Vote Misfit for Prez.

Oh, Dog, I am so sorry I brought this up!:)))

Think about it. He has the perfect campaign slogan. :-)

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Vote Misfit for Prez.

Oh, Dog, I am so sorry I brought this up!:)))

Think about it. He has the perfect campaign slogan. :-)

Every country needs a BOINC Synergy party. Vote Misfit.

---

me@rescam.org

Vote Misfit for Prez.

Oh, Dog, I am so sorry I brought this up!:)))

Think about it. He has the perfect campaign slogan. :-)

Resistance is futile? Kids in Iran wear Nike’s… true enough. (sigh)

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

I found some quotes from some programs on MSNBC and Fox about the Iraq war that made me laugh. Dunno, maybe cuz it's the middle of the night.

"We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits."
MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 5/1/03

"Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years."
Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03

"Chris, more than anything else, real vindication for the administration. One, credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Two, you know what? There were a lot of terrorists here, really bad guys. I saw them."
MSNBC reporter Bob Arnot, 4/9/03

".....The Security Council is no longer a relevant, international forum for important issues. If you want a multinational forum where all nations can express their views, meet in the Oval Office because that's where, fortunately, our president and our administration lets that happen."
Dick Morris

---

State should act in questionable DNA cases

San Diego Union-Tribune editorial

May 2, 2007

None of the Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape last year were even born when Chicagoan Jerry Miller was convicted of a rape he did not commit and sent to prison. And the Duke athletes' names were cleared before Miller was exonerated last week.

Miller became the 200th person exonerated by the Innocence Project since it was founded by civil rights attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld in 1992. Based at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in Manhattan, the project has a branch at California Western School of Law in downtown San Diego. Project attorneys and staffers work to free those who did not commit the crimes for which they were imprisoned. Nine of the 200 cases were crimes committed in California.

Most of the time, the American system of justice works well. But no one really knows how many of America's more than 2 million inmates are innocent. Some point to the Innocence Project exonerations and say cases marked by their successes represent the tip of the iceberg. Others, particularly prosecutors and police, say very few of those behind bars are innocent.

Still, the 200 exonerations spotlight the kinds of mistakes that even a good system sometimes does not catch. Of the total exonerations, 77 percent resulted from mistaken identity; nearly two-thirds from faulty scientific evidence; and about 25 percent from false confessions.

Since most of the exonerations have come about because of DNA testing, it is not surprising that most of the cases (123) involve rape. It also is no surprise that race is a dominant factor in convictions for this crime. Only 12 percent of sexual assaults involve a victim of one race and an assailant from another. But 64 percent of the exonerations were African-American males convicted of raping white females. Miller's case fell into that category, although the eyewitnesses who identified him were black. In the recent Duke case, the wrongly accused assailants were white and the woman making the charge was black.

But despite the success of the Innocence Project and other nonprofit organizations – such as Centurion Ministries of Princeton, which has freed 39 wrongfully accused convicts – it is impossible to give a person back 20 or 25 years of his life.

In 2001, California established a Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, which allows the wrongfully incarcerated to claim $100 a day for each day spent in prison after conviction. According to board statistics, since it was established, 17 people have filed claims, and eight have been successful. The awards have ranged from $17,200 to $756,900. Twenty other states have established wrongful conviction funds.

The compensation boards are a good step, but considering the increase in the rates of exonerations in the recent past, states need to take further steps to re-examine cases where questions of innocence exist and fund such efforts. It does not speak well for us that nonprofits have the burden of correcting the states' mistakes.

---

me@rescam.org

What would President Reagan do?

JACK KEMP
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

May 2, 2007

As the Republican candidates all gather at the Reagan Library for their first debate of the presidential campaign, what follows is my advice on “what would Ronald Reagan do?” I'll start with the economy and follow later with foreign policy.

In giving thought to what Reagan would do about tax and budget policy, we must never forget the times in which he led our nation.

When he was first sworn in in 1981, Reagan faced a divided government, an economy in deep recession with rising prices and a rapidly falling dollar. The country had begun to experience what economists said was impossible, i.e. rising unemployment and accelerating inflation, which came to be called “stagflation.” The so-called “misery index” was at an all-time high, and the morale of the American people was at a record low, except for the Depression.

Conventional economists were calling for a tax increase to dampen inflation and for the Fed to use monetary policy to offset the fiscal drag to prevent a recession. Income tax rates were 70 percent at the top and 20 percent at the bottom.

Reagan moved decisively to cut tax rates by 25 percent across the board, and he supported Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volker's tight monetary policy, thus strengthening the dollar while wringing inflation out of the economy. These bold steps, along with lowering the trade and regulatory barriers, helped the U.S. economy grow well over 4.5 percent while unemployment dropped below 5 percent for the first time in two decades.

As the economy grew, revenues increased, and the wealth of our nation began to produce the jobs that took unemployment from more than 6.5 percent down to 4.5 percent, all with price stability. This was something the Keynesian economists (and some conservatives, as well) said couldn't happen. Indeed it's happening now under President Bush, with unemployment at 4.4 percent, thanks in large part to the Bush tax-rate cuts.

Reagan would not only defend the Bush tax-rate cuts, he'd have more in store for us. He'd not only support making them permanent, but he'd offer up a tax-reform agenda that would cut the top tax rate to 20 percent, lower the payroll taxes on working families and allow workers to put at least half of their payroll taxes into IRAs so as to get a much better rate of return.

Reagan also believed in a zero capital gains tax on those who'd put their surplus capital at risk in enterprise zones, also known as empowerment zones. These special zones throughout urban and rural America would help to create more jobs for minorities and those living in poverty while creating access to capital and credit for low-income people.

He would tell us that it is absolutely possible to reduce the debt burden, fix Social Security and cut tax rates, all at the same time. Anyone who doesn't believe it doesn't comprehend the hypothesis put forth by President Kennedy in 1961 and '62 and confirmed by Reagan in the '80s: “The purpose of cutting taxes now is . . . to achieve a more prosperous and expanding economy. The soundest way to raise tax revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates now.”

So, Republican candidates, here's a “Kempian” plan to memorize in the days and months ahead as you give a “Reaganesque” answer as to how to keep growing our American economy:

“My fellow Americans, I'm a spending hawk and a tax-cutter. We must adopt good economic policies – less spending, lower tax rates, a simpler tax code – and then let the economy work by unleashing the dynamics of the American worker, investor and entrepreneur. Someone will try to say that this won't reduce the deficit, and I challenge them on that. They don't know. They are still using computer models that have never worked in the past. You just can't predict the deficit with any precision.

“We're talking $2.4 trillion of taxes and more than $2.6 trillion in outlays in 2006, and the deficit is less than 2 percent of our GDP, which is more than $13 trillion. I respectfully disagree with anyone who thinks they can forecast precise estimates out into the future. It depends on economic growth.

“The economy will grow faster if we have open trade, a better tax code and restraint of spending. The growth of our economy is just not counted in the computer models, so we have to discount those models and use our best judgment about what's good for the country, the economy and the Free World. And that's exactly what I plan to do when I take office!”

---

me@rescam.org

The new America according to our fearless leader

The new american SUV

The New America

The New USA Border Patrol

kenzieB wrote:

It remains true, now and forever: the four things that Lawyers, Religious Leaders, Journalists and Politicians have in common: They are the only people that we pay to lie to us.

And I always thought they were lying even though we're paying them for telling us the truth and nothing but the truth...

Matthew wrote:

The new America...

When seeing your pictures and comments, I just wondered how much the 6th Rule may be inflicted:

* No abusive comments involving race, religion, nationality, gender, class or sexuality.

---

Account frozen...

kenzieB wrote:

It remains true, now and forever: the four things that Lawyers, Religious Leaders, Journalists and Politicians have in common: They are the only people that we pay to lie to us.

And I always thought they were lying even though we're paying them for telling us the truth and nothing but the truth...

Matthew wrote:

The new America...

When seeing your pictures and comments, I just wondered how much the 6th Rule may be inflicted:

* No abusive comments involving race, religion, nationality, gender, class or sexuality.

Yes, for the love of God, we don't want to offend the criminals!

Ha. Hyland can make decent funnies now and then.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Yes, for the love of God, we don't want to offend the criminals!

Did someone mention God?

James 2:8-9

If you really fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well. But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Limiting women's reproductive rights

By Nancy Northup

May 4, 2007

Roe v. Wade was an early victory in the struggle for legal recognition of women's right to reproductive health care. It gave strength to a global movement that is in full force today. It is therefore ironic that the U.S. Supreme Court's recent retreat from its long-standing protection of women's health should come at a time when countries worldwide are recognizing that reproductive health, including abortion, is a matter of fundamental human rights.

Just last week, Mexico City lawmakers voted to legalize abortion, recognizing the right as central to women's health. A similar measure was adopted last month in Portugal. And last summer, the Constitutional Court of Colombia declared unconstitutional the country's blanket criminalization of abortion.

Citing fundamental rights to life, health, equality, liberty and bodily integrity, the court held that “reproductive rights have finally been recognized as human rights.” As the court explained, “reproductive rights also emerge from the recognition that equality in general, gender equality in particular, and the emancipation of women and girls are essential to society. Protecting . . . reproductive rights is a direct path to promoting the dignity of all human beings and a step forward in humanity's advancement towards social justice.”

These are just some recent examples in a global trend toward abortion liberalization that has spanned decades. It is disheartening to see the United States align itself with the handful of countries such as Nicaragua and Poland that have actually increased barriers to safe abortion services in recent years.

Unsafe abortions are a major global public health problem. According to the World Health Organization, about 20 million women around the world have unsafe abortions every year, and nearly 70,000 die as a result. Over a decade ago, the Beijing Platform for Action called on governments to protect and advance women's health. Recent changes in abortion laws around the world reflect many nations' commitment to that goal. The United States, despite being one of the 189 signatories to the Platform, is not, sadly, such a state. Instead, 12 years after Beijing, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to validate laws that limit doctors' options when performing abortions.

Doctors in the United States who have used the now-banned procedure say that when it has been necessary, they have chosen it because it was the safest option for their patients. Today, by making that same choice, those doctors face criminal charges for honoring their medical and ethical obligation to preserve and protect their patients' health.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote in her dissent, the court's decision “tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. . . . And, for the first time since Roe v. Wade, the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding women's health.”

The willingness of the new majority of the court to overturn established law – though it was careful not to admit to it in the wording of the decision – invites states to craft new laws restricting abortions. Many Americans don't realize that the legal building blocks are already in place to criminalize abortion if Roe is overturned. Many have old criminal abortion laws still on the books, some of which have never been blocked by injunctions. Other states have recently passed abortion bans that would immediately go into effect after a Roe reversal.

Given these laws, the lack of state constitutional protections, and the composition of state legislatures, 30 states are poised to make abortion illegal in the wake of Roe being overturned.

The American people have a history of standing up for and defending the rights of the oppressed, at home and abroad. We encourage citizens of other nations to stand up for democracy, including the rights of women. Yet, we are increasingly undermining those rights here at home.

This decision by the court to uphold a law that sacrifices women's health for the sake of ideology will cause many in the international community to ask that we look first in the mirror before judging others. The United States, once in the vanguard, is now out of step with an increasing global commitment to improving women's health and lives.

Northup is president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization that promotes and defends women's reproductive rights worldwide.

---

me@rescam.org