USC Trojan Fan Tries To Explain NCAA Sanctions to UCLA Bruin Fan

USC Trojan Fan Tries To Explain NCAA Sanctions to UCLA Bruin Fan

The USC Trojan football program in 2011 was limited to playing only the games that were scheduled within the first year of play within the PAC12 conference by the NCAA.

In this YouTube video conversation, that takes place after the USC - UCLA game, where USC Trojans drubbed the UCLA Bruins FIFTY points to ZERO points (50-0) to decide who would have the best record of competition within the Southern Section of the PAC12, a Trojan fan attempts to explain that USC, as a school program, did not cheat ... but were sanctioned by the NCAA for not being aware of a rules infraction perpetrated by an individual, Reggie Bush, whose college career ended in 2005.

Under the ruling by the NCAA, USC could not participate in any post season play in any Bowl games for two years (2010, 2011). If USC could participate, because it beat UCLA 50 to 0 in the PAC12 Southern Section play off, USC would have had to play against the PAC12 Northern Section winner, Oregon, who the Trojans had beat earlier in the season.

UCLA Bruins were able to score points (as opposed to not scoring any points as with USC) against Oregon in the playoff game ... but lost to Oregon, Dec 2, 2011 at Oregon, 31-49 ... and the game wasn't as close as the score suggests. By winning against UCLA's "gutty little Bruins", Oregon will represent the PAC12 against the Wisconsin Badgers in the Rose Bowl. So, the gutty little Bruins of UCLA, with its 6 win and 7 loss record, will be allowed to play in a post season bowl game (they will meet Illinois in the KRAFT Fight Hunger Bowl) as per the NCAA. This post season Bowl game is scheduled to be played in San Francisco on Sunday, December 31, 2011. It features a matchup between a team with a losing record (UCLA) against one entering the bowl game on a six-game losing streak (Illinois).

AP Top 25

Sun Dec 4, 2011

1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma St.
4. Stanford
5. USC
6. Oregon
7. Arkansas
8. Boise St.
9. Wisconsin
10. South Carolina

How did the UCLA Bruins get their nickname - the "gutty little Bruins"?

When the late Tommy Prothro coached football at UCLA, some of his over-achieving teams were known as "the gutty little Bruins." That designation was originated by Dean Cromwell, USC's track and field coach during the 1940s. When asked once about his next opponent, Cromwell, whose teams never lost to UCLA, said, "Oh, we're going to meet [former UCLA coach] Ducky Drake's gutty little Bruins." Since then, all UCLA sports teams have picked up the tag "gutty little Bruins."

So, the gutty little Bruins, with their gutty little 2011 6 win and 7 loss season football record, gets to play in a post-season Bowl game which is generally awarded to teams with a ... wait for it ... winning record! This re-defines the depths of the word "GUTTY".

Fight On!

Occupy LA Hits The Snooze Button

Los Angeles City Hall where for seven weeks now, a bunch of imported professional agitators set up shop on the 1.5 acre South lawn park in downtown LA. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks (2011)

Occupy LA Hits The Snooze Button

All citizens of Los Angeles want to do is wake up, go to work, have fun, and live their lives with definition ... the definition they choose to have for their lives. For seven weeks now, a bunch of imported professional agitators set up shop on the 1.5 acre South lawn park at City Hall, in the name of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. All they have been able to accomplish is attract a bunch of homeless, out of work students, and some media attention to the fact that .... and is the only consistent point ... they are there to "Occupy". All other potential political points to be made are subservient to the concept To Occupy.

Civilized cities call what these people have been doing in terms of "Occupy" is to trespass.

Today, this morning, we citizens of Los Angeles have been treated to wall-to-wall television coverage of the Los Angeles Police attempting to restore some order to this trespassing hoard. The Occupy crowd was prepared for a confrontation of eviction because, after seven weeks, the Mayor decided that trespassing will finally not be tolerated on the South lawn park area of the Los Angeles City Hall. With a 72 hour notice that the laws would be enforced at 12:01am PT Monday morning, all the people the Occupy Movement could muster, what with the imported protesters from San Diego, Oakland, and other cities was an estimated 700 to 1,200 people on the South Lawn.

The crowd, wanting to create more tension, spilled on to the street surrounding City Hall, and for about six hours, the Los Angeles Police Department packed the area with personnel dressed in "tactical response gear" (the Occupy Movement wanted the media gathered to report "riot gear"). The LAPD, after broadcasting via bullhorn that the streets will be cleared at 5:00am PT, started to move people off of the streets. Some shouting ensued, objects were thrown (a couple of bamboo poles/spears and bottles), and about five people were arrested and removed from the scene.

One of the news reporters stated that this Occupy LA encampment represented the largest gathering of Occupy protesters in the nation. So wrapped up was this reporter at romancing this event, she stated erroneously that this started seven weeks ago and had grown into this major protest. If this were the Tea Party, and folks were given 72 hours to gather at a specific park, there would be far more than an estimated 700 to 1,200 people standing around. In fact with a seven week notice from Glenn Beck, the Tea Party folks were able to amass over 750,000 people on the Mall in Washington D.C. prior to the 2010 elections.

The television coverage, after about an hour of dedicated Occupy coverage, with helicopter shots and on the street interviews, has resumed to its normal morning news coffee talk. The weather here is Santa Ana wind beautiful and the temperature is expected to hit the low 80's.

As for the LAPD, they seem to have employed a strategy of "show up and wait" with intent of wearing out the cell phone batteries of the Occupy LA protester's iPhones and boring them to death with the intensity of presence.

Time to hit the snooze button.



<article first appeared as Occupy LA Hits The Snooze Button at Technorati>

Post CNN Debate: The Trouble With Gingrich/Romney And Conservative Reality

Republican presidential candidates from left, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, Texas Congress man Ron Paul, Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, businessman Herman Cain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and former Utah Governor/former U.S. Diplomat under two presidents Jon Huntsman before the CNN AEI, Heritage Foundation debate on foreign policy. Image Credit: The Heritage Foundation

Post CNN Debate: The Trouble With Gingrich/Romney And Conservative Reality

Just as in the process of panning for Gold, debates help to have the heavy metal collect at the bottom of the pan. The 11th debate between GOP candidates for president of the United States sponsored by CNN and two of the most recognized conservative policy institutions, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and The Heritage Foundation, helped to have the heavy Conservative metal show itself at the bottom of the pan and, on immigration, Newt's (and by comparison - Mitt's) metal began to pour out of the pan.

Newt Gingrich is pithy and well tested in the public arena. He generally gives great answers to many of the problems a (as polls show time and again) politically Center-Right citizen populous confronts in a Big Government world. However, when one begins to peel away the layers of a Gingrich onion, one finds a person who has made his career on governing from a "Ruling Class" and liberal position that government can and should effect people's lives over the Rule-Of-Law, the Bill Of Rights, and the Constitution.

Let us take a simple comparison between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney on the issue of a health care system based on a government mandate. Mitt Romney has trouble with Conservatives as being "Ruling Class" and liberal because he implemented "Romney Care" in Massachusetts that many say the Democrats based the national "Obama Care" mandated health care law on. It was only a few months ago that Newt Gingrich was comfortable with a national mandate for health care but Mitt Romney has always come down on the side of a States solution to health care and that a government mandate for a health care system had no place in this country. On this point, Newt was for a large federal government solution, Mitt felt that any health care solution applied to a populous, should come exclusively at the state government level - this is a more Conservative position, not great ... but more Conservative.

Last night, Newt Gingrich articulated a position on immigration that may completely knock him out of the top tier of candidates for a Republican President of the United States, and rightfully so.

This excerpted and edited from Fox News -

Gingrich on Top of GOP Polls, Takes Big Risk Articulating Illegal Immigration Policy
Published November 23, 2011 | FoxNews.com

The Republican presidential hopeful, who has sprung to the top of the polling charts in the past two weeks, warned against a policy that proposes deporting illegals who have been in the country for 25 years. Gingrich said he would not "expel" those who have come to the United States illegally if it happened decades ago.

And in an appeal to family values, he said long-residing illegal aliens shouldn't become citizens, but neither should they be torn apart from their families.

"I don't see how the party that says it's the party of family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families which have been here a quarter century and I'm prepared to take the heat for saying let's be humane in enforcing the law," he said.
[Reference Here]

Okay, so let's say anyone of us legal citizens did not pay their taxes for 25 years, but we were good citizens and good neighbors ... would the IRS just ignore the tax laws and not prosecute us and throw us in jail?

We were guilty of breaking the law for 25 years and now we have to pay the penalty ... would our family be able to join us in jail?

No, but those people who have been breaking the immigration law for 25 years, with nice families, been good neighbors, and good citizens can have their families join them when they leave the country if the current immigration laws were enforced.

In a 2007 Meet the Press interview, Mitt Romney outlined his views on illegal immigration and states the 12 million, or so, illegal immigrants should be granted citizenship (which allows for voting). During last night's debate, Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, only advocated for legality through amnesty, not citizenship ... a more Conservative position.

Without parsing, the "Gold Standard" for Center-Right voters has been, and will always be, the Rule-Of-Law, the Bill Of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States. Sadly, both Mitt Romney (with his lead in the polls, experience in business, and government leadership) and Newt Gingrich (with all of his smarts, historical Speaker of the House accomplishment/perspective, and articulatory gifts) are not members ... on immigration ... of the Gold Standard and should be slipping from the pan.


Up next: The CNN Debate from Arizona, sponsored by the Republican Party of Arizona - November 30, 2011.



<First published as Post CNN Debate: The Trouble With Gingrich/Romney And Conservative Reality at Technorati>

“The [CBS/National Journal] Commander-In-Chief Debate” From South Carolina

Image Credit: CBS News via Politisite


“The [CBS/National Journal] Commander-In-Chief Debate” From South Carolina

With the focus on National Security and Foreign policy, CBS News and National Journal partners with the South Carolina GOP to present the first Republican Presidential Primary debate on broadcast television.

The debate, the second in the last four days, is scheduled to be broadcast live for one hour only [given the local schedule] starting at 8:00 pm ET and is to be broadcast on all CBS stations nationally.

“The South Carolina Republican Party is excited to be a partner on the first nationally televised, broadcast network debate of the Presidential Primary season,” said Chad Connelly, Chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party. “Presidential candidates and Republican activists across our nation know South Carolina’s historic tradition of successfully choosing the Republican nominee, a tradition uninterrupted for over thirty years. We look forward to the debate on Wofford College’s beautiful campus and continuing to demonstrate that in South Carolina, ‘We Pick Presidents.’”

The expectation is that these topics of National Security and Foreign Policy should play to the benefit of former Utah Governor, John Huntsman (also, former ambassador to China for the Obama Administration, he also served as ambassador to Singapore under George H.W. Bush and as a Deputy Trade Representative under George W. Bush.), Former leader of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, and Former Senator, Rick Santorum. The rest of the field, it is assumed, will be coming in with a crash course understanding of the issues and there lays the entertainment ... and the challenge of moderators, Scott Pelley (anchor and managing editor of the CBS EVENING NEWS WITH SCOTT PELLEY) and Major Garrett (former Fox News standout and current congressional correspondent for National Journal).

A short but possibly sweet debate #10 for the Republican field of presidential/Commander-In-Chief hopefuls.

In order for all to see the debate in total, we were instructed by Scott Pelley to see the last 30 minutes of the 90 minute debate by going to one's computer and log on to CBS.com.

The biggest contention with this format and debate is the adherence to time. Of course, Rick Santorum has trouble with this right away because he gets bogged down in the tall grass with describing policy.

Huntsman's first answer is short and probably the most popular. He looks to isolation and extraction from current involvement save some small force for intelligence and training the government forces of the country we are leaving.

Gingrich hits the problem on the head recognizing this problem is much larger and complex than the way we are addressing it. Then Gingrich goes on to make the case for defending Christians throughout the world from Muslim persecution.

Perry turns the focus back to Foreign Aid and spending as the first issue that informs our foreign policy.

Bachmann on Pakistan - A difficult area and harbors terrorism. They have Nuclear weapon and worldwide connections are aligned against Israel ... we need to stand with Israel.

Gingrich agrees with the Perry approach starting with Foreign Aid at zero every year and have countries that we currently support argue for its maintenance.

Santorum on the Nukes - Pakistan must be handled as a friend because they have the bomb. It is important to keep a solid and stable relationship. Money on foreign aid is spent here in this country first on the manufacture of weapons before they are used to secure our relationships.

BREAK

Gingrich stiff arms Major Garrett on a question relating to how he characterized Romney [as a good manager] on a national radio show - Laura Ingraham | 9:00am to 12:00pm ET - by shaking his head NO! "We are here to replace Barack Obama" as president and we all would be better than the current president.

Parry makes a pitch as being a decision maker [over others hopefuls] as Commander-In-Chief.

Bachmann - Obama has the ACLU managing the activities of the CIA.

Paul - Water boarding is torture. Torture is uncivilized.

Huntsman - Recites his resume then comes down on the side that water boarding as torture.

Pelley then asks Romney about Obama's killing of an American born terrorist in Yeman by an unmanned missile ... Was Obama correct in this act?

Pelley begins to argue with the people taking part in the debate about the Rule-Of-Law. Gingrich fires back that individual people who are creating war with America are defined by a panel as "Enemy Combatants" and therefore not subject to America's Rule-Of-Law (to uproarious crowd applause in agreement with Newt's point of order).

Major Garrett gains control of the direction of the debate by asking Foreign Trade questions of Romney and Perry.

Pelley allows himself a follow up question with Romney on Foreign Trade ... taking precious time away from other respondents.

Huntsman - We do not need a trade war with China. We need to engage the younger, internet connected generations in China on issues of trade for them to have an effect on the Ruling Class ... Author comment - this does not make sense.

BREAK

A Twitter question asks of Gov. Perry if Israel would start at zero in foreign aid? Perry said YES and that this should be applied to the budgets of all of the Federal Departments he had trouble naming in an earlier debate.

BREAK - most people throughout the nation either miss this part of the debate or they tune in to CBS.com on their computers.

In Palm Springs, the affiliate cut away for local news and so the internet came into play.

There was a problem with the transmission and it seems that the internet connection did not have enough bandwidth to handle the demand – choppy video and consequently, choppy audio. Further investigation found that this bandwidth problem was actually with the main server contracted for use by CBS ... REALLY?!

CBS is a bush-league outfit to schedule a Republican presidential debate, title it “The Commander-In-Chief Debate”, and broadcast only a portion of the debate on a national basis, then provide inadequate internet service to carry the balance of the debate.

Hey CBS, why sponsor and hold a debate if you are not serious enough to carry the whole debate?

If this were a Democrat Political Party debate with eight contenders, would you have only enough television broadcast time slot bandwidth to carry a percentage of the whole debate and after debate spin?

Why on Earth would the South Carolina GOP [and the NRCC] agree to such a half-handed set-up … is this the best they could negotiate?

How weak.

WOW!

Baylor University's Sponsored Illegal Immigrant Activism ... Sparks Response

Baylor University school of Law has 89.8% of graduates get job offers upon graduation. Image Credit: law-school.findthebest.com

Baylor University's Sponsored Illegal Immigrant Activism ... Sparks Response

Hispanic leaders in Texas are joining a student’s fight against a political culture they say seeks to pigeon-hole minorities as reliably liberal. Daniel Cervera, a senior at Baylor University, filed legislation at his school’s student government in response to what he describes as selective enforcement of university policy. “The school essentially sponsored a speaking platform to an illegal immigrant enrolled in our law school, who then used that platform to speak in favor of civil unrest to push a political agenda,” said Cervera.

Greg Torres, a member of the student senate, agrees to the proposition the University’s decision to sponsor illegal immigration activism violates established policy and precedent, “It’s embarrassing for all Hispanic students whose families have worked hard to make a name for themselves, as opposed to doing it illegally and in a way that university policy clearly opposes.”

One university official defended the school's decision claiming that Cervera’s proposal threatens to stifle debate on campus. Dr. Elizabeth Palacios, Baylor University’s Dean for Student Development, is quoted in the November 3, 2011 edition of the campus newspaper with the following, “As a university, we are never going to be Tier 1 if we censor thoughts that are incongruent [with our beliefs].”

Garrett referenced a report from the March 4, 2011 edition of the campus newspaper, with Palacios defending the private Christian school’s decision to deny the Sexual Identity Forum, a GLBT-advocacy group, an official charter.

“When it’s apparent that there is a stance being taken by the language, by the spirit or by the intent of a group, then it takes on a different purpose and it takes on a different slant,” said Dr. Palacios, explaining the school’s decision to deny a student group charter.

Duke Machado, president of the Hispanic Republican Club, says Cervera’s action marks the importance of minorities becoming more independently engaged. “It needs to start with us,” said Machado, “It’s important that minorities aggressively counter abuses of racial identity for political gain.”

Felipe Reyna, a retired appeals court justice and Baylor Law graduate, also weighed in on the matter, “For a Baylor Law student to speak favorably of engaging in unlawful activity to push a political view is really shameful. I sincerely hope university administrators will rethink their decision to defend sponsoring such an event.”
(ht: Baylor YCT)

We, at MAXINE, believe it is time for all citizens to embrace the concept of defending legal immigration and the right of citizens to pour value back into the proposition of actually being a citizen of the country they wish to have protected and defended.

<Article first seen as Baylor University's Sponsored Illegal Immigrant Activism ... Sparks Response at Technorati>

Tea Party vs Occupy Movement - Boston Herald's Confusing Take

The Media’s Guide to Protestors - Image Credit: William Warren via Liberty Features (2011)

Tea Party vs Occupy Movement - Boston Herald's Confusing Take

Over the weekend, the Boston Herald posted an article that tried to make the case of commonality between the Tea Party Movement and the Occupy (wherever) Movement. The proposition that the article tried to make from a national poll with 1,005 American adults (no background on demographic ... assume random) was that people were becoming tired of public political activism.

While the title of the article delivered a direct comparison and linkage of the Occupy Movement to the Tea Party Movement, the first five paragraphs were devoted to the Occupy Movement, the next three paragraphs were devoted to the Tea Party Movement, and the balance of the analysis placed the two movements side-by-side with the conclusion as follows:

This excerpted and edited from the Boston Herald -

Thumbs down for Occupy, Tea Party in new nationwide poll
By Joe Battenfeld - Originally posted November 6, 2011

The Occupy Wall Street movement may be starting to lose its luster with the American public, with four in ten now saying they have an unfavorable view of the protests, a new nationwide UMass Lowell/Boston Herald poll shows.
----
But the UMass Lowell/Herald poll shows one clear trend — that Americans have a more negative view of the Tea Party movement than the Wall Street protests.
----
More than 71 percent of all American adults have an unfavorable impression of the federal government, including 72 percent of Occupy Wall Street supporters and 86 percent of Tea Party sympathizers. And about three-quarters of all Americans say that political action committees and large corporations have too much influence in politics.

This indicates the most successful strategy for winning office in 2012 would be running against both Washington and Wall Street — a strategy already being tested in Massachusetts by Democratic Senate challenger Elizabeth Warren and the current incumbent, Republican Sen. Scott Brown.

But while Tea Party and Occupy supporters may share some views, they don’t have much else in common, according to the UMass Lowell/Herald poll.

Nearly two-thirds of Tea Party sympathizers describe their political views as conservative, while just 14 percent of Occupy Wall Street backers call themselves conservative.

A third of those who have a favorable view of the Occupy movement say they are liberals, while just 5 percent of Tea Party backers describe themselves as liberal.
[Reference Here]

The following poll was featured in the sidebar on the right side of the Boston Herald article:

Herald Pulse

Where do you stand on the Occupy and Tea Party movements?

27% - Occupy campers annoy me
14% - I back what Occupy has to say
7% - The Tea Party annoys me
36% - I’m all for what the Tea Party stands for
4% - I like them both
12% - I dislike them both

Total Votes: 2,018

What if the poll answer choices were arranged a little differently as in like-with-like questions:

Positive
36% - I’m all for what the Tea Party stands for
14% - I back what Occupy has to say

Negative
7% - The Tea Party annoys me
27% - Occupy campers annoy me

General Attitude
4% - I like them both
12% - I dislike them both

When arranged in this way, one comes away with a completely different picture of the attitudes of the two thousand plus Boston Herald reader respondents.

For those having a positive view of either approach, just add "I like them both at 4%" to the affirmative question posed for each movement.

For those having a negative view of either approach, just add "I dislike them both at 12%" to the negative question posed for each movement.

Tea Party Movement
Positive - 40% / Negative - 26%
(66% response attention)

Occupy Movement
Positive - 18% / Negative - 39%
(57% response attention)

Last Comparison
TP Positive - 40% | OM Negative - 39% = 79% similar attitude camp

OM Positive - 18% | TP Negative - 26% = 44% similar attitude camp

Sorry, it just seems that the Boston Herald has its focus on the wrong set of information numbers and thereby performs a disservice to its readers with the conclusions they choose to highlight and put forward. The media seems bent on using polls to shape opinion as opposed to inform opinion.

Why doesn't the Boston Herald look at their own reader respondent poll which seems to be as vetted and directed (with twice as many responses - over 2,000) as the poll they used for the development of the original article that ultimately tries to paint the Senate seat contest between Democratic Senate challenger (OM attitude camp) Elizabeth Warren and the current incumbent, Republican Sen. (TP attitude camp) Scott Brown as ... wait for it ... a toss-up.

A deeper look at the sidebar poll seems to suggest a different projected outlook.



<Article first appeared as Tea Party vs Occupy Movement - Boston Herald's Confusing Take at Technorati>

Homes Of The Progressive And Occupy Protest Minded

Robin Leach, after reviewing the photo slideshow of the home of the progressive and occupy movement arrested, would wonder where's the script for the next show of the "Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous"! Image Credit: wikipedia.com


Homes Of The Progressive And Occupy Protest Minded
If one reviews the public information available through arrest records, one finds out that folks who get arrested at an Occupy Movement protest rally might be good candidates for a reality TV revival of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.

In an investigative report and slideshow originally issued by the Daily Caller, it becomes pretty eye-opening to see just who the self-called 99% of the people really are if arrest records are any gauge.

District of Columbia: An Occupy Wall Street protester arrested on October 1 — presumably penniless and from a blue-collar family — lives in this $850,000 home in the nation’s capital. Caption and Image Credit: Daily Caller

This excerpted and edited from the Daily Caller -

NYC arrest records: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury
By Will Rahn - Published: 12:45 AM 11/02/2011 | Updated: 10:32 AM 11/02/2011

For each of the 984 Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested in New York City between September 18 and October 15, police collected and filed an information sheet recording the arrestee’s name, age, sex, criminal charge, home address and — in most cases — race. The Daily Caller has obtained all of this information from a source in the New York City government.

Among addresses for which information is available, single-family homes listed on those police intake forms have a median value of $305,000 — a far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied housing units in the United States.

Some of the homes where “Occupy” arrestees reside, viewed through Google Maps and the Multiple Listing Service real estate database, are the definition of opulence.

Texas: This mansion has five bedrooms and, from the looks of it, plenty of space for a drum circle. Its economically disadvantaged occupant was arrested while “occupying” Wall Street on October 5. Caption and Image Credit: Daily Caller

Using county assessors and online resources such as Zillow.com, TheDC estimated property values and rents for 87 percent of the homes and 59 percent of the apartments listed in the arrest records.

Even in the nation’s currently depressed housing market, at least 95 of the protesters’ residences are worth approximately $500,000 or more. (RELATED SLIDESHOW: Opulent homes of the ’99 percent’)

The median monthly rent for those living in apartments whose information is readily available is $1,850.

Of the 984 protesters arrested, at least 797 are white. The median age of “Occupy” protesters taken into custody is 27 years.
[Reference Here]

New York: The pricey brownstone with the red door on a street where homes go for $850,000? It’s home to an impoverished Occupy Wall Street protester arrested on October 15. Caption and Image Credit: Daily Caller

Exposed to this type of eye-opening information, one could easily project that this Occupy Movement is NOT what the protesters say it is about. This protest action is just Progressive Chaos Creation 101 for a big, bigger, biggest federal government thanks to the SEIU, AFL-CIO, any public sector union, community organizing groups formally known as ACORN, and the Democrat Political Party. This is just another episode in the Lifestyles of the Progressive And Occupy Protest Minded rich people!

Socialistic "champagne wishes and caviar dreams" ... where is Robin Leach when we need him?


<Article first published as Homes Of The Progressive And Occupy Protest Minded at Technorati>

Herman Cain Accused ... It Is Time To "Occupy Politico"

Fearing the message of Herman Cain who is shaking up the political landscape in Washington, Inside the Beltway media have begun to launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Cain. Since Washington establishment critics haven't had much luck in attacking Mr. Cain's ideas to fix a bad economy and create jobs, they are trying to attack him in any way they can. Caption Credit: hermancain.com | Image Credit: Politico.com

Herman Cain Accused ... It Is Time To "Occupy Politico"

We have seen this type of dust up before, remember Clarence Thomas about twenty years ago?

The internet political news source, Politico (not known for a fair and balanced stance) broke a story of sexual harassment by Herman Cain that happened while he was the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s. According to the Jonathon Martin of Politico, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior NRA association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, according to Martin, multiple (unnamed) sources confirm to Politico the following happened.

"The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures."
[Reference Here]

Politico states that it has confirmed the identities of the two female restaurant association employees who complained about Cain but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.

In America, except in politics, people have the right to face their accuser. If Herman Cain can not have the right to meet his accusers, voting people from the Tea Party, to independents, to just plain Herman Cain supporters should stand at the door of Politico and "Occupy Politico" until the people behind these accusations are revealed. The sources that disclosed this information to Politico, the two female restaurant association employees who complained about Cain, and the full disclosure of what actually happened needs to come to public light just as the Congress forced the American people to witness nearly 20 years ago with the "High Tech Lynching" accusations of Clarence Thomas as he was being confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.

The Congress and Anita Hill could not prove that Clarence Thomas was a pervert and it is suspected that these accusations of Herman Cain would amount to be as consequential and valid as the accusations on Thomas.

It is time to refuse to play this Inside the Beltway media game. Demand the sources, demand that the accusers reveal themselves, demand the evidence ... "OCCUPY POLITICO"!


<Article first published as Herman Cain Accused … It Is Time To “Occupy Politico” at Technorati>

Good Morning America Asks Will Obama's Lower College Loan Payments Plan Help?

Good Morning America (GMA) is an American morning news and talk show that is broadcast on the ABC television network; it debuted on November 3, 1975. The weekday program airs for two hours; a third hour aired between 2007 and 2008 exclusively on ABC News Now. Its current one-hour weekend edition debuted in 2004. Image Credit: ABC News via ShareTV.org


Good Morning America Asks Will Obama's Lower College Loan Payments Plan Help?
or ... Why Corporate Media Gets It's Label "Lame Stream Media" - Polling Question Analysis

About 20 hours ago, Good Morning America posted up this question at the polling centered social web portal known as SodaHead:

Obama Unveils New Plan to Lower College Loan Payments. Will It Help?
by Good Morning America - Posted October 26, 2011 (20 hours ago)

The answers were posed/written as follows:

Yes, I think it will make a difference to students. - 1,917 responses

No, the plan doesn't go far enough! - 1,562 responses
[Reference Here]

A SodaHead "Thumbs-Up" graphic that people click on if they like an answer to a poll question. Image Credit: SodaHead

The most popular answer to a question as per the number of "thumbs up":

By - Tinka123 (edited) / 19 hours ago

Q) No, the plan doesn’t go far enough!

A) These answers aren't skewed. I guess we know what answer Good Morning America wants - too bad they didn't include us [people who are not liberal or progressive] in their poll. How about NO - it won't work?

A YES answer offered this opinion (it was the only opinion left by a YES answer respondent out of 26 total opinions offered in 3479 total poll answers):

State Street / 19 hours ago

Yes, it will help tremendously. Education should be affordable to everyone. A society that's healthy, educated, and confident is harder to control than one that isn't. That I believe is why there are many elements on the right that don't want something like that to come to fruition.

One person decided not to answer but just leave a comment on someone else's NO answer as a REPLY:

Lanikai / 7 hours ago

I refused to pick one of the two BIASED answers. So I am tagging on you, if you don't mind. The break down I saw this morning on MSNBC, showed that a $212,000.00 private college education for 4 years, would mean the student eventually paid back just under $29,000.00 and the taxpayers eat the rest. UNFAIR on every level.

What is SodaHead? - SodaHead informs and entertains a loyal and passionate following that visits our site to discover, debate, and discuss the day's hottest issues. We offer marketers new and innovative ways of engaging with young, hip, and digitally savvy consumers. We enable partners to leverage SodaHead’s product suite to enhance their offerings. Image Credit: SodaHead

We, at MAXINE, left the following response to the Good Morning America Poll:

I voted NO ... but it is not a matter if The Executive Branch's plan goes far enough or not.

Instead of punishing banks and other money lenders of student loans … make the Colleges issue a REBATE – on behalf of those having trouble meeting the terms of their loans – to the Banks! Isn’t it time that the real gougers of students/society be made to pay for their own action of pricing themselves out of a formally stable market?

Instead of punishing banks and other money lenders of student loans … make the Colleges issue a REBATE – on behalf of those having trouble meeting the terms of their loans – to the Banks! Isn’t it time that the real gougers of students/society be made to pay for their own action of pricing themselves out of a formally stable market?

Just asking.

Hey, ABC! … Nice posed/written poll answer choices … NOT!


[Article first published as Good Morning America Asks Will Obama's Lower College Loan Payments Plan Help? at Technorati]

Tea Party, Or Progressive Agenda Movement Declaration Document?

A flag is waved during a rally Saturday at Los Angeles City Hall where "Occupy LA" activists protested Wall Street practices and the distribution of wealth in the United States. The demonstration was modeled after a similar movement in New York that has been staging a sit-in on Wall Street for almost two weeks ... without much incident. Image Credit: Christina House / For The Times / October 1, 2011

Tea Party, Or Progressive Agenda Movement Declaration Document?

This weekend, some noise and attention was trying to be made here in Los Angeles. Just as some organized people were trying to make for the last couple of weeks or so in New York. This organized group of people are also attempting to create the look of a grassroots movement - much like the Tea Party Movement evolved - but this creation is, in fact, a creation of people who have a decidedly different '60's radical agenda.

One might call this a "put up" job in order to manipulate folks into acts of chaos and agitation ... but I will let the reader decide what to make of this declaration of accusations and indictment.

Are these points of declaration from Tea Party politicos who are amazed at how the U. S. Government has grown out of control or are they connected directly to an organization that is backed by the efforts of a major politically progressive stalwart as an American labor union showing a decided dislike to Corporations in general ... judge for yourself.

Loki Freeman, left, and Brad Baudot participate in a demonstration at Pershing Square. Which organizations are stronger here ... the Corporations or the United States Government? Has anyone seen the new GE microwave oven with a USDA "My Plate" button programming selection? Image Credit: Christina House / For The Times / October 1, 2011

This excerpted and edited from "Declaration of the Occupation of New York City" -

Start each sentence with "They Have":

• taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
• taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
• perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
• poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
• profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless nonhuman animals, and actively hide these practices.
• continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
• held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
• consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
• influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
• spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
• sold our privacy as a commodity.
• used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
• deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
• determine[d] economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
• donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.
• to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit.
• purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
• purposefully kept people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
• accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
• perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.
• participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
• continue[d] to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive [or issue] government contracts.

[reference here]

END

Ok, here are the goods ... as it were. The fact of the matter these declaration points were issued in a document entitled "Declaration of the Occupation of New York City" by a (they would have you believe) two week old Occupy America Movement - right now it is recognized by the name "Occupy (insert name of city here)" like Occupy Wall Street, or Occupy Los Angeles, Occupy Hawaii, and etc.

This groundswell of haphazard activity is the supported brainchild of a high official in the SEIU labor union who is known to be a major supporter of the Democrat Political Party and progressively socialist political views by the name of Stephen Lerner (the one source that had been able to get the word out on this movement was cultural and political observer Glenn Beck who originally reported this information back in March 22, 2011).

Tim Ottman of Los Angeles prepares to participate in the demonstration. At City Hall, protesters set up an open microphone and speakers took turns urging one another to take action against government policies and to pressure lawmakers for reforms. Image Credit: Christina House / For The Times / October 1, 2011

This excerpted and edited from The Blaze -

Who Is Behind the ‘US Day of Rage’ to ‘Occupy’ Wall Street this September 17th?
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:20am by Tiffany Gabbay

A US Day of Rage is the title given to a day of ostensibly “non-violent” civil disobedience orchestrated by a group of radicals — that reportedly include SEIU’s Stephen Lerner and ACORN founder Wade Rathke (who, coincidentally, formerly served as president of SEIU’s local New Orleans branch) — targeting Wall Street and U.S. capitalism.

It’s worth noting that the title of the movement — if its intentions are indeed non-violent in nature — appears to contradict itself slightly.
----
You may recall that back in March The Blaze exposed Lerner for stating his aspirations to destroy JP Morgan Chase and cause the collapse of the entire stock market.
----
Some Day of Rage organizers are even calling on activists to squat in Manhattan’s financial district for months at a time. The Blaze’s report on Lerner, who serves on SEIU’s International Executive Board, caught the union agitator stating:

"So, a bunch of us around the country are thinking about who would be a really good company to hate? We decided that would be JP Morgan Chase. ….

And so we’re going to roll out over the next couple of months what will hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.

And so what we’re looking at is in the first week of May, we get enough people together – we’re starting now – to really have a week of action in New York with the goal of … I don’t want to go into any details because I don’t know which police agents are in the room, but the goal would be that we would roll out in New York the first week in May."

[Reference Here]

This weekend's crowd that gathered from a metropolis of about 8 million people who rallied at the Occupy LA event was maybe 50 to 100 or so people. The media is reporting this activity as if it is credible.

Do you think it might be that people know a single U.S. Government has more power than even a whole industry of connected corporations … that within the Obama Administration, THEY HAVE taken over corporations (GM & Chrysler) and turned over ownership of the assets to Labor Unions in the face of established business law?


[Article first published under Tea Party, Or Progressive Agenda Movement Declaration Document? at Technorati]

MSNBC's Programming Double Down - Up With Chris Hayes, Weekends

UP with Chris Hayes - ctrl-click image here to see a 9 minute and 14 second opinion piece conducted by Chris on Solyndra entitled - Why the Solyndra failure isn’t a “scandal”. Image Credit: thepoliticalcarnival.net



Here, at MAXINE, we are prone to fall asleep with the TV on. It is a habit groomed from a life with frequent travel and a desire to keep up with information that might be developing during the night ... if we happen to wake up. In the early ninties we had live reports from Gulf War I on CNN. The growth of Cable TV and Gulf War II just cemented this habit not to mention that once this process was embraced, every hotel room around the world was comfortable with the same type of background noise as a home bedroom no matter the outside ambient difference.

This morning, however, was a little different - Oh, to be rudely woken up to the sound of the voice of new TV opinion show host, Chris Hayes - a self-described Communitarian & Egalitarian ... read this as 60's radical socialist, as he puts forward his unchallenged logic followed by a cast of talking-heads that would make an echo chamber shatter was too much for a half-awake, personal-freedom focused 4:30am PT brain could take.

This penchant for some Cable TV "News" stations to construct a monolith of liberal talk shows with hosts who have a progressive agenda (examples - CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 and Fareed Zakaria GPS - Global Public Square and author of "The Post-American World", MSNBC's Morning Joe ... that's pretty much it for this outlet) is not new, but most, at least try to bring a shadow of an alternative balance of opinion with the dais that joins the host in a discussion ... even if it is to only give another point of view the grace of being mentioned. Do not expect this on "UP, with Chris Hayes".

This excerpted and edited from The Huffington Post -

Chris Hayes, the Washington editor for "The Nation" and a longtime contributor to MSNBC, is getting a weekend morning show. Hayes made the news official on Twitter on Monday, and MSNBC released its official announcement shortly after.

The show starts on September 17. It will air on Saturdays from 7-9 AM and on Sundays from 8-10 AM. Alex Witt, MSNBC's regular weekend anchor, will see her show pushed back on both days. The launch of the show marks another attempt by MSNBC to successfully program weekends—something it has not been known for in the past.
[Reference Here]

The round table of talking-heads included:

Reihan Salam, Columnist - The Daily.com / National Review Online - Salam is an unorthodox conservative. He has written that he intends to "pump ideas into the bloodstream" of American conservatism." ... read this as a person who has very little problem with a big, bigger, biggest government approach and will consider looking into, and discussing changes in the Constitution. He advocates policies that strengthen traditional family structure but has supported gay marriage for years.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, Princeton University International Affaires Professor - Former Director of Policy Planning for the United States Department of State in the Obama Administration from 2009-2011 (more on her POV below having to do with the petition by the Palestine Authority to become a recognized state by the United Nations).

Liliana Segura, Columnist - The Nation - this, from the About on her blog - I'm an independent journalist and editor with a focus on social justice, prisons & harsh sentencing.

Ezra Klien, Columinst - The Washington Post - In February 2007 Klein created a Google Groups forum called "JournoList" for discussing politics and the news media. The forum's membership was controlled by Klein and limited to "several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics."Posts within JournoList were intended only to be made and read by its members. Klein defended the forum saying that it "[ensures] that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff analysis and instant reactions". JournoList member, and Time magazine columnist, Joe Klein added that the off-the-record nature of the forum was necessary because “candor is essential and can only be guaranteed by keeping these conversations private”.

Topics Covered:

Topic - The Politics Of Tax Raises - about 3 segments - Not one comment about the possibility that the size and scope of Federal Government ... ANY government ... might be too large and out of control on how it manages its charter and the spending of tax monies collected.

Topic - Killed By The State - at least 2 segments - A pure anti-death penalty discussion that surrounded the execution of Troy Davis. They lamented that this execution may not be a game-changer for the death penalty but they wanted it to become part of a growing conversation about ensuring that innocent people aren't killed or die in prison. A good question is - Why have a justice system with 12 jurors and several automatic judicial reviews and retrials before a sentence is carried out if there is no final justice ... the justice of a sentence carried out?

Topic - GOP 2012 - 1 segment focused on Perry's statement on immigration and heart. Actual citizenship of the United States did not seem to have any weight in this conversation at all. Further, it was stated and the view was shared by all sitting around the table that they were surprised that some in the audience of Conservatives would actually BOO soldiers in the military when some in the crowd gave a less than accepting response to a YouTube question about upholding the elimination of Don't Ask Don't Tell if they became President. None of these folks ever came to the conclusion that the Conservatives in the audience were booing the policy ... not the solider.

Topic - The State Of Palestine - Change in contributors - Anne-Marie Slaughter plus via remote, Diana Buttu The Dubai Initiative, Harvard University. Highlight - the former Obama State Department official, Slaughter, stated that the Palestine leadership had every right to ask the UN for a ruling on a declaration of Statehood / the Obama Administration has not been able to bring the parties to the table - the UN should not take the petition for a vote but use it to get the parties back to the negotiation table. - 1 segment

Topic - Israel & The GOP ... Word Cloud which had Israel as the largest word - derided as identity politics and as the only international relations topic covered in the debate, Reihan brings on the historic point of the previous Republican debates on the Panama Canal during the end of the Carter era ... Slaughter smiles with glee at the comparison and dilution of the topic through the linkage. - 1 segment

Topic - Update (a short segment on corrections in statements made on a previous show - this probably could at least be an hour of a show in itself if they actually understood what the definition of counterpoint was).

Topic - "Now We Know", subtitle - What We Do Know Now We Didn't Know A Week Ago - Highlights snark points about anything non-liberal like the Koch Brothers new increased ranking in the list of America's richest people ... right, no mention of the fact that George Soros also had an increase in ranking and broke into the top 10 for the first time since he has been on this list. Coming in at No. 7, Soros had a fortune of $22 billion after adding $7.8 billion to his net worth thanks to investments in gold and related securities as well as equities. Soros switched to cash in the spring, allowing him to preserve his gains and miss market turmoil caused by the sovereign debt crisis in Europe.

END ... thank, God.

One more note in fairness - Fox News has a round table hour that replaced Glenn Beck called "The Five". This show has at least one committed Democrat liberal on the dais at all times.

Also - do not confuse political opinion shows that are headed by a single personality like Glenn Beck (who now has moved on from Fox News to internet subscription streaming with GBTV.com), Chris Matthews, Rachael Maddow, Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, Larry O'Donnell, and the like because these are pure personality driven, subject exploration shows with some of these programs making it a point to interview people from all different points of view regardless of the POV of the personality.

Question: Why was the bedroom TV on MSNBC (BSLSD - self-explanatory) at all?

Answer: Must have rolled over on the remote and reset the channel.


(Article first published as MSNBC's Doubling Down - Up With Chris Hayes, Weekends at Technorati)