THE NORTHSHORE CONSERVATIVE- "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" Peter 5:8
Monday, January 31, 2011
Just the beginning Barry.....How is that hope and change crap working for ya
Obama Health-Care Reform Act Ruled Unconstitutional
TOOLBOX    Resize |
By Andrew M Harris
(c) 2011 Bloomberg NewsMonday, January 31, 2011; 3:05 PM
Jan. 31 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama's health care reform legislation, assailed as an abuse of federal power in a 26-state lawsuit, was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. judge.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Florida, declared the law unconstitutional in a ruling today. Then- Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum filed suit on behalf of 13 states on March 23, the same day Obama signed into law the legislation intended to provide the U.S. with almost universal health-care coverage. Seven states joined the litigation last year, and six signed on this year. Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli sued separately on March 23 and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed his own suit on Jan. 21.
Vinson's ruling may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta. A federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, is already slated in May to hear challenges to two conflicting federal court rulings in that state, one of which upheld the legislation while the other invalidated part of it. The U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately be asked to consider the issue.
The 955-page law bars insurers from denying coverage to people who are sick and from imposing lifetime limits on costs. It also includes pilot projects to test ideas like incentives for better results and bundled payments to medical teams for patient care.
In an Oct. 14 decision letting the case to proceed, Vinson narrowed the issues to whether the act exceeded the constitutional powers of Congress by requiring all Americans over the age of 18 to obtain coverage and expanding eligibility for Medicaid, the federal-state program offering care for the indigent.
The case is State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 10-cv-00091, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).
Vinson's ruling may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta. A federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, is already slated in May to hear challenges to two conflicting federal court rulings in that state, one of which upheld the legislation while the other invalidated part of it. The U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately be asked to consider the issue.
In an Oct. 14 decision letting the case to proceed, Vinson narrowed the issues to whether the act exceeded the constitutional powers of Congress by requiring all Americans over the age of 18 to obtain coverage and expanding eligibility for Medicaid, the federal-state program offering care for the indigent.
The case is State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 10-cv-00091, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).
Thursday, January 27, 2011
HOPE, CHANGE AND 'INVEST
'
January 26, 2011
I missed the middle section of Obama's State of the Union address when I took a break to read "War and Peace," but I gather he never got around to what I was hoping he'd say, which is: "What was I thinking?"
The national debt is $14 trillion, the Democrats won't stop spending, and President Nero gave us a long gaseous speech about his Stradivarius.
I feel so Southern whenever I watch a Democrat give a State of the Union address -- and not just because it makes me want to secede. Consternating the rest of the family, my Kentucky mother always talked back to the TV. I do it only when a Democrat is giving a speech.
And if liberals didn't like Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true," they should be really happy I wasn't in the House chamber Tuesday night.
All I kept hearing was, "Ann pays more." That's all I ever hear when Democrats start in with all that "investing."
Apparently the government will be "investing" in education, "investing" in technology, "investing" in roads and "investing" in lots and lots of government workers. Ann pays more, Ann pays more, Ann pays more.
Obama compared "investing" in education to our sending a man to the moon after the Russians launched Sputnik. Say, who was the president who recently gutted spending on NASA? Oh yes, that was Obama.
So he reminded us of the glory days of the space program, but now he's taking that money and funneling it to public school teachers. As the Democrats say: "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we hire another 10,000 public school teachers?"
Also, solar panels. Obama said the government was already "investing" in solar panels! That's a total relief. This must be how the president who brought us "Recovery Summer" is going to dig us out of the second Great Depression.
But I do wonder why no private lender considered solar panels a wise investment, forcing solar panel manufacturers to turn to the government for loans, followed by endless tax credits just to break even.
I guess people who work for the government are just smarter. We're so lucky to have them "investing" our money for us! Boy, egg must be on Warren Buffett's face!
Remember how massive government "investments" gave rise to the telephone, the light bulb, the automobile, the airplane, the personal computer ... OK, none of those.
But massive government expenditures did give us Amtrak and the TSA!
The only thing Obama vowed to cut were "earmarks." Yippee! The guy with the ears is against earmarks. Yes, the same president who quadrupled our deficit by giving money away to his UAW pals, Wall Street cronies and government workers is now lecturing us about earmarks. This is a bit like being scolded by Charlie Sheen for ordering a second wine cooler.
You knew it was bad when John McCain leapt up and enthusiastically applauded. The last time I saw McCain applaud Obama like that was when he debated him.
Obama said, "We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook."
And then the government outlawed Edison's great invention, made the Wright brothers' air travel insufferable, filed anti-trust charges against Microsoft and made cars too expensive to drive by prohibiting oil exploration, and right now -- at this very minute -- is desperately trying to regulate the Internet.
On the bright side, President Al Gore would have actually outlawed the cars in those driveways.
I especially enjoyed his pitch for high-speed trains where you "don't have to receive pat-downs." At least until one of those Muslims who is "part of our American family" blows one up -- at which point they'll be staffed with armies of genital-fondling, unionized TSA agents on the public dime.
Still, I can't wait for Obama's America. An America where I can use lightning-fast, high-speed Internet to file electronically for my unemployment benefits. Or better yet, I can ditch my old "oil-powered" car and take a "sunlight and water"-powered high-speed train to the unemployment office for a change.
And I hear CalTech is working on biofuels to power "Recovery Summer 2011."
The big laugh line was when Nero said mockingly, "I heard rumors that a few of you still have concerns about the health care law." That's called "60 percent of the American public." It's not a joke, and it's not funny.
Here's one: Hey, Obama! Guy walks into a bar in the Gaza Strip. The bartender says, "What'll you have?" But the guy is killed instantly when an Iranian-made CT-28 missile strikes the bar, also killing a woman and small child next door. Get it, Obama? HA HA!
Synthesizing Karl Marx and Ronald Reagan, Obama said the government will soon be taking over every aspect of our lives, and Republicans can't stop him -- but gosh, isn't America a great country! Teachers are great, we need to innovate, children are our future, we need paved roads, kids should do their homework, Labrador puppies are cute, I like apple pie, I (heart) Justin Bieber, and how about them Yankees! Now, here's your 2011 tax bill -- how would you like to pay for that?
Actually, I was glad to hear him say that "there isn't a person here" -- which presumably included Democrats -- who would live anyplace else.
Then why are they always trying to turn us into Western Europe?
COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
January 26, 2011
I missed the middle section of Obama's State of the Union address when I took a break to read "War and Peace," but I gather he never got around to what I was hoping he'd say, which is: "What was I thinking?"
The national debt is $14 trillion, the Democrats won't stop spending, and President Nero gave us a long gaseous speech about his Stradivarius.
I feel so Southern whenever I watch a Democrat give a State of the Union address -- and not just because it makes me want to secede. Consternating the rest of the family, my Kentucky mother always talked back to the TV. I do it only when a Democrat is giving a speech.
And if liberals didn't like Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true," they should be really happy I wasn't in the House chamber Tuesday night.
All I kept hearing was, "Ann pays more." That's all I ever hear when Democrats start in with all that "investing."
Apparently the government will be "investing" in education, "investing" in technology, "investing" in roads and "investing" in lots and lots of government workers. Ann pays more, Ann pays more, Ann pays more.
Obama compared "investing" in education to our sending a man to the moon after the Russians launched Sputnik. Say, who was the president who recently gutted spending on NASA? Oh yes, that was Obama.
So he reminded us of the glory days of the space program, but now he's taking that money and funneling it to public school teachers. As the Democrats say: "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we hire another 10,000 public school teachers?"
Also, solar panels. Obama said the government was already "investing" in solar panels! That's a total relief. This must be how the president who brought us "Recovery Summer" is going to dig us out of the second Great Depression.
But I do wonder why no private lender considered solar panels a wise investment, forcing solar panel manufacturers to turn to the government for loans, followed by endless tax credits just to break even.
I guess people who work for the government are just smarter. We're so lucky to have them "investing" our money for us! Boy, egg must be on Warren Buffett's face!
Remember how massive government "investments" gave rise to the telephone, the light bulb, the automobile, the airplane, the personal computer ... OK, none of those.
But massive government expenditures did give us Amtrak and the TSA!
The only thing Obama vowed to cut were "earmarks." Yippee! The guy with the ears is against earmarks. Yes, the same president who quadrupled our deficit by giving money away to his UAW pals, Wall Street cronies and government workers is now lecturing us about earmarks. This is a bit like being scolded by Charlie Sheen for ordering a second wine cooler.
You knew it was bad when John McCain leapt up and enthusiastically applauded. The last time I saw McCain applaud Obama like that was when he debated him.
Obama said, "We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook."
And then the government outlawed Edison's great invention, made the Wright brothers' air travel insufferable, filed anti-trust charges against Microsoft and made cars too expensive to drive by prohibiting oil exploration, and right now -- at this very minute -- is desperately trying to regulate the Internet.
On the bright side, President Al Gore would have actually outlawed the cars in those driveways.
I especially enjoyed his pitch for high-speed trains where you "don't have to receive pat-downs." At least until one of those Muslims who is "part of our American family" blows one up -- at which point they'll be staffed with armies of genital-fondling, unionized TSA agents on the public dime.
Still, I can't wait for Obama's America. An America where I can use lightning-fast, high-speed Internet to file electronically for my unemployment benefits. Or better yet, I can ditch my old "oil-powered" car and take a "sunlight and water"-powered high-speed train to the unemployment office for a change.
And I hear CalTech is working on biofuels to power "Recovery Summer 2011."
The big laugh line was when Nero said mockingly, "I heard rumors that a few of you still have concerns about the health care law." That's called "60 percent of the American public." It's not a joke, and it's not funny.
Here's one: Hey, Obama! Guy walks into a bar in the Gaza Strip. The bartender says, "What'll you have?" But the guy is killed instantly when an Iranian-made CT-28 missile strikes the bar, also killing a woman and small child next door. Get it, Obama? HA HA!
Synthesizing Karl Marx and Ronald Reagan, Obama said the government will soon be taking over every aspect of our lives, and Republicans can't stop him -- but gosh, isn't America a great country! Teachers are great, we need to innovate, children are our future, we need paved roads, kids should do their homework, Labrador puppies are cute, I like apple pie, I (heart) Justin Bieber, and how about them Yankees! Now, here's your 2011 tax bill -- how would you like to pay for that?
Actually, I was glad to hear him say that "there isn't a person here" -- which presumably included Democrats -- who would live anyplace else.
Then why are they always trying to turn us into Western Europe?
COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
Professor charged with peeing on colleague's door
 Professor charged with peeing on colleague's doorThursday, January 27, 2011 MORE NEWS(01-27) 05:04 PST San Fernando, Calif. (AP) -- A California university professor has been charged with peeing on a colleague's campus office door. Prosecutors charged 43-year-old Tihomir Petrov, a math professor at California State University, Northridge, with two misdemeanor counts of urinating in a public place. Arraignment is scheduled Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court in San Fernando. Investigators say a dispute between Petrov and another math professor was the motive. The Los Angeles Times says Petrov was captured on videotape urinating on the door of another professor's office on the San Fernando Valley campus. School officials had rigged the camera after discovering puddles of what they thought was urine at the professor's door. |
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/01/27/state/n050426S19.DTL#ixzz1CFLnjq91
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
If this is true, everybody that watches Rachel Maddow would be intelligent.
Men watching a news broadcast are more likely to pay attention if a sexy anchor is delivering the day's stories. Just what they're captivated by, however, is another matter entirely.
According to a new study from researchers at Indiana University, male viewers snap to attention at the sight of a female anchor they find attractive, but are distracted by her looks and therefore less likely to remember what she had to say.
In other words? "Men might want to reread the story in the newspaper," Maria Elizabeth Rabe, one of the study's authors, told AOL News in a phone interview.
Rabe and her colleague Leila Samson wanted to see how sexy anchors affect men's ability to retain the actual news, so they devised an experiment in which they asked hundreds of them to watch the same 24-year-old anchor deliver a broadcast twice -- once dressed in modest attire and another time in something more revealing, complete with jewelry, makeup and cleavage.
The study, published online in the journal Communication Research, found that men were more likely to closely watch the sexy anchors but less likely to remember what they said. So networks that hire attractive news anchors may get higher ratings but have less-informed male viewers as a result.
And it may be hard for those good-looking reporters to be taken seriously, as well. The experiment found that men were less likely to find the alluring anchor credible when she reported on hard news topics like war or politics.
"In particular, sexual cues harden men's perceptions of a woman's ineptness to report on traditionally masculine story topics," the study says.
Rabe said the findings are likely to add fuel to charges of gender and age discrimination in broadcast journalism, where women anchors are increasingly suing their networks for firing them when they hit 40 because they are no longer perceived as attractive.
"If a network is only interested in high ratings, then attractive female anchors are great," Rabe said. "But if the goal is to inform people, which they say it is, then hiring -- or firing -- an anchor because of her apparent sexiness is counterproductive."
Interestingly, women are also more attentive when they see a good-looking anchor on TV -- except, unlike males, they seem to remember more about what the reporter says, not less. Rabe is developing a new study to understand why, but said she has at least one theory: Women may see those sexy anchors as competition for men.
"We think it may be explained by female-on female competition," she said. "Women look at this attractive woman, and they start to pay attention."
According to a new study from researchers at Indiana University, male viewers snap to attention at the sight of a female anchor they find attractive, but are distracted by her looks and therefore less likely to remember what she had to say.
In other words? "Men might want to reread the story in the newspaper," Maria Elizabeth Rabe, one of the study's authors, told AOL News in a phone interview.
Getty Images
Male viewers are riveted by the sight of a news anchorwoman they find attractive, but may not remember what she said, according to a new study.
Rabe and her colleague Leila Samson wanted to see how sexy anchors affect men's ability to retain the actual news, so they devised an experiment in which they asked hundreds of them to watch the same 24-year-old anchor deliver a broadcast twice -- once dressed in modest attire and another time in something more revealing, complete with jewelry, makeup and cleavage.
The study, published online in the journal Communication Research, found that men were more likely to closely watch the sexy anchors but less likely to remember what they said. So networks that hire attractive news anchors may get higher ratings but have less-informed male viewers as a result.
And it may be hard for those good-looking reporters to be taken seriously, as well. The experiment found that men were less likely to find the alluring anchor credible when she reported on hard news topics like war or politics.
"In particular, sexual cues harden men's perceptions of a woman's ineptness to report on traditionally masculine story topics," the study says.
Rabe said the findings are likely to add fuel to charges of gender and age discrimination in broadcast journalism, where women anchors are increasingly suing their networks for firing them when they hit 40 because they are no longer perceived as attractive.
"If a network is only interested in high ratings, then attractive female anchors are great," Rabe said. "But if the goal is to inform people, which they say it is, then hiring -- or firing -- an anchor because of her apparent sexiness is counterproductive."
Interestingly, women are also more attentive when they see a good-looking anchor on TV -- except, unlike males, they seem to remember more about what the reporter says, not less. Rabe is developing a new study to understand why, but said she has at least one theory: Women may see those sexy anchors as competition for men.
"We think it may be explained by female-on female competition," she said. "Women look at this attractive woman, and they start to pay attention."
"Hate only comes from conservatives or Tea Partiers"- Yeah Right
A protester defecates on a smoldering American flag at 'The Rally March and Action camp to Stop The War!' in Portland, OR, 2007.
Who Cares What This Pig Thinks?
Rosie O'Donnell defends 'Teen Mom,' says show 'sends out a positive message'
Wednesday, January 26th 2011, 12:25 PM
Kempin/Getty; MTV
Rosie O'Donnell said she decided to watch 'Teen Mom' with her 13-year-old daughter, Chelsea."Teen Mom" has a surprising ally in Rosie O'Donnell.
O'Donnell, a mother of four, toldUsMagazine.com that she believes the show "sends out a positive message."
The hit MTV series has come under fire from the Parents Television Council (which is currently leading the war against MTV's other controversial series "Skins") and most recently Kim Kardashian for allegedly glamorizing pregnancy and making it "trendy."
But O'Donnell, 48, found it "interesting."
"My daughter [Chelsea] is 13. I watch it with her," the comedienne shared. "The rate of teenage pregnancy is up, so when my daughter saw that ['Teen Mom 2'] was on the air, I said 'Let's watch it.'"
O'Donnell said the series teaches a valuable lesson.
"At the end of almost every episode the mothers say they wish they used protection or waited, 'My whole life is over,' or 'I can't live the life of a teenager,'" she said.
Still, O'Donnell admitted there is at least one negative effect.
"I do feel sad that all these girls are getting pregnant in an effort to get on a TV show," she said. "That's a little tragic."
And the show has O'Donnell thinking about her own kids, including Chelsea, who was adopted.
"I think the fantasy for adopted children is to have a baby of their own, and then keeping it, which their mother did not do," she said.
O'Donnell, a mother of four, toldUsMagazine.com that she believes the show "sends out a positive message."
The hit MTV series has come under fire from the Parents Television Council (which is currently leading the war against MTV's other controversial series "Skins") and most recently Kim Kardashian for allegedly glamorizing pregnancy and making it "trendy."
But O'Donnell, 48, found it "interesting."
"My daughter [Chelsea] is 13. I watch it with her," the comedienne shared. "The rate of teenage pregnancy is up, so when my daughter saw that ['Teen Mom 2'] was on the air, I said 'Let's watch it.'"
O'Donnell said the series teaches a valuable lesson.
"At the end of almost every episode the mothers say they wish they used protection or waited, 'My whole life is over,' or 'I can't live the life of a teenager,'" she said.
Still, O'Donnell admitted there is at least one negative effect.
"I do feel sad that all these girls are getting pregnant in an effort to get on a TV show," she said. "That's a little tragic."
And the show has O'Donnell thinking about her own kids, including Chelsea, who was adopted.
"I think the fantasy for adopted children is to have a baby of their own, and then keeping it, which their mother did not do," she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)