Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

An interesting article on Steve Jobs- and possibly his thinking on the iPad- in today's New York Times.

Ok try this at home kids-

2 shots espresso of yer choice
16oz Cafe Du Monde
1-1/4Cup respectively, mixed, half n' half & heavy whipping cream
1-1/2 Tbsp or to taste, Ghirardeliia, Oopershnootzen, or whatever hardcore chocky powder you decide to pay too much for..

1 container big enoough to hold it all
*sm Agave syrup
sm sugar of yer choice
sm topping

Make the espresso and Cafe Du Monde according to preference-(mine's respectively with a standard sotvetop macchinetta for espressa,and simply drip through filter the CDM)

Inna separate accommodating sauce pan and stirring constantly, heat the mixture of H$H/HWC,and sugar(s) to just prior to boiling, the thing will want to rise up outta the saucepan...(don't be alarmed-turn off oven, light fuse, get away)this should be sufficient to produce a thickish creamy head, no unmixed chocky

add the milk stuff to the coffee combo, serves one strung-out fiend or four no-jaggers.

Black coffees' great as well, but some days for the sake of yer eccentric self or some other perosn yer trying to please, you have to go all-out.

Starbucks??? Ain't got shit on the above what with their syrup flavours and their fancy machinery and their wi-fi and New York Times...they sell cd's in Starbucks don't they??.....Like Bob Dylan's last album?? $90 coffee cups..Hrummmmph!



*some

Glenn Beck proves again that he has zero street knowledge

I have studied gangs for many years, and there isn't one statement in Glenn Beck's video that you can take for a fact. He states that the kid was killed with a railroad tye - totally false. Anyone with a half an ounce of street knowledge could guess that is a board off of a park bench. How many skinny gang bangers can swing a 100 lbs railroad tye? He states that this happened because we took prayer out of the public schools and off of money. Not even a nice try - Beck - the seed for gang violence was planted in the 40s and 50s. The Chicago gang - the Cornell Square Rebels - killed two people and beat up two Chicago Police Officers all before the year of 1959, when their was prayer in the public schools. A 1957 New York Times article listed the words used by gang members so parents could listen and see if their kids were involved in gang activity. Beck - a little research before making a commentary goes a long way.

It goes to prove that I have forgot more about gangs than Glenn Beck knows.


Have fun listening to nothing! A brain is a terrible thing to waste!

>> ^timtoner:
>> ^gtjwkq:
Genovese Syndrome

Actually, in the just-published Superfreakonomics, they look at the Kitty Genovese case, and discover that there are a great many misperceptions, not the least of which is that people DID call the police. The first attack, a stabbing, happened out in the open, but due to the poor lighting, it seemed to be little more than a domestic dispute, and when he was challenged by a bystander, the attacker seemed to flee the scene. Genovese staggered into an enclosed area, while her attacker moved his car to get it out of sight. He then returned, and proceeded to rape and kill her with zero witnesses. The point of the chapter, I suppose, is that a great deal of scholarship relies upon the version of events first reported in the New York Times (that there were three separate attacks with over a dozen witnesses) that were later refuted by police.


Pretty interesting. I'd like to think that I'd be the one to call 911 if I was ever a witness to such an event, even before I was aware of the Genovese Case. I just think I would consider the notion that with a crowd of witnesses, most will think that someone else has already taken care of the problem.

>> ^gtjwkq:
Genovese Syndrome


Actually, in the just-published Superfreakonomics, they look at the Kitty Genovese case, and discover that there are a great many misperceptions, not the least of which is that people DID call the police. The first attack, a stabbing, happened out in the open, but due to the poor lighting, it seemed to be little more than a domestic dispute, and when he was challenged by a bystander, the attacker seemed to flee the scene. Genovese staggered into an enclosed area, while her attacker moved his car to get it out of sight. He then returned, and proceeded to rape and kill her with zero witnesses. The point of the chapter, I suppose, is that a great deal of scholarship relies upon the version of events first reported in the New York Times (that there were three separate attacks with over a dozen witnesses) that were later refuted by police.

Liberal Lies About National Healthcare: Fourth in a Series
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, September 09, 2009

(12) Only national health care can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job" -- as Obama said in a New York Times op-ed.

This is obviously a matter of great importance to all Americans, because, with Obama's economic policies, none of us may have jobs by year's end.

The only reason you can't keep -- or often obtain -- health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of ... government intrusion into the free market.

You will notice that if you move or lose your job, you can obtain car and home insurance, hairdressers, baby sitters, dog walkers, computer technicians, cars, houses, food and every other product and service not heavily regulated by the government. (Although it does become a bit harder to obtain free office supplies.)

Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then to really screw ordinary Americans, the tax code actually punishes people who don't get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.

Meanwhile, state governments must approve the insurers allowed to operate in their states, while mandating a list of services -- i.e. every "medical" service with a powerful lobby -- which is why Joe and Ruth Zelinsky, both 88, of Paterson, N.J., are both covered in case either one of them ever needs a boob job.

If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers), they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance. This is known as "allowing the free market to operate."

Plus, think of all the paper a one-page bill would save! Don't Democrats care about saving the planet anymore? Go green!

(13) The "public option" trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.

Why does the government get to decide when the "trigger" has been met, allowing it to do something terrible to us? Either the government is better at providing goods and services or the free market is -- and I believe the historical record is clear on that. Why do liberals get to avoid having that argument simply by invoking "triggers"?

Why not have a "trigger" allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health insurance is too expensive? Or how about a trigger allowing us to buy health insurance from Utah-based insurers -- but only when triggered by our own states requiring all insurance companies to cover marriage counseling, drug rehab and shrinks?

Thinking more broadly, how about triggers for paying taxes? Under my "public option" plan, citizens would not have to pay taxes until a trigger kicks in. For example, 95 percent of the Department of Education's output is useful, or -- in the spirit of compromise -- at least not actively pernicious.

Also, I think we need triggers for taking over our neighbors' houses. If they don't keep up 95 percent of their lawn -- on the basis of our lawn commission's calculations -- we get to move in. As with Obama's public option trigger, we (in the role of "government") pay nothing. All expenses with the house would continue to be paid by the neighbor (playing "taxpayer").

To make our housing "public option" even more analogous to Obama's health care "public option," we'll have surly government employees bossing around the neighbors after we evict them and a Web site for people to report any negative comments the neighbors make about us.

Another great trigger idea: We get to pull Keith Olbermann's hair to see if it's a toupee -- but only when triggered by his laughably claiming to have gone to an Ivy League university, rather than the bovine management school he actually attended.

(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.

This appeared in an earlier installment of "Liberal Lies About Health Care," but I keep seeing Democrats like Howard Dean and Rep. Jan Schakowsky on TV angrily shouting that these are despicable lies -- which, in itself, constitutes proof that it's all true.

Then why did Democrats vote down amendments that would prohibit coverage for illegals and abortion? (Also, why is Planned Parenthood collecting petition signatures in Manhattan -- where they think they have no reason to be sneaky -- in support of national health care?)

On July 30 of this year, a House committee voted against a Republican amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal that would have required health care providers to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government health care services. All Republicans and five Democrats voted for it, but 29 Democrats voted against it, killing the amendment.

On the same day, the committee voted 30-29 against an amendment offered by Republican Joe Pitts explicitly stating that government health care would not cover abortions. Zealous abortion supporter Henry Waxman -- a walking, breathing argument for abortion if ever there was one -- originally voted in favor of the Pitts amendment because that allowed him, in a sleazy parliamentary trick, to bring the amendment up for reconsideration later. Which he did -- as soon as he had enough Democrats in the hearing room to safely reject it.

If any liberal sincerely believes that national health care will not cover illegals and abortion, how do they explain the Democrats frantically opposing amendments that would make this explicit?

Liberal Lies About National Health Care: Third in a Series (Commemorative Plates On Sale Now!)
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, September 02, 2009


(9) If you like Medicare, you'll love national health care, which will just extend Medicare's benefits to everyone.

Hey -- I have an idea: How about we make everyone in America a multimillionaire by pulling Bernie Madoff out of prison and asking him to invest all our money! Both Medicare and Bernie Madoff's investment portfolio are bankrupt because they operate on a similar financial model known as a "Ponzi scheme." These always seem to run fabulously well -- until the money runs out.

Not only is Medicare bankrupt, but it is extremely limited in whom and what it covers. If Medicare were a private insurer, it would be illegal in many states for failing to cover hearing aids, podiatry, acupuncture, chiropractic care, marriage counseling, aromatherapy and gender reassignment surgery.

Moreover, Medicare payments aren't enough to pay the true cost of those medical services it does cover. With Medicare undercutting payments to hospitals and doctors for patients 65 and older, what keeps the American medical system afloat are private individuals who are not covered by Medicare paying full freight (and then some). That's why you end up with a $10 aspirin on your hospital bill.

National health care will eliminate everything outside of Medicare, which is the only thing that allows Medicare to exist.

Obviously, therefore, it's preposterous for Democrats to say national health care will merely extend Medicare to the entire population. This would be like claiming you're designing an apartment building in which every apartment will be a penthouse. Everyone likes the penthouses, so why not have a building in which every apartment is a penthouse?

It doesn't work: What makes the penthouse the penthouse is all the other floors below. An "all-penthouse" building is a blueprint that could make sense only to someone who has never run a business and has zero common sense, i.e., a Democrat.

(10) National health care won't cover illegal aliens -- as the president has twice claimed in recent radio appearances.

Technically, what Obama said is that the bill isn't "designed" to give health insurance to illegal aliens. (That bill, the "Health Insurance for Illegal Aliens Act of 2009," was still being drafted by Ted Kennedy at the time of his death, may he rest in peace.)

But unless the various government bureaucracies dispensing health care are specifically required by law to ask about citizenship status, illegals will be covered. We can't even get employers and police to inquire about citizenship status, but liberals assure us that doctors will?

And by the way -- as with the abortion exclusion -- the Democrats expressly rejected amendments that would have required proof of residency status to receive national health care.

Still not convinced? Day after day, The New York Times has been neurotically asserting that national health care won't cover illegal aliens (without ever explaining how precisely it will exclude illegal aliens).

So far, just this week, these Kim Jong Il-style pronouncements have appeared in the Treason Times:

-- "Illegal immigrants will be covered. (Myth)" -- Katharine Q. Seelye, "Myth vs. Fact vs. Other," The New York Times, Sept. 2, 2009

-- "(Sen. Jim DeMint) fueled speculation that a health care overhaul would cover illegal immigrants, although specific language says it would not." -- Katharine Q. Seelye, "Fighting Health Care Overhaul, and Proud of It," The New York Times, Aug. 31, 2009

-- "'Page 50: All non-U.S. citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services.' ... The falsehoods include (that italic statement)." -- Michael Mason, "Vetting Claims in a Memo," The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2009

-- "But that would not help illegal immigrants. Contrary to some reports, they would not be eligible for any new health coverage under any of the health overhaul plans circulating in Congress." -- Duff Wilson, "Race, Ethnicity and Care," The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2009

The last time the Times engaged in such frantic perseveration about a subject was when the paper was repeatedly insisting that Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong had a solid case against the Duke lacrosse players.

By August 2006, every single person in the United States, including the stripper, knew the stripper's claim of "gang rape" was a lie. That was when Duff Wilson -- quoted above -- co-wrote the Times' infamous cover story on the Duke case, titled: "Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers." No answers!

(11) Obama has dropped his demand for the ironically titled "public option" (i.e., government-run health care), which taxpayers will not have an "option" to pay for or not.

Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name. "Abortion" becomes "choice," "communist" becomes "progressive," "communist dictatorship" becomes "people's democratic republic" and "Nikita Khrushchev" becomes "Barack Obama."

It doesn't matter if liberals start calling national health care a "chocolate chip puppy" or "ice cream sunset" -- if the government is subsidizing it, then the government calls the shots. And the moment the government gets its hands on the controls, it will be establishing death panels, forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions and illegal aliens, rationing care and then demanding yet more government control when partial government control creates a mess.

Which happens to be exactly what liberals are doing right now.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Why don't we stop fooling ourselves?
The game is over, over, over

No good times, no bad times
There's no times at all
Just The New York Times
Sitting on the windowsill
Near the flowers

We might as well be apart
It hardly matters
We sleep separately
And drop a smile passing in the hall
But there's no laughs left
'Cause we laughed them all
And we laughed them all
In a very short time

Time
Is tapping on my forehead
Hanging from my mirror
Rattling the teacups
And I wonder
How long can I delay?
We're just a habit
Like Saccharin

And I'm habitually feelin' kinda blue

But each time I try on
The thought of leaving you
I stop
I stop and think it over

Liberal Lies About National Health Care: First in a Series

by ANN COULTER


(1) National health care will punish the insurance companies.

You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.

As Adam Smith observed, whenever two businessmen meet, "the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That's why we need a third, fourth and 45th competing insurance company that will undercut them by offering better service at a lower price.

Tiny little France and Germany have more competition among health insurers than the U.S. does right now. Amazingly, both of these socialist countries have less state regulation of health insurance than we do, and you can buy health insurance across regional lines -- unlike in the U.S., where a federal law allows states to ban interstate commerce in health insurance.

U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they're a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)

Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That's what single-payer health care is: "Single payer" means "single provider."

It's the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it's screwed up because there's not enough government oversight (it's the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of "reform."

You could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. But when John McCain called for ending the ban during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was attacked by Joe Biden -- another illustration of the ironclad Ann Coulter rule that the worst Republicans are still better than allegedly "conservative" Democrats.

(2) National health care will "increase competition and keep insurance companies honest" -- as President Barack Obama has said.

Government-provided health care isn't a competitor; it's a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to "choose" whether they take the service -- at least at first -- but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion. It's like a new cable plan with a "yes" box, but no "no" box.

Obama himself compared national health care to the post office -- immediately conjuring images of a highly efficient and consumer-friendly work force -- which, like so many consumer-friendly shops, is closed by 2 p.m. on Saturdays, all Sundays and every conceivable holiday.

But what most people don't know -- including the president, apparently -- with certain narrow exceptions, competing with the post office is prohibited by law.

Expect the same with national health care. Liberals won't stop until they have total control. How else will they get you to pay for their sex-change operations?

(3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are "villains."

Obama denounced the insurance companies in last Sunday's New York Times, saying: "A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn't known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died."

Well, yeah. That and the cancer.

Assuming this is true -- which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care -- in a free market, such an insurance company couldn't stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor's shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.

If only customers had a choice! But we don't because of government regulation of health insurance.

Speaking of which, maybe if Mr. Gallstone's insurance company weren't required by law to cover early childhood development programs and sex-change operations, it wouldn't be forced to cut corners in the few areas not regulated by the government, such as cancer treatments for patients with gallstones.

(4) National health care will give Americans "basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable" -- as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in the Times.

You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, "I'm taking my business elsewhere."

(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The only reason most "pre-existing" conditions aren't already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.

The free market has produced a dizzying array of insurance products in areas other than health. (Ironically, array-associated dizziness is not covered by most health plans.) Even insurance companies have "reinsurance" policies to cover catastrophic events occurring on the properties they insure, such as nuclear accidents, earthquakes and Michael Moore dropping in for a visit and breaking the couch.

If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for "pre-existing" conditions before they exist, for example, insurance on unborn -- unconceived -- children and health insurance even when you don't have a job. The vast majority of "pre-existing" conditions that currently exist in a cramped, limited, heavily regulated insurance market would be "covered" conditions under a free market in health insurance.

I've hit my word limit on liberal lies about national health care without breaking a sweat. See this space next week for more lies in our continuing series.

>> ^direpickle:
^Still, I'm going to still lean on the side of carelessness or incompetence rather than anything intentional on Bayer/Baxter's behalf.

Once they discovered the contamination in the US, and could no longer sell them here, they sold them internationally. I don't doubt the initial contamination was an accident, its the fact that they still sold it AFTER it was found.

"An examination of internal Bayer company documents by The New York Times reveals that the company was engaged in unsavory, probably criminal marketing practices. The documents reveal that Bayer continued to sell contaminated blood plasma causing thousands of hemophiliac patients to be infected with AIDS. The company continued to sell the contaminated blood in Asia for over a year when it had already introduced a safer, heated blood plasma version in the US and Europe in February 1984. "

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1151015

"A class action lawsuit has been launched against the Bayer and Baxter corporations on behalf of people with haemophilia in Asia and Latin America who contracted HIV or hepatitis through contaminated blood products supplied by the companies."

Also named in the lawsuit were the Armour Pharmaceutical Company and Alpha Therapeutic Corporation. The suit was filed in a US federal court in California.

All four companies are accused of distributing contaminated blood products in Asia and Latin America in 1984-5, even after such products were taken off the US market because of fears that they had not been properly screened for HIV and hepatitis C virus.

The class action contends that thousands of people with haemophilia contracted HIV or hepatitis C from tainted blood products. By 1992 the contaminated products had infected at least 5000 haemophiliac people in Europe with HIV, and more than 2000 people had developed AIDS. A total of 1250 people had died from the disease, the lawsuit added.

The lawsuit also found that by the mid-1990s most of the 4000 people in Japan with AIDS were haemophiliac people and that nearly all of the cases were linked to contaminated clotting factors traced to the United States.

In Latin America at least 700 cases of HIV are linked to use of contaminated blood products by haemophiliac people, the lawsuit said. In the mid-1990s the four companies paid out $640m (£390m; €545m) in damages to settle a similar lawsuit."

That could be true, but I wouldn't trust the New York Times on that. The truth is about the Riot Squad is they're an insane bunch of thugs. I don't like Beckhams shenanigans and I don't believe he wants to be with AC Milan during their pre-season where he probably wouldn't see much action anyway.

You could be right that he was mad and wanted to voice his opinion too, however going over there and getting ahold of himself and holding out his hand to shake one of theres is better than just flipping them off and threatening them.

People who act like idiots should be called out as idiots, the Riot Squad being the idiots. Beckham switching teams back and forth and not being as committed as he says should be called out for hypocrisy. I think Beckham is here to play soccer, and he is, setting up two goals for the Galaxy so far, and them generally playing better with him on the field. I don't care if he doesn't want to be here as long as he runs his hardest and makes plays, which is what he's been doing.

^"Apolitical" means you believe in evolution and don't object to reading the New York Times. That is, in today's political climate, you're a liberal. "Conservatives" like Limbaugh regard the NYT as being a far-left rag, rather than being one of the most prestigious publications in the world.

That's the whole point... it can't be sustained for conservatives to be ruled by the fundamentalist far-right so completely that they're isolated from the professional intellectual community.

I don't support torture. Find somewhere on the sift that I said I support torture, and I'll shut up.

I also JUST said that I think any idiot can see that FOX is extremely supportive of the republican party. But, all other media stations have a (much more subtle, but undeniable) liberal bias.

I'm not giving any opinions here. These are facts.

(What "sins" are you talking about, pray tell?)


>> ^rougy:
>> ^deedub81:
By the way, I won't argue with you, rougy because you're absolutely right. But don't forget that CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC, as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, Newsweek, and the New York Times are the Democratic Party's propaganda outlets..
You have no fucking clue.
You don't have the synapses to tell up from down unless somebody was standing there giving you hints.
You know, deedub, we might actually like each other in real life, but you just don't get it.
Innocent people were tortured - yes tortured - and you supported that.
What did that make us, deedub? You and me, the Americans?
It's not a laughing matter, and your claim above...that basically every mainstream "news" source other than FOX NEWS is a liberal propaganda machine....
You are not paying attention, deedub.
You are lying to yourself and nothing that I say will sway you hither.

>> ^deedub81:
By the way, I won't argue with you, rougy because you're absolutely right. But don't forget that CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC, as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, Newsweek, and the New York Times are the Democratic Party's propaganda outlets..

You have no fucking clue.

You don't have the synapses to tell up from down unless somebody was standing there giving you hints.

You know, deedub, we might actually like each other in real life, but you just don't get it.

Innocent people were tortured - yes tortured - and you supported that.

What did that make us, deedub? You and me, the Americans?

It's not a laughing matter, and your claim above...that basically every mainstream "news" source other than FOX NEWS is a liberal propaganda machine....

You are not paying attention, deedub.

You are lying to yourself and nothing that I say will sway you hither.

By the way, I won't argue with you, rougy because you're absolutely right. But don't forget that CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC, as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, Newsweek, and the New York Times are the Democratic Party's propaganda outlets.

There, I said the obvious again.

A 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College, Press Bias and Politics, investigated the issue of media bias. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers found that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints. They found that reporters expressing moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view. Kuypers said he found liberal bias in reporting a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080205062048/http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200209/CUL20020917b.html


In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party. This leaves 24% undecided or Independent.

http://www.asne.org/kiosk/reports/97reports/journalists90s/journalists.html