want my kid to learn the values of independence, therefore, I want him to buy his own insurance." Will the father be fined by the Obama health czars for not providing insurance for his adult child? Doesn't a parent have the right to teach his ADULT child economic independence? If the father refuses, will the son be fined for not getting his own insurance? Pursuant to this bill, there will be 15,000 new IRS agents chasing down everybody for issues like this.
Look at how insane this is: You can be a 25 year old man who is a deadbeat dad, and the government will hardly lift a finger to force you to meet your financial obligations. And yet, because he is under 26, that same deadbeat dad will have the statutory right to have his own health coverage subsidized by his gainfully employed father.
For those scoring at home that means a 25 year old deadbeat dad who decides not to work or more likely hides his income is under no obligation to provide health care insurance to his infant child. But that same deadbeat has the legal right to be on his father's insurance.
Socialism distorts reality folks. It creates DISINCENTIVES that lead people down an unproductive path.
Welcome to that world.
Health Care Part IV: Contract On America
When asked whether any compulsory insurance purchases are constitutional, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was genuinely astonished: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" l
Because of socialized medicine imposed on us from on high, for the first time in American history, the federal government is requiring each American citizen to enter into a contract with a third party (a health insurance company). Should you fail to do so, you will incur a criminal penalty (a fine). There are no exceptions. It applies to all citizens and permanent residents. (While it does not apply to illegal aliens, that is a mere formality as Obama plans on offering Amnesty to illegal aliens. He actually refuses to use the term "illegal aliens", instead he refers to them as "soon to be registered Democrats".)
Now whenever Congress passes a law, we should all be in the habit of asking "Where do they get the power to do so?" Congressional power & authority is limited by the U.S. Constitution. Usually, in the law itself, you will find language that cites the specific provision in the Constitution that grants Congress the power to enact that law.
In the socialized medicine bill, Congress says that the commerce clause of the Constitution gives them the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance.
While there is no question that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, this bill compels Americans who choose to NOT engage in interstate commerce to enter into a contract or face a criminal penalty.
So the Constitutional Question is: Does the reach of the commerce clause extend to Americans who choose to NOT engage in commerce? In other words, if I don't want to buy health insurance, does the federal government have the authority to make me do so under the penalty of law?
Now our liberal friends, who are soft of mind and bleeding of heart, argue that since there is a "social good" that comes out of mandating that we all purchase health insurance, it is perfectly acceptable to require Americans to enter into a contract against their will.
That is a very scary argument to make my friends.
If you think that compelling Americans to enter into a contract or buy a product against their will is constitutional because: (1) the underlying activity affects interstate commerce; and (2) there is a "social good" that comes from requiring them to so, then where does it end?
What other products and services can we be compelled to buy?
If the President tells us that energy conservation is important, can he compel us to purchase a windmill or solar panels or face a criminal penalty? If you think mandatory health insurance is constitutional, you HAVE to think this would be constitutional as well. Energy use, like health care, is an interstate activity, right? And energy conservation much like universal health insurance, is a common good, correct?
Can the Congress pass a law requiring that FAT BASTARDS like Baldman purchase a StairMaster from a government approved manufacturer? Can they put an ankle bracelet on Baldman's FAT ankle to ensure that he is using it? Why not? Doesn't the costs of obesity effect interstate commerce? Wouldn't it help society if the Baldman's of the world lost weight?
You may try to shrug off the examples above as being extreme. But they are not. Requiring Americans to enter into a contract against their will is the extreme thing. And the unconstitutional thing.
And that is now the law.
Because of socialized medicine imposed on us from on high, for the first time in American history, the federal government is requiring each American citizen to enter into a contract with a third party (a health insurance company). Should you fail to do so, you will incur a criminal penalty (a fine). There are no exceptions. It applies to all citizens and permanent residents. (While it does not apply to illegal aliens, that is a mere formality as Obama plans on offering Amnesty to illegal aliens. He actually refuses to use the term "illegal aliens", instead he refers to them as "soon to be registered Democrats".)
Now whenever Congress passes a law, we should all be in the habit of asking "Where do they get the power to do so?" Congressional power & authority is limited by the U.S. Constitution. Usually, in the law itself, you will find language that cites the specific provision in the Constitution that grants Congress the power to enact that law.
In the socialized medicine bill, Congress says that the commerce clause of the Constitution gives them the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance.
While there is no question that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, this bill compels Americans who choose to NOT engage in interstate commerce to enter into a contract or face a criminal penalty.
So the Constitutional Question is: Does the reach of the commerce clause extend to Americans who choose to NOT engage in commerce? In other words, if I don't want to buy health insurance, does the federal government have the authority to make me do so under the penalty of law?
Now our liberal friends, who are soft of mind and bleeding of heart, argue that since there is a "social good" that comes out of mandating that we all purchase health insurance, it is perfectly acceptable to require Americans to enter into a contract against their will.
That is a very scary argument to make my friends.
If you think that compelling Americans to enter into a contract or buy a product against their will is constitutional because: (1) the underlying activity affects interstate commerce; and (2) there is a "social good" that comes from requiring them to so, then where does it end?
What other products and services can we be compelled to buy?
If the President tells us that energy conservation is important, can he compel us to purchase a windmill or solar panels or face a criminal penalty? If you think mandatory health insurance is constitutional, you HAVE to think this would be constitutional as well. Energy use, like health care, is an interstate activity, right? And energy conservation much like universal health insurance, is a common good, correct?
Can the Congress pass a law requiring that FAT BASTARDS like Baldman purchase a StairMaster from a government approved manufacturer? Can they put an ankle bracelet on Baldman's FAT ankle to ensure that he is using it? Why not? Doesn't the costs of obesity effect interstate commerce? Wouldn't it help society if the Baldman's of the world lost weight?
You may try to shrug off the examples above as being extreme. But they are not. Requiring Americans to enter into a contract against their will is the extreme thing. And the unconstitutional thing.
And that is now the law.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Health Care Part III: We Were Warned
| Check out this clip of Ronald Reagan in 1961 warning about the evils of socialized medicine. If he predicted that Cornell would be playing in the Sweet 16 against Kentucky in 2010 it would have been less accurate than what he said will happen if socialized medicine is imposed upon Americans. | |
From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine. There is no video because this was an LP sent out by the American Medical Association | |
| © 2010 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 | |
Health Care Part II: Crack Dealing Mobsters
Always remember that liberals are the biggest drug dealers in the world. They make Colombian drug lords look like high school kids selling loose joints. The drugs that liberals sell are government entitlement programs. It creates a dependency that is worse than crack.
The socialized medicine bill is the mother of all entitlement programs. Its purpose is to make as many Americans as possible dependent upon the federal government for their everyday needs. To strip away personal responsibility.
They never want to empower people. Its all about creating dependency.
Once you understand that, its easy to see why liberals oppose things like school vouchers. If you give out vouchers you empower people to make their own choices. And that is something that liberals just can't tolerate.
It's the same thing with socialized medicine.
Liberals see Americans as feeble people standing on a nation- wide bread line. And they are the ones slicing up the bread and deciding who gets what.
Under socialized medicine, you can't decide on your own insurance plan that meets your needs. That freedom is taken away from you. Obama & Pelosi have taken that decision away from you.
Let's use the "Goodfellas" analogy to illustrate.
Remember in Goodfellas when Paulie took over the Bamboo Lounge? It went like this:
Henry Hill: [narrating] Now the guy's got Paulie as a partner. Any problems, he goes to Paulie. Trouble with the bill? He can go to Paulie. Trouble with the cops, deliveries, Tommy, he can call Paulie. But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week, no matter what. Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning, huh? Fuck you, pay me.
To every American reading this, the nationalization of health care makes Obama our Paulie. We got him as a "partner". But its the type of partnership where you have zero input. Obama/Paulie decides for you.
You’re a single guy without children? Fuck you, your policy must cover pediatric services.
You’re a woman who can’t have children? Fuck you, your policy must cover maternity services.
You’re don't drink or get high? Fuck you, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment.
The socialized medicine bill is the mother of all entitlement programs. Its purpose is to make as many Americans as possible dependent upon the federal government for their everyday needs. To strip away personal responsibility.
They never want to empower people. Its all about creating dependency.
Once you understand that, its easy to see why liberals oppose things like school vouchers. If you give out vouchers you empower people to make their own choices. And that is something that liberals just can't tolerate.
It's the same thing with socialized medicine.
Liberals see Americans as feeble people standing on a nation- wide bread line. And they are the ones slicing up the bread and deciding who gets what.
Under socialized medicine, you can't decide on your own insurance plan that meets your needs. That freedom is taken away from you. Obama & Pelosi have taken that decision away from you.
Let's use the "Goodfellas" analogy to illustrate.
Remember in Goodfellas when Paulie took over the Bamboo Lounge? It went like this:
Henry Hill: [narrating] Now the guy's got Paulie as a partner. Any problems, he goes to Paulie. Trouble with the bill? He can go to Paulie. Trouble with the cops, deliveries, Tommy, he can call Paulie. But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week, no matter what. Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning, huh? Fuck you, pay me.
To every American reading this, the nationalization of health care makes Obama our Paulie. We got him as a "partner". But its the type of partnership where you have zero input. Obama/Paulie decides for you.
You’re a single guy without children? Fuck you, your policy must cover pediatric services.
You’re a woman who can’t have children? Fuck you, your policy must cover maternity services.
You’re don't drink or get high? Fuck you, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment.
You're young and don't want health insurance? Fuck you, you have to buy it.
You're an employer, and you want to buy a health plan that does not include covering your employees children until they are 26? Fuck you, you can't.
You are young & healthy and want to buy a policy that reflects that? Fuck you, you're out.
You want to pay less in premiums and want to purchase a policy that has annual or lifetime limits of coverage? Fuck you, you can't.
These are just some of the examples of the freedoms Obama has taken away from you with this bill.
HENRY Hill: And, finally, when there's nothing left, when you can't borrow another buck from the bank or buy another case of booze, you bust the joint out.
Obama & Pelosi have just torched the place.
Health Care Part I : Stoop Shame
My first thoughts on the socialized medicine bill deal with my own shame. I hang my head in shame. Shame at how naive I was. You see, less than two months ago, I like millions of others, thought the election of Scott Brown made this massive entitlement bill dead on arrival. We thought so because the rules of the Senate say that you need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, and Brown's victory ensured that they could not get to 60. Boy, did we celebrate. We really thought we dodged a major bullet. Looking back, I am embarrassed. Embarrassed because we forgot who we were dealing with. Embarrassed because we actually thought that rules & procedures that have been in place for centuries meant anything to these people. We made the fatal mistake in believing that both sides have to play by the same rules. We should have known better. It's not like we did not know. We knew. These are the same people that think federal laws that require that people be citizens or even be alive should not stop illegal aliens and dead people from voting. I cannot even begin to understand that mentality. These are people who see the will of the people as something to be overturned when it conflicts with the ultra-liberal agenda. Don't believe me? Look at California. They had a state referendum where on election day the people got to vote whether to legalize gay marriage. They people rejected it. Overwhelmingly. Now to most of us, that would be the end of it, right? We had an election, the people spoke, and that is that. But liberals don't think like that. As soon as the results came in, they refused to honor those results.They shopped for a judge to overturn it. The point is this: I am ashamed that I forgot the nature of the people who want to impose socialism on this nation. When I celebrated Scott Brown's victory I let my own respect for rules and procedures cloud my judgment. And that is the big lesson. The big takeaway: NEVER FORGET THAT LIBERALS DON'T PLAY BY THE RULES.
Monday, March 22, 2010
The End Of It All
After last night's nationalization of 1/6 of the American economy, I have so many thoughts and emotions running through my mind. They range from anger and shame, to resignation and resentment. I will organize my thoughts and put them on the Stoop later today. Until then, I leave you with this quote from American Thinker:
In November 2008, Americans elected a socialist as their president. In March 2010, they woke up stunned to find themselves living in a socialist country.
In November 2008, Americans elected a socialist as their president. In March 2010, they woke up stunned to find themselves living in a socialist country.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Commissioner Baldman
Regarding the talk of expanding the NCAA tournament to 96 teams, I think it would be a big mistake. It would reward regular season mediocrity and make the conference tournaments irrelevant. But if I were the head of the NCAA, here are the changes I would make:
1) Allow the players to be paid. This is America. If someone wants to pay you for your talents/ability, why should this be against the rules? A coach can get hundreds of thousands of dollars to endorse sneakers, but if one of his players sells his sneakers for $50, that kid gets barred. That ain't right. Under the Baldman rules, schools would not be able to play players, but everybody else would be free to do so.
2) While players would be able to get paid, they also would have to go to school. I would treat academic fraud very harshly. You have to take and complete at least 12 credits every semester. Real classes too. No favoritism for athletes in the classroom. Schools that engage in academic fraud --such as giving athletes a passing grade when they don't even show up for class--will be barred from the tournament. When you pass a kid that doesn't deserve it, you are being unfair to the student who actually studied and earned their grade.
3) Baldman's "Comeback " Rule. These players generate a boatload of cash for the top programs. A lot of them leave without a degree. To recognize their contribution to the bottom line, every Division I college basketball player who completes at least 48 credits before dropping out will be able to return at any time to that school to complete their degree. I would require the 48 credit minimum to qualify because it would reflect the fact that the player at least attempted to hit the books while he attended the University. Nothing wrong with a second chance.
1) Allow the players to be paid. This is America. If someone wants to pay you for your talents/ability, why should this be against the rules? A coach can get hundreds of thousands of dollars to endorse sneakers, but if one of his players sells his sneakers for $50, that kid gets barred. That ain't right. Under the Baldman rules, schools would not be able to play players, but everybody else would be free to do so.
2) While players would be able to get paid, they also would have to go to school. I would treat academic fraud very harshly. You have to take and complete at least 12 credits every semester. Real classes too. No favoritism for athletes in the classroom. Schools that engage in academic fraud --such as giving athletes a passing grade when they don't even show up for class--will be barred from the tournament. When you pass a kid that doesn't deserve it, you are being unfair to the student who actually studied and earned their grade.
3) Baldman's "Comeback " Rule. These players generate a boatload of cash for the top programs. A lot of them leave without a degree. To recognize their contribution to the bottom line, every Division I college basketball player who completes at least 48 credits before dropping out will be able to return at any time to that school to complete their degree. I would require the 48 credit minimum to qualify because it would reflect the fact that the player at least attempted to hit the books while he attended the University. Nothing wrong with a second chance.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Nothing Compares
Remember in the movie Patton, when after a particularly brutal battle, with dead bodies all around him, Patton exclaimed: "God Help Me, I Love It So?". That's how I feel about March Madness. Super Bowl's occasionally suck, the NBA Finals are often irrelevant, and the World Series is highly overrated. But this tournament always lives up to the hype. Always.
I don't want to talk about the teams, pools etc. Just know that I love it so.
I don't want to talk about the teams, pools etc. Just know that I love it so.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Never Go Against The Family
The President has now secured Dennis (Fredo) Kucinich's vote for the socialized medicine bill. As an avowed Communist, Fredo Kucinich's beef with the bill was that the takeover of 1/6 of the economy through this bill DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH.
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall to hear the negotiations. Because Obama, the Socialist, and Fredo Kucinich, the Communist, both have the same goals: TO TEAR DOWN THIS COUNTRY. They just disagree on how fast they should go to bring about about achieving that goal.
Fredo Kucinich is what I call a Kami-Commie. (A combination of Kamikaze & Communist.) Kami-Commie's want the government to control every aspect of American life ASAP. Kami-Commie's want to take America to the highest cliff and have her jump off.
But Socialists see it a little differently. They have more patience. Of course, they want to destroy the country, but the don't mind seeing it happen a little at a time. They are sadistic in that way. Take over a car company here, a bank there, salary caps and wealth spreading, & then you "give" health care to the dependent masses.
So while Kami-Commie's like Fredo Kucinich want to make America jump off the highest of cliffs, Sociailists like Obama are content with putting America in a barrel and watching her roll down a very big mountain.
Which makes the negotiations between the two so fascinating. I picture Obama sending Rahm Emanuel to go talk to Fredo Kucinich. Fredo lays out his Commie plan. Rahm tells him "It's not what Barack wants." "WHAT ABOUT WHAT I WANT?" Fredo fires back. "I'm smart. I can get things done. Not like people say. Hey Fredo, chair this mickey mouse subcommittee. Fredo, drive Janet Napolitano to the airport."
Somehow, they worked out their differences.
But if I were Fredo Kucinich, I would not go fishing with Rahm Emanuel.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Today's Civics Lesson....
With all the talk of the House & Senate using procedural shenanigans like reconciliation & the "Slaughter rule" to ram socialized medicine through the Congress so they could present it to the Socialist -in-Chief in the White House for signing; I think the time has come to analyze what the constitutional requirements are when it comes to how a proposed bill becomes a law.
Baldman is going to provide some very dry, extremely technical analysis of Article I Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution. Here goes:
According to the U.S. Constitution, both the HOUSE & the SENATE have to pass the SAME EXACT SHIT and present it to the PRESIDENT for signing.
Now I know the meaning of the sentence above may be unclear to some. The same words may mean different things to different people.
So let's try to clarify:
What does the Constitution mean by "the exact same shit"?
It means the bill passed by both the House & the Senate has to be the same. Exactly the same. "Almost the same" won't do. "Substantially similar" doesn't cut it. "So close, its like Tiki & Ronde Barber; you can't tell them apart"-NO GOOD.
What does the Constitution mean by "passed"?
Now I know in the Senate, when they use the word "passed", it's usually in a sentence like "Ted Kennedy passed out during happy hour again." Or "Robert Byrd passed out the white sheets from his old days in the KKK".
But when the Constitution says "passed" it means something else.
It means the ENTIRE bill has to be voted on. Yea or Nay. And those votes must be recorded. And when they count up the recorded votes, if the YEAS have more votes than the NAYS, then the bill can be presented to the Socialist-In-Chief for signing.
And if they don't PASS THE SAME SHIT or don't VOTE ON THE ENTIRE BILL & still have the BALLS to present it to the "beyond obsessed with health care" Socialist President for signing- it will set off a shit storm of protest.
And a whole bunch of people will be running to the nearest courthouse.
Baldman is going to provide some very dry, extremely technical analysis of Article I Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution. Here goes:
According to the U.S. Constitution, both the HOUSE & the SENATE have to pass the SAME EXACT SHIT and present it to the PRESIDENT for signing.
Now I know the meaning of the sentence above may be unclear to some. The same words may mean different things to different people.
So let's try to clarify:
What does the Constitution mean by "the exact same shit"?
It means the bill passed by both the House & the Senate has to be the same. Exactly the same. "Almost the same" won't do. "Substantially similar" doesn't cut it. "So close, its like Tiki & Ronde Barber; you can't tell them apart"-NO GOOD.
What does the Constitution mean by "passed"?
Now I know in the Senate, when they use the word "passed", it's usually in a sentence like "Ted Kennedy passed out during happy hour again." Or "Robert Byrd passed out the white sheets from his old days in the KKK".
But when the Constitution says "passed" it means something else.
It means the ENTIRE bill has to be voted on. Yea or Nay. And those votes must be recorded. And when they count up the recorded votes, if the YEAS have more votes than the NAYS, then the bill can be presented to the Socialist-In-Chief for signing.
And if they don't PASS THE SAME SHIT or don't VOTE ON THE ENTIRE BILL & still have the BALLS to present it to the "beyond obsessed with health care" Socialist President for signing- it will set off a shit storm of protest.
And a whole bunch of people will be running to the nearest courthouse.
The Highs & Lows
Did you see that Texas Rangers manager Ron Washington tested positive for coke? In an unrelated story, Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden have both applied for coaching jobs with the Texas Rangers.
Texas manager used coke
Texas manager used coke
Happy March 17th to Ya
The American idea is a free church in a free state, and a free and un-sectarian public school in every ward and in every village, with its doors wide open to the children of all races and of every creed. It goes still further, and frowns upon the constant attempt to divide our people according to origin or extraction. Let every man honor and love the land of his birth and the race from which he springs and keep their memory green. It is a pious and honorable duty. But let us have done with British-Americans and Irish-Americans and so on, and all be Americans - nothing more and nothing less. If a man is going to be an American at all let him be so without any qualifying adjectives, and if he is going to be something else, let him drop the word American from his personal description.
Henry Cabot Lodge Sr. (Speech given in Brooklyn: December 21,1888)
There is one question that we are all asked and my response drives some people crazy.
What is your background? "I'm Native American" I always reply.
Some people think that is an unacceptable response. Why? I was born here, raised here and schooled here. My history is American history, my people are the American people.
Some refuse to accept that response. They think only Indians shall be identified as Native Americans. But this is my native land. I know no other. How can I be a native of a place I have never been? Those who think that Indians are the only people who can legitimately claim "Native" status must think that people are like potatoes, that they sprout from the ground, and that's how you define ones origin.
But people do not sprout from the ground. The history of civilization shows that humans are nomadic, always on the move. So yes, I am a Native American.
Another pet peeve I have is a malady that afflicts many. You may even suffer from it. It's called "Hyphenated-American Syndrome".
If you have ever said the following words: "I'm Irish-American" you suffer from this.
I got news for you; you're not. And that's not coming from me; that is the response you will get from any native of Ireland. Or China. Or anywhere else. They see you as American. You should too.
Truth be known when the chips are down, you see yourself as an "Unhyphenated American" as well.
How do I know?
Take the "Tank Test".
Say tanks from the Italian (or any other country) army are rolling across the Brooklyn Bridge. Are you going to join their efforts? Or do you want those tanks destroyed? As Patton said, "trust me, you'll know what to do."
A main symptom of this Hyphenated -American syndrome are these ethnic parades in NYC. It never ceases to amaze me with how native born Americans self identify with these ethnic parades more so than their own American heritage.
People burst with pride by wearing green, playing bagpipes and wearing kilts on St.Patrick's Day.
Don't get me wrong: Baldman is not saying that these parades should be banned, we all have the 1st Amendment Right to Associate, to freely express ourselves.
But where is the burst of pride for our own country? And don't tell me we do it by lighting bottle rockets on July 4th.
Do yourself a favor. Celebrate the red white and blue. Go to Prospect Park, where the American Revolutionary War was fought. Go to lower Manhattan, visit Federal Hall on Wall Street, where Washington was inaugurated. Walk down the block to the Trinity Church graveyard and pay your respects to the incomparable Alexander Hamilton, who is buried there.
Know your heritage. Honor it. Treasure it.
Henry Cabot Lodge Sr. (Speech given in Brooklyn: December 21,1888)
There is one question that we are all asked and my response drives some people crazy.
What is your background? "I'm Native American" I always reply.
Some people think that is an unacceptable response. Why? I was born here, raised here and schooled here. My history is American history, my people are the American people.
Some refuse to accept that response. They think only Indians shall be identified as Native Americans. But this is my native land. I know no other. How can I be a native of a place I have never been? Those who think that Indians are the only people who can legitimately claim "Native" status must think that people are like potatoes, that they sprout from the ground, and that's how you define ones origin.
But people do not sprout from the ground. The history of civilization shows that humans are nomadic, always on the move. So yes, I am a Native American.
Another pet peeve I have is a malady that afflicts many. You may even suffer from it. It's called "Hyphenated-American Syndrome".
If you have ever said the following words: "I'm Irish-American" you suffer from this.
I got news for you; you're not. And that's not coming from me; that is the response you will get from any native of Ireland. Or China. Or anywhere else. They see you as American. You should too.
Truth be known when the chips are down, you see yourself as an "Unhyphenated American" as well.
How do I know?
Take the "Tank Test".
Say tanks from the Italian (or any other country) army are rolling across the Brooklyn Bridge. Are you going to join their efforts? Or do you want those tanks destroyed? As Patton said, "trust me, you'll know what to do."
A main symptom of this Hyphenated -American syndrome are these ethnic parades in NYC. It never ceases to amaze me with how native born Americans self identify with these ethnic parades more so than their own American heritage.
People burst with pride by wearing green, playing bagpipes and wearing kilts on St.Patrick's Day.
Don't get me wrong: Baldman is not saying that these parades should be banned, we all have the 1st Amendment Right to Associate, to freely express ourselves.
But where is the burst of pride for our own country? And don't tell me we do it by lighting bottle rockets on July 4th.
Do yourself a favor. Celebrate the red white and blue. Go to Prospect Park, where the American Revolutionary War was fought. Go to lower Manhattan, visit Federal Hall on Wall Street, where Washington was inaugurated. Walk down the block to the Trinity Church graveyard and pay your respects to the incomparable Alexander Hamilton, who is buried there.
Know your heritage. Honor it. Treasure it.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Its Like Finding Out Nancy Pelosi Shot Down Ho Chi Minh
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, 90, is the longest serving and most liberal member of the Court. Obviously, Baldman is not a fan of his legal opinions. But in this week's New Yorker, Baldman read something about Stevens that deserves high praise.
During World World II Stevens was a Navy cryptologist stationed at Pearl Harbor. His mission was to analyze and interpret enemy transmissions.
In April 1943, Stevens decoded a very important Japanese communication. The intelligence Stevens (and his team) gathered was used by American aviators to track and shoot down the plane of Admiral Isoroku-the architect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the leader of the Axis forces in Midway. It was a straight up assassination-bravo.
The Stoop applauds Stevens for his service during World War II.
Maybe he should have stayed in the military?
During World World II Stevens was a Navy cryptologist stationed at Pearl Harbor. His mission was to analyze and interpret enemy transmissions.
In April 1943, Stevens decoded a very important Japanese communication. The intelligence Stevens (and his team) gathered was used by American aviators to track and shoot down the plane of Admiral Isoroku-the architect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the leader of the Axis forces in Midway. It was a straight up assassination-bravo.
The Stoop applauds Stevens for his service during World War II.
Maybe he should have stayed in the military?
Monday, March 15, 2010
They Will Never Stop
I am an ordinary citizen from Omaha, Neb., who just may have the chance to preserve liberty along with you and other people like you- Virginia Thomas @ a Tea Party Rally.
Some things never change. Winter turns into Spring. Spring training leads into Opening Day. And the liberal media will do whatever they can to tarnish Clarence Thomas.
Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Slimes published the filth linked below. Apparently,they are VERY TROUBLED by the fact that Virginia Thomas-the wife of Clarence Thomas- has started her own conservative activist group. Virginia wants to promote conservative American values. The West Coast Slimes thinks this creates a conflict for the Supreme Court Justice.
Let's see if I got this right: Ginsburg & Sotomayor can be MEMBERS of ultra leftist groups like the ACLU and that is deemed appropriate, but when the wife of a Supreme Court Justice is aligned with a conservative cause-it causes a judicial conflict of interest?
Remember these are the same vermin that told us that because it impacted his family, John Edward's sex life was off limits, while at the same time they were reporting on the dating habits of Sister Sarah's children.
Remember this: They have gone after and will continue to go after Justice Thomas because its personal with them. They can't stand the fact that the man rejects the progressive dogma. That he is a SOLDIER, NO A FOUR STAR GENERAL on the front lines in the culture war in America. How dare he do that. Doesn't he know his place?
That's why they propped up Anita Hill. That's why they snooped around to see what videos he rented. That's why they distort his judicial record. And that's why they attack his family.
When liberals see Clarence Thomas they see Benedict Arnold.
When I see Clarence Thomas, I see an American hero.
Justice's wife launches 'tea party' group - latimes.com
Some things never change. Winter turns into Spring. Spring training leads into Opening Day. And the liberal media will do whatever they can to tarnish Clarence Thomas.
Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Slimes published the filth linked below. Apparently,they are VERY TROUBLED by the fact that Virginia Thomas-the wife of Clarence Thomas- has started her own conservative activist group. Virginia wants to promote conservative American values. The West Coast Slimes thinks this creates a conflict for the Supreme Court Justice.
Let's see if I got this right: Ginsburg & Sotomayor can be MEMBERS of ultra leftist groups like the ACLU and that is deemed appropriate, but when the wife of a Supreme Court Justice is aligned with a conservative cause-it causes a judicial conflict of interest?
Remember these are the same vermin that told us that because it impacted his family, John Edward's sex life was off limits, while at the same time they were reporting on the dating habits of Sister Sarah's children.
Remember this: They have gone after and will continue to go after Justice Thomas because its personal with them. They can't stand the fact that the man rejects the progressive dogma. That he is a SOLDIER, NO A FOUR STAR GENERAL on the front lines in the culture war in America. How dare he do that. Doesn't he know his place?
That's why they propped up Anita Hill. That's why they snooped around to see what videos he rented. That's why they distort his judicial record. And that's why they attack his family.
When liberals see Clarence Thomas they see Benedict Arnold.
When I see Clarence Thomas, I see an American hero.
Justice's wife launches 'tea party' group - latimes.com
Sunday, March 14, 2010
I'm Glad It Happened. But Never Again
A couple of last thoughts on the Nets move to Brooklyn, and the use of eminent domain to provide the land where the Nets will play.
Do I think the use of eminent domain in this instance is unconstitutional?
Yes I do. The fifth amendment is clear on this. If the government takes your property against your will (and compensates you for doing so) it has to be for a public purpose. It's straightforward: if the government takes your house because it wants to build a highway-that is a legitimate use of eminent domain. A highway is used by the public. It passes constitutional muster. But to take private property -against the will of the owner- and turn that property over to a private developer to build an arena, some office towers and apartment buildings? That surely does not meet the public use requirement of the takings clause of the 5th amendment.
So why have the Courts not stopped this unconstitutional land grab?
Because the Supreme Court has waterdowned the definition of "public use"- there really is no distinction between public & private use. If a property or area is defined as "blighted" the Supreme Court says its OK to take that land and hand it over to a private developer. In 2005, in the New London case, the Supreme Court extended the use of eminent domain even further to include "non-blighted" property. The New London case is scary and should be overturned ASAP. In New London, the city of New London used eminent domain to turn private property over to the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. Was the area "blighted"? No. So why was New London allowed to take the property? New London said that turning the property over to Pfizer would create more tax revenue for the city. And that was enough to meet the public use requirement. And the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with that rationale.
Bottom line: after New London, if the federal, state and local governments want to take your property, all they have to show is that the property will generate more taxes once they take it.
Like in so many other areas, when it comes to eminent domain, the Supreme Court has made horrible decisions that subverts the meaning of the constitution. If the Supreme Court did its job, NYC would never have been allowed confiscate privately owned land and turn it over to a private developer to build an arena for the Brooklyn Nets to play in. It never should have happened.
I don't understand. If you say its unconstitutional, how can you support the use of eminent domain in downtown Brooklyn?
I support it because I am a hypocrite. My desire to see Brooklyn have a professional basketball team outweighs the undeniable fact that in order to achieve that goal, the constitutional rights of many fellow Brooklynites were trampled upon. I know I am wrong to support it, but I still do.
Here is what I would love to see happen: Once the arena is built, and Lebron scores the first basket for the hometown team, I want the Supreme Court to overturn New London. I want public use to mean public use. Not private use. What happened in Atlantic Yards should never happen again. To anybody.
But I'm glad in happened in the first place.
But never again.
Do I think the use of eminent domain in this instance is unconstitutional?
Yes I do. The fifth amendment is clear on this. If the government takes your property against your will (and compensates you for doing so) it has to be for a public purpose. It's straightforward: if the government takes your house because it wants to build a highway-that is a legitimate use of eminent domain. A highway is used by the public. It passes constitutional muster. But to take private property -against the will of the owner- and turn that property over to a private developer to build an arena, some office towers and apartment buildings? That surely does not meet the public use requirement of the takings clause of the 5th amendment.
So why have the Courts not stopped this unconstitutional land grab?
Because the Supreme Court has waterdowned the definition of "public use"- there really is no distinction between public & private use. If a property or area is defined as "blighted" the Supreme Court says its OK to take that land and hand it over to a private developer. In 2005, in the New London case, the Supreme Court extended the use of eminent domain even further to include "non-blighted" property. The New London case is scary and should be overturned ASAP. In New London, the city of New London used eminent domain to turn private property over to the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. Was the area "blighted"? No. So why was New London allowed to take the property? New London said that turning the property over to Pfizer would create more tax revenue for the city. And that was enough to meet the public use requirement. And the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with that rationale.
Bottom line: after New London, if the federal, state and local governments want to take your property, all they have to show is that the property will generate more taxes once they take it.
Like in so many other areas, when it comes to eminent domain, the Supreme Court has made horrible decisions that subverts the meaning of the constitution. If the Supreme Court did its job, NYC would never have been allowed confiscate privately owned land and turn it over to a private developer to build an arena for the Brooklyn Nets to play in. It never should have happened.
I don't understand. If you say its unconstitutional, how can you support the use of eminent domain in downtown Brooklyn?
I support it because I am a hypocrite. My desire to see Brooklyn have a professional basketball team outweighs the undeniable fact that in order to achieve that goal, the constitutional rights of many fellow Brooklynites were trampled upon. I know I am wrong to support it, but I still do.
Here is what I would love to see happen: Once the arena is built, and Lebron scores the first basket for the hometown team, I want the Supreme Court to overturn New London. I want public use to mean public use. Not private use. What happened in Atlantic Yards should never happen again. To anybody.
But I'm glad in happened in the first place.
But never again.
Friday, March 12, 2010
How It Was Possible
Yesterday was a very significant day: they had the groundbreaking ceremony for the new arena that will be become the home of the Brooklyn Nets in 2012.
Having a pro sports team in Brooklyn is a half century overdue. And it could not have been done without Julius Erving. Let's trace a few historical steps:
The Nets entered the NBA as part of the merger between the two pro basketball leagues: the NBA & the ABA. Under the terms of the merger, 4 ABA teams (Pacers, Spurs, Nuggets & Nets) had to pay a $3 million dollar entry fee to join the NBA. The other ABA teams were folded, and players from the folded teams were part of a dispersal draft. (Some excellent players were in that draft-Moses Malone, Maurice Lucas Artis Gilmore.)
Now the Nets had an additional barrier which put their admission into the NBA in real jeopardy. Not only did they have to pay $3 million to the NBA for a entrance fee, they also had the pay the Knicks an additional $ 3 million. Why? The Nets played in a terrority where the Knicks had the NBA rights. In order to waive those rights, the Knicks demanded $ 3 million. Immediately.
This put the Net owner (Roy Boe) in a bind. He had the $ 3 million entry fee, but that left him tapped out. Without the additional $3 million for the Knicks, the Nets would have folded.
So Boe was in a bind. And he did something that broke the hearts of Net fans everywhere: he sold Julius Erving to Philly. For $3 million. That went to the Knicks.
Selling Julius allowed the Nets to play in the Knicks territory. That territory includes Brooklyn, USA. That's why the Knicks could not block the Nets move to Brooklyn-they signed those rights away in 1976.
Sometimes, it is hard to see the Forrest through the trees (or the other way around,I can never get that saying right).
But 34 years after it happened, the sale of Julius Erving made it possible for the Nets to move to Brooklyn.
Having a pro sports team in Brooklyn is a half century overdue. And it could not have been done without Julius Erving. Let's trace a few historical steps:
The Nets entered the NBA as part of the merger between the two pro basketball leagues: the NBA & the ABA. Under the terms of the merger, 4 ABA teams (Pacers, Spurs, Nuggets & Nets) had to pay a $3 million dollar entry fee to join the NBA. The other ABA teams were folded, and players from the folded teams were part of a dispersal draft. (Some excellent players were in that draft-Moses Malone, Maurice Lucas Artis Gilmore.)
Now the Nets had an additional barrier which put their admission into the NBA in real jeopardy. Not only did they have to pay $3 million to the NBA for a entrance fee, they also had the pay the Knicks an additional $ 3 million. Why? The Nets played in a terrority where the Knicks had the NBA rights. In order to waive those rights, the Knicks demanded $ 3 million. Immediately.
This put the Net owner (Roy Boe) in a bind. He had the $ 3 million entry fee, but that left him tapped out. Without the additional $3 million for the Knicks, the Nets would have folded.
So Boe was in a bind. And he did something that broke the hearts of Net fans everywhere: he sold Julius Erving to Philly. For $3 million. That went to the Knicks.
Selling Julius allowed the Nets to play in the Knicks territory. That territory includes Brooklyn, USA. That's why the Knicks could not block the Nets move to Brooklyn-they signed those rights away in 1976.
Sometimes, it is hard to see the Forrest through the trees (or the other way around,I can never get that saying right).
But 34 years after it happened, the sale of Julius Erving made it possible for the Nets to move to Brooklyn.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Late Night Justice
So this guy (I can't be bothered to research his name) pleaded guilty to attempting to extort David Letterman. The plea agreement calls for him to serve 6 months in jail. No problem there. It also calls for him to never publish or reveal the information he has about Letterman. Big problem there.
Remember, the fact that this guy was going to write a screenplay about Letterman was not criminal. What made it criminal was his telling Letterman he would publish the screenplay unless Letterman gave him $2 million dollars.
He could have taken the same elements in the screenplay, drafted them into a legal summons & complaint, handed it to Letterman and inform him that "I will sue you for intentional infliction of emotional distress unless you settle with me for $2 million dollars."
Which raises my main point: why does the Manhattan District Attorney's Office care whether this guy publishes this info? Why was it part of the plea agreement?
If the guy publishes something false or defamatory about Letterman, Letterman can sue him for slander or defamation. It's not something that should be a concern of the Manhattan DA's office.
Letterman is a big boy with boatloads of cash. He can handle his own business. The Manhattan DA's used more than enough resources setting up a videotaped dragnet to catch this guy for blackmail/extortion. They didn't need to go further and act as Letterman's private lawyer here.
Remember, the fact that this guy was going to write a screenplay about Letterman was not criminal. What made it criminal was his telling Letterman he would publish the screenplay unless Letterman gave him $2 million dollars.
He could have taken the same elements in the screenplay, drafted them into a legal summons & complaint, handed it to Letterman and inform him that "I will sue you for intentional infliction of emotional distress unless you settle with me for $2 million dollars."
Which raises my main point: why does the Manhattan District Attorney's Office care whether this guy publishes this info? Why was it part of the plea agreement?
If the guy publishes something false or defamatory about Letterman, Letterman can sue him for slander or defamation. It's not something that should be a concern of the Manhattan DA's office.
Letterman is a big boy with boatloads of cash. He can handle his own business. The Manhattan DA's used more than enough resources setting up a videotaped dragnet to catch this guy for blackmail/extortion. They didn't need to go further and act as Letterman's private lawyer here.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Proof The Face Lifts Cause Brain Damage
From a speech on the socialized medicine bill:
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi 3/9/10
A Man For All Times
The 3 minute Ronald Reagan chat to the American people linked below should be shown in every classroom in this country. Reagan, in his last year in office, warns young Americans that an informed patriotism and love for our common heritage has fallen out favor with the popular culture. That they must resist that wayward thinking. And seek knowledge of our glorious past. And honor it. The more you think about it, Ronald Reagan was simultaneously a man of his time and a man ahead of his time. Everything he warned about in these 3 minutes is even truer now. Check it out: | |
"But change would not mean rejection of the past. Like a tree growing strong through the seasons, rooted in the Earth and drawing life from the Sun, so, too, positive change must be rooted in traditional values—in the land, in culture, in family and community— and it must take its life from the eternal things, from the source of all life, which is faith. Such change will lead to new understandings, new opportunities, to a broader future in which the tradition is not supplanted but finds its full flowering. That is the future beckoning to your generation." -Ronald Reagan | |
| © 2010 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 | |
Nothing To Celebrate
From yesterday's NYT:
For the fifth year in a row, New York City students’ on-time graduation rates have increased, showing small but steady gains, rising to 59 percent last year from 46.5 for the class of 2005, according to figures that state and city education officials released on Tuesday.
A couple of thoughts:
1) NYC public schools engage in social promotion. Which means if Johnny can't read, he still is going on to the next grade.
2) Because of social promotion, 74% of kids that graduate from NYC public schools that go on to attend City College (CUNY) have to take remedial classes in math, reading or writing.
3) OK class, let's do the math together: 4 out of 1o don't graduate high school on time or at all, and 3 out of 4 that do graduate and enroll in a local public college cannot read, write or count at the minimum college level.
4) These numbers scream of the abysmal failure that is the NYC public school system.
5) Incredibly, Mayor Bloomberg is bursting with pride over these numbers, and calls it progress.
6) If Bloomberg's own business produced these same results, he would jump out the window from shame and horror.
7) If you are a parent, and you have no choice but to send your kid to these schools, these numbers can break your heart.
8) Give the parents choices.
9) TEAR DOWN THESE SCHOOLS
For the fifth year in a row, New York City students’ on-time graduation rates have increased, showing small but steady gains, rising to 59 percent last year from 46.5 for the class of 2005, according to figures that state and city education officials released on Tuesday.
A couple of thoughts:
1) NYC public schools engage in social promotion. Which means if Johnny can't read, he still is going on to the next grade.
2) Because of social promotion, 74% of kids that graduate from NYC public schools that go on to attend City College (CUNY) have to take remedial classes in math, reading or writing.
3) OK class, let's do the math together: 4 out of 1o don't graduate high school on time or at all, and 3 out of 4 that do graduate and enroll in a local public college cannot read, write or count at the minimum college level.
4) These numbers scream of the abysmal failure that is the NYC public school system.
5) Incredibly, Mayor Bloomberg is bursting with pride over these numbers, and calls it progress.
6) If Bloomberg's own business produced these same results, he would jump out the window from shame and horror.
7) If you are a parent, and you have no choice but to send your kid to these schools, these numbers can break your heart.
8) Give the parents choices.
9) TEAR DOWN THESE SCHOOLS
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Real Rocky
Remember that movie about the down on his luck boxer from Philly who trained by punching huge sides of beef and running up those famous steps? They called it "Rocky", but those elements were taken from Joe Frazier's life story. In Philly, they built a statue of Rocky Balboa, but they have no statue of Smokin Joe? The video below addresses this outrage. Listen, Joe is 66 now. The years are catching up. He lives above a gym that bears his name but he no longer owns. When I think of Philly, I think of Ben Franklin, Joe Frazier, and that Quaker Oats guy. In the video, you will see the interviewer notices that Joe keeps his money in his sock and Joe takes it out and says "I worked hard for this money." He sure has. Memo to the Philly City Fathers: Give This Man The Respect That He Deserves.
| |
Joe Frazier Talks about The Rocky movies and Claims HE IS ROCKY! i agree with him, Joe Is wrongly done by, We Love You Joe. Rare thriller in Manila documentary 2008 2009 New Muhammad Ali Vs Joe Frazier Vs Larry Holmes Vs George Foreman Vs Mike Tyson Boxing fight footage Champions forever Manny Pacquiao Vs Floyd mayweather rocky I II III IV V Rocky Balboa | |
| © 2010 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 | |
And The Winner Is....
Who gives a sh*t? Last night, Baldman continued his lifelong streak of never watching the Oscars. Ever. The reasons are several:
1) I never understood the American fascination with actors & acting. I don't think it's that hard to do. You wear a costume, and you say words that are written by other people. They even give you cue cards, or a Obama-styled Teleprompter, so you can read the words and then speak them. You don't even have to memorize them. When you think about it, acting is like being a puppet without strings. Someone else provides the content, and the actor just mouths the words. Very puppet-like. And this "talent" is worthy of awards?
2) And award it we do. Is there any other industry that pats itself on the back and self congratulates as much as the movie industry? The Oscars, Golden Globes, various critic awards-every week it seems there is another awards show that celebrates the same thing-movies. There are so many awards shows, that last year, I went to a friend's wedding & his wedding video ended up being nominated for Best Picture. Enough already.
1) I never understood the American fascination with actors & acting. I don't think it's that hard to do. You wear a costume, and you say words that are written by other people. They even give you cue cards, or a Obama-styled Teleprompter, so you can read the words and then speak them. You don't even have to memorize them. When you think about it, acting is like being a puppet without strings. Someone else provides the content, and the actor just mouths the words. Very puppet-like. And this "talent" is worthy of awards?
2) And award it we do. Is there any other industry that pats itself on the back and self congratulates as much as the movie industry? The Oscars, Golden Globes, various critic awards-every week it seems there is another awards show that celebrates the same thing-movies. There are so many awards shows, that last year, I went to a friend's wedding & his wedding video ended up being nominated for Best Picture. Enough already.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Spreading The Love
The Jets have traded for Chargers cornerback Antonio Cromartie. Here are Cromartie's numbers:
25- his age
7- number of kids
6- women who are the mother's of his 7 kids
5- states where the mothers/kids live
5- pending paternity suits
0- relationships he has with the mother's of his kids
As a cornerback, its obvious that the only thing this guy covers is.... wide receivers.
The Jets annual "bring your kids to work day" is going to be more crowded than that Puff Daddy CCNY concert.
Cromartie is going to be doing card shows at diaper factories to offset his child support payments.
25- his age
7- number of kids
6- women who are the mother's of his 7 kids
5- states where the mothers/kids live
5- pending paternity suits
0- relationships he has with the mother's of his kids
As a cornerback, its obvious that the only thing this guy covers is.... wide receivers.
The Jets annual "bring your kids to work day" is going to be more crowded than that Puff Daddy CCNY concert.
Cromartie is going to be doing card shows at diaper factories to offset his child support payments.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Stop It Now
CNN weighed in on the disgraceful local practice of parents taking their infants to bars in Park Slope. I continue to hang my head in shame at my old neighborhood.
Brooklyn brewhaha: Babies in bars - CNN.com
Shouts From The Stoop: Booze & Babies: An Open Letter To (Som
Brooklyn brewhaha: Babies in bars - CNN.com
Shouts From The Stoop: Booze & Babies: An Open Letter To (Som
Denying The Father
I hate to say it, or see it, but it looks like Andrew Cuomo will be the next Governor of New York. But there is something about him that should disqualify him from seeking higher office. And no, I am not talking about him being hopelessly liberal, which he is. Nor am I talking about the prosecutorial abuses he engaged in as NY's Attorney General.
It's something more fundamental than politics. I'm talking about how he refers to his dad- Mario Cuomo. You will see it during the campaign. Guaranteed. In public, he does not call him "dad" or "my father" or any other of the normal names a son calls a father. Instead, he calls him "Mario". He will answer a reporter's question about his father by saying: "Well, Mario's position is" or "I talk to Mario often" or even "The difference between Mario & I". He ALWAYS does it. He cannot bring himself to call his father "dad" in public. It is odd. It is disconcerting. And in my view, it makes him too weird to be Governor of the State of New York.
It's something more fundamental than politics. I'm talking about how he refers to his dad- Mario Cuomo. You will see it during the campaign. Guaranteed. In public, he does not call him "dad" or "my father" or any other of the normal names a son calls a father. Instead, he calls him "Mario". He will answer a reporter's question about his father by saying: "Well, Mario's position is" or "I talk to Mario often" or even "The difference between Mario & I". He ALWAYS does it. He cannot bring himself to call his father "dad" in public. It is odd. It is disconcerting. And in my view, it makes him too weird to be Governor of the State of New York.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Leave Him Alone
Now they are coming after Patterson because he got free Yankee tickets. They claim its an ethical violation. This has to be the first time in world history that a blind guy has gotten into trouble for VIEWING something.
Leaving aside the fact that just rooting for the Yankees is unethical & immoral-what's the big deal about the Governor getting free tickets to a ball game? If Patterson violated some ethical code by going to just one game, then Mayor Giuliani should become cell mates with Bernie Kerik for all the goddamn Yankee games he attended. Regardless of whether he paid for the tickets. When Rudy was Mayor, every time I watched a Yankee game Giuliani & his goofy son were sitting in special seats installed especially just for them on the on deck circle.
Giuliani was at Yankee Stadium more often than Derek Jeter.
And Patterson's the bad guy here?
Leaving aside the fact that just rooting for the Yankees is unethical & immoral-what's the big deal about the Governor getting free tickets to a ball game? If Patterson violated some ethical code by going to just one game, then Mayor Giuliani should become cell mates with Bernie Kerik for all the goddamn Yankee games he attended. Regardless of whether he paid for the tickets. When Rudy was Mayor, every time I watched a Yankee game Giuliani & his goofy son were sitting in special seats installed especially just for them on the on deck circle.
Giuliani was at Yankee Stadium more often than Derek Jeter.
And Patterson's the bad guy here?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Selective Outrage
I think its time to step back and have a little perspective on Governor Patterson's current situation.
Let's assume everything we have read about it is true. That his main advisor was accused of domestic violence. That he was charged with a misdemeanor for domestic abuse. (He wasn't arrested or charged with a felony because their were no injuries.) And that Patterson asked the woman to consider dropping the charges.
We are told by the press that domestic violence is a serious crime. Baldman agrees. We are also told that what Patterson did was inexcusable. No argument there. But when the press, liberal politicians & the National Organization of Women (NOW) say what Patterson did is so horrible, so wrong, that he must immediately resign-that's where you lose Baldman.
If these people were Jeopardy contestants, their best category would be "Selective Outrage".
Remember how Patterson's detractors called for Ted Kennedy to resign after killing a woman? Me neither. It never happened. To keep the Patterson analogy intact, maybe the press would have called for the resignation of the politician who asked MaryJo's family to not pursue criminal charges against Teddy. Oh, my bad, the press never did that, because the politician who asked Mary Jo's family to not press charges was Teddy himself. So in this case, Kennedy played the role of Patterson's aide (the person accused of domestic violence) and Patterson himself (the powerful politician who asked someone to drop the charges). The main difference of course, is in Patterson's case the victim suffered no physical injuries. In Teddy's case, the victim ended up dead at the bottom of a lake.
Remember how they called for Clinton's resignation? He was accused of exposing himself (Paula Jones); forcing himself on a woman who asked for a job after her husband committed suicide (Kathleen Wiley) & even rape (Juanita Broderick). But he needed to be left alone so he could work on behalf of the American people, right?
Bottom line: Patterson is a choir boy compared to these degenerates.
"Alex, I will take 'Double Standards' for $200 please."
Let's assume everything we have read about it is true. That his main advisor was accused of domestic violence. That he was charged with a misdemeanor for domestic abuse. (He wasn't arrested or charged with a felony because their were no injuries.) And that Patterson asked the woman to consider dropping the charges.
We are told by the press that domestic violence is a serious crime. Baldman agrees. We are also told that what Patterson did was inexcusable. No argument there. But when the press, liberal politicians & the National Organization of Women (NOW) say what Patterson did is so horrible, so wrong, that he must immediately resign-that's where you lose Baldman.
If these people were Jeopardy contestants, their best category would be "Selective Outrage".
Remember how Patterson's detractors called for Ted Kennedy to resign after killing a woman? Me neither. It never happened. To keep the Patterson analogy intact, maybe the press would have called for the resignation of the politician who asked MaryJo's family to not pursue criminal charges against Teddy. Oh, my bad, the press never did that, because the politician who asked Mary Jo's family to not press charges was Teddy himself. So in this case, Kennedy played the role of Patterson's aide (the person accused of domestic violence) and Patterson himself (the powerful politician who asked someone to drop the charges). The main difference of course, is in Patterson's case the victim suffered no physical injuries. In Teddy's case, the victim ended up dead at the bottom of a lake.
Remember how they called for Clinton's resignation? He was accused of exposing himself (Paula Jones); forcing himself on a woman who asked for a job after her husband committed suicide (Kathleen Wiley) & even rape (Juanita Broderick). But he needed to be left alone so he could work on behalf of the American people, right?
Bottom line: Patterson is a choir boy compared to these degenerates.
"Alex, I will take 'Double Standards' for $200 please."
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Hall of Fame Pitcher Hits A Home Run
Jim Bunning is a Senator from Kentucky. He also is one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history, and is a member of the Hall of Fame. And even though Bunning has thrown a couple of no hitters, Baldman believes that his best pitch was thrown last week, when he blocked the a bill that would extend unemployment benefits that will soon run out.
Now I know it sounds heartless and cruel. But if you analyze Bunning's position, how can you be aganist it?
What Bunning is saying is this: Let's extend the benefits. But lets pay for that extension now. Don't put it on the credit card. Don't kick the can down the road. Don't saddle the next generation with this debt.
Bunning wants to use the unspent funds from last year's so-called Stimulus Bill to pay for the extension.
What is wrong with that?
Bunning should be inducted in the Hall of Fame for a second time for perfectly framing the issue: whenever the Congress wants to add new spending, that cash should come from cutting an existing federal program.
Of course, Bunning has been hit with a sh*tstorm of criticism by the liberal media. He has been portrayed as uncaring about the plight of the unemployed.
But no matter what they say about Bunning, in your heart, you know he is right.
Now I know it sounds heartless and cruel. But if you analyze Bunning's position, how can you be aganist it?
What Bunning is saying is this: Let's extend the benefits. But lets pay for that extension now. Don't put it on the credit card. Don't kick the can down the road. Don't saddle the next generation with this debt.
Bunning wants to use the unspent funds from last year's so-called Stimulus Bill to pay for the extension.
What is wrong with that?
Bunning should be inducted in the Hall of Fame for a second time for perfectly framing the issue: whenever the Congress wants to add new spending, that cash should come from cutting an existing federal program.
Of course, Bunning has been hit with a sh*tstorm of criticism by the liberal media. He has been portrayed as uncaring about the plight of the unemployed.
But no matter what they say about Bunning, in your heart, you know he is right.
Eric The Witholder
As anyone who hangs out on the Stoop would know, Baldman has been after Oprah's boyfriend, the Attorney General, for some time to reveal the names of the Justice Department lawyers who represented GITMO terrorists prior to becoming government prosecutors. So far, he has stonewalled. Click onto out the very effective ad below that calls Holder out for stonewalling. Transparency we can believe in, right? | |
For more visit www.keepamericasafe.com. Call Eric Holder today 202-514-2000 and tell him advocates for terrorist detainees do not Keep America Safe. | |
| © 2010 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 | |
Adventures In Panhandling
From Jay Nordlinger:
True story — mid-’70s, Times Square. Tom Poston and Jerry Orbach are walking along with a reporter. A disheveled fellow approaches them and says, “I’m not going to lie to you, I need a drink.” Poston reaches into his pocket, pulls out a buck, extends it, then withdraws it briefly, saying, “How do I know you’re not going to spend this on food?”
True story — mid-’70s, Times Square. Tom Poston and Jerry Orbach are walking along with a reporter. A disheveled fellow approaches them and says, “I’m not going to lie to you, I need a drink.” Poston reaches into his pocket, pulls out a buck, extends it, then withdraws it briefly, saying, “How do I know you’re not going to spend this on food?”
Its Crazy
When I first read that a big fat whale drowned a woman, I thought they were referring to what Ted Kennedy did to Mary Jo. But like everyone else, I was shocked to learn that this was a whale at Sea World- and that this was the third time that this whale has killed a human. How did he get off for the first two murders? PETA must have their own Johnnie Cochran that they trotted out to defend this serial killer. How crazy is it that this whale is back to work, and he has shown no signs of remorse? Big lesson: as long as you are in show business, whether you are Roman Polanski or a whale at Sea World, the normal rules of society do not apply. You can get away with a lot of sh*t that the rest of us can't.
You know how we have Megan's law, which requires convicted sex offenders to register in their communities once they get out of prison? Baldman is calling for a Megan's law for zoos & aquariums. Here is how it would work: all previous crimes committed by animals would be posted next to the cage or tank they are in. If I am feeding a monkey some peanuts, and that monkey ripped some lady's face off in 1993, I have a right to know about it.
As for this whale, I would take him away from Sea World and place him in a confined area in the waters off of Guantanamo Bay. Then I would announce a new mandatory recreation program for the prisoners at GITMO: swimming with the whale.
If they survive that, they get waterboarded.
You know how we have Megan's law, which requires convicted sex offenders to register in their communities once they get out of prison? Baldman is calling for a Megan's law for zoos & aquariums. Here is how it would work: all previous crimes committed by animals would be posted next to the cage or tank they are in. If I am feeding a monkey some peanuts, and that monkey ripped some lady's face off in 1993, I have a right to know about it.
As for this whale, I would take him away from Sea World and place him in a confined area in the waters off of Guantanamo Bay. Then I would announce a new mandatory recreation program for the prisoners at GITMO: swimming with the whale.
If they survive that, they get waterboarded.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Share & Share Alike
Obama has signed an executive order that requires the 9 U.S. Winter Olympics Gold Medal winners to break their medals into little pieces so they can be distributed to the less fortunate Olympic competitors who did not receive a medal.
Sharing the wealth, baby.
God bless Joe The Plumber.
Sharing the wealth, baby.
God bless Joe The Plumber.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
