Saturday, October 31, 2009

Jerry Brown and his people DID NOTHING WRONG by recording conversations with reporters, the story is much ado about nothing.

I have never heard of a dumber, more inane story than the one the conservatives are trying to flout about Jerry Brown and the "secret" recordings his employees made when they were being interviewed by news reporters.

The same republican conservatives who complain that the media is biased against them, now complain if someone being interviewed decides to protect themselves by recording the interview.

This Jerry Brown "controversy" is completely politically motivated. If anyone thinks for a moment that it is or should be illegal to protect oneselves when being interviewed by a reporter by recording the interview, they are morons.

To be clear, reporters are neither perfect, nor will a reporter always take all the time they need to properly do a story because they have deadlines. Were a reporter to ever misreport or incorrectly quote an interviewee, who protects the person being interviewed? What if the reporter didn't make a proper recording of the interview so it is simply their word against the person they interviewed?

This is a republican smear campaign against Jerry Brown and I am sick and tired of BOTH SIDES always trying to make the other side look bad.

If everything that is said between a reporter and the person they are recording is "on the record" it becomes ridiculous to somehow imply that the actual recording of an "on the record" interview is illegal.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Baseball fans booing Pedro Martinez, and Keith Olbermann's uncontrollable, lying mouth.

Sometimes we can see the insanity of
television unfolding in front of us. I was
watching CBS News and was genuinely
struck by the piece about Barack Obama
leaving shortly after midnight to
accompany the recently fallen soldiers
fighting in Afghanistan who were being
returned to the United States for burial.
And then right after that video piece, CBS
showed Hillary Clinton confronting the very
people who either lead double or triple
lives of lies in Pakistan (or know people
who do), and she confronted them on
their turf, half way around the world
from her own home.
A short time later, I saw a stadium full of
people, perhaps some of the same people
who went along with the jokes at Hillary
Clinton's expense last year during the 2008
democratic campaign, (probably some of
the same people who don't take women
as seriously as they do men), booing and
yelling in the relatively safe confines of a
stadium as Pedro Martinez left the mound,
and suddenly a huge sea of hypocrisy
unfolded in front of my eyes.

These people who laugh at our politicians
at every opportunity, especially female
politicians, WOULD NEVER be so brave as
to tell it like it is on a foreigner's soil
the way Hillary Clinton did up above.
What Hillary Clinton did was one of
the bravest moments I think I have ever
witnessed coming from a politician,
either male or female.

And then I was reminded of Keith
Olbermann the clown. Olbermann sat
within the confines of a cozy studio
slamming Hillary Clinton and even
demanding she prematurely quit the
democratc race in 2008.

Olbermann then lied on national television
when he denied that he had suggested
Hillary Clinton be put in a room with
others until only one came out.
Olbermann wouldn't have the guts to
do what Hillary Clinton did in Pakistan,
not now, not ever.
After Olbermann secured the doubling of his own salary by taking sides in the 2008 democratic nomination process by slamming Hillary Clinton on many many occasions, Olbermann then slammed the governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin is a woman who ran a state government in weather cold enough to make Keith's teeth chatter even faster than many of us thought was possible.

Do we see an odd pattern here? Men, in the comfort of a stadium, or a news studio, or as late night television hosts, making fun of women who could run circles around them in what they accomplish on a day to day basis.

Isn't it ironic that the World Series baseball game was on Fox Television while at the same time on the west coast CBS was running two amazing news stories about the war in Afghanistan, yet it is Fox that bashes the present administration on an almost daily basis.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Breaking News about Apple Snow Leopard and Canon Power Shot Camera incompatibility issues!

Edit note - Jan. 12, 2010) STILL NOTHING, I AM LIVID! I believe Canon, Costco, and Apple SHOULD ALL BE FINED BY THE CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY.

(Edit note - Dec. 02 - 2009) My canon camera contact redirected my latest email asking for a progress report on the Snow Leopard / Canon Camera incompatibility issue and the email as re-directed to someone else at Canon. Usually a bad sign.

I re-contacted my Costco connection and am asking them to consider suspending carrying Canon cameras in ALL Costco Stores until SOMETHING is promised. It just doesn't look good to be selling NEW Cannon Cameras in a costco KNOWING that they WILL NOT WORK with Apple Snow Leopard. I would like to think that Apple has the resources to send a rep or two to Canon to help them get their software to work with the new platform. Is that really asking for too much? IT HAS NOT BEEN OVER THREE MONTHS THAT THIS PROBLEM HAS EXISTED.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

While the subject of APPLE's Snow Leopard operating system is somewhat off topic for a PUMA blog, it actually is on topic for me because I have been shut down from finishing my two books and also from uploading new photos to my blogs, simply because I upgraded to Apple's (MAC) Snow Leopard.

While many applaud APPLE new product releases for being either on time or before a deadline, it appears in this instance APPLE has left Canon cameras unprepared for the Snow Leopard operating system.

Apparently, these type of computer incompatibility issues are not a rare occurrence in the computer world in general, but I still consider it a form of consumer fraud, or at the very least, stealing from the consumer when a new product release does not work with an existing product.

I paid for several upgrades to my computer operating system, and my reward is unresolved compatibility issues between my canon camera and Apple Snow Leopard operating system.

Yes, we need a consumer protection financial agency that could either assess, or threaten to assess, a DAILY FINE until these two huge companies newer products work with products that have already been made and purchased by consumers. A daily fine right now might prove to be the motivation both companies need to get their updates done faster.

----------------------------------------

Having said that, I would like to complement Canon and Costco for responding to my concerns about my Canon PowerShot camera not working with Snow Leopard. They both were pleasant to communicate with and took my situation seriously.
This is the breaking news...yes, this is MY NEWS, I did not get this from some other new source, I got it by working for it and investigating on my own time with my own resources.

Canon is UNOFFICIALLY anticipating a Mid November 2009 to Late November 2009 FREE SOFTWARE UPDATE that will allow their Canon Power Shot cameras to upload onto the Mac Snow Leopard platform so that your Canon Image Browser program will still work.
This tentative mid November to late November 2009 release date is not guaranteed, it is merely meant as a guideline to what is a hoped for release date.

Right now, there is a way to upload your canon camera images directly to i-Photo if you have a Canon PowerShot camera, but for me, this is a huge problem. I like to add text on top of my photos, and I like this process to be SIMPLE. The Canon Image Browser software allows for the easy creation of titles, so I would like to keep my workflow the way I have been using it for the past 18 months.

Let's keep our fingers crossed that by the end of November 2009 our Canon Power Shot cameras will work for the first time with our Snow Leopard operating systems.

One final note, it does appear that some of the newer, perhaps more expensive/professional canon cameras will work with Canon Image Browser on Snow Leopard, but apparently those of us who bought the more consumerish canon cameras are still in a waiting pattern.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

The Hypocrisy, Part II, of Maria Shriver hosting the "Women's Conference" in Long Beach is astounding.

A readers comment from the first Maria Shriver hypocrisy article deserves a response because it attempts to make a logical point.
"What part of women not being a monolithic entity don't you get?"
What the writer/responder is getting at is that women should not automatically support other women simply because they are a woman. This is a valid point, and I actually addressed it in the first article, but I'll do it again here in more depth.

Who out there believes that Barack Obama's past behavior at crucial times in his life was properly vetted by the media? I'm not even talking about Pastor Wright. I'm talking about his college days.

I'm talking about the time he spent writing his book in Bali when his mother was in the final year or two of her life dying from cancer.

I'm talking about Barack Obama's desire to question each and every signature of his political opponent's petitions that were being used to qualify for various political races. This "by the book" behavior by Barack Obama repeated itself all the way to Florida and Michigan, yet Barack Obama remained above the fray to actually produce his own documentation about his own past.

Why did Barack Obama spend time in Bali in the early to mid 90's writing a book about his sperm donor father rather than being with his dying mother? Maybe there is a good answer, but it appears nobody in the media seems to think it important to ask Barack Obama.
I do know that Barack Obama, and this is the point I keep making over and over, CHOSE TO POLITICIZE HIS MOTHER'S FIGHT WITH CANCER FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN EVEN IF HE DID NOT DO ALL HE COULD TO FIGHT FOR HER WHILE SHE WAS ALIVE!
Not only did Maria Shriver not support Hillary Clinton, she chose to be a roadblock to Hillary Clinton getting the nomination when she just as easily could have stepped back and WAITED to support whichever fine candidate became the democratic nominee based on the vote OF THE PEOPLE!
The let the people decide aspect of the 2008 race was never addressed by the media. The media, celebs and marginal democratic political figures that agreed to manipulate the democratic nomination process BEFORE democratic voters had all voted amounts to a scandal in my opinion. Keith Olbermann was so incensed that Hillary Clinton chose to stay in a race that was too close to call that he advocated "taking her into a room" until one person came out, (presumably not Hillary Clinton).

Maria Shriver actually had to "make a difference" in toppling a WORTHY FEMALE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, then puts on her own women empowering conference. Wouldn't you feel betrayed if you found out that the Barack Obama administration helped Shriver put on the women empowerment convention as payback?

"Hey Maria, support Barack Obama now against Hillary Clinton, then we'll help you put on your own women empowerment conference", if that actually happened, would that be the kind of behavior we should accept from those who first kidnapped, and then re-politized women's issues for their own gain?

Hey, lets get prominent women from all over the country such as Oprah Winfrey, Nancy Pelosi, Maria Shriver, and others, to go against Hillary Clinton and support Barack Obama, even though all three could have just remained neutral UNTIL THE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS DECIDED who they wanted. Instead, these three prominent women who backed the defeat of Hillary Clinton expect to get rewarded for their role in stopping the first female president.

Um, no thanks. I am here to make sure you DON'T get your rewards for going against the very thing you claim to be for now, now that you will selfishly profit from the very thing you prevented form happening a year earlier.

This type of arrogant, the past is the past behavior is something that needs to be uncircled from the drain before we are awash in the next wave of bulls--t from those who think we have a short memory. I think it is self serving to be a prominent woman who believes in choice, but then shills for women empowerment that she herself helped thwart the previous year.

Electing Barack Obama did not empower women the way a Hillary Clinton presidency would have, nor has real, simple change occurred.


There are dozens of Barack Obama "supporters" that were nothing more than PR shills who may have been promised some type of reward for helping to stop Hillary Clinton. I view these sellouts as vampires who sucked the blood out of our country and have actually helped prevent a rebound from the 8 previous years of the United States being more focused on outside military maneuvers versus healing from within.

By giving Barack Obama a free pass on his past, the several dozens of democratic celebs and politicians who went out of their way, not just to support Barack Obama without a proper vetting, but to diss Hillary Clinton as well, were saying "it's ok Barack Obama, you get a pass on your past just because you're african american". I find that offensive, condescending, and racist.

And what makes these supporters behavior so suspicious to me is that they absolutely could not stay neutral until the american people first decided which democratic candidate they preferred. You want Barack Obama, let the people vote him in, AND THEN back him. Instead, we had CONSTANT shilling by the media, always announcing a new "backer" whenever Hillary Clinton won a primary race.

You all know that Hillary Clinton actually won more delegates than Barack Obama from the primary races, EVEN WHEN FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN ARE NOT COUNTED.

If many celebs and politicians were willing to voraciously promote Barack Obama without a proper vetting, then they LOWERED THE BAR for all future non caucasian presidents. If these unwitting condescending celebrity and political supporters of Barack Obama now portend to promote women's issues, or blue collar issues, they should be publicly outed for stopping the first women from becoming president even as they now attempt to profit from the perception that they are for women's issues.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

The Hypocrisy of Maria Shriver hosting the "Women's Conference" in Long Beach is astounding.

(Edit update - you can view different sessions from the Women's conference from your home
as podcasts. I presume they are free).


My question is this. If this event is really important to Maria Shriver, and I think this event was held last year as well, why completely stab in the back a fine candidate like Hillary Clinton in 2008 when you purport to be about elevating women?

If Maria Shriver was not sure that Hillary Clinton was her type of candidate, why not just remain neutral? Why actually campaign against Hillary Clinton the way Maria Shriver did? Why? Why help defeat Hillary Clinton and then put on a women's conference that same year and then the following year and so on? I can think of a few women who instead of remaining neutral during the 2008 democratic campaign, actively campaigned for Barack Obama and against Hillary Clinton while claiming to be for women.

There is no forgive and forget in this instance. Maria Shriver purports to be for women while absolutely devaluing a completely credible presidential candidate who was female, and the candidate that Maria Shriver chose over Hillary Clinton WAS AN IMPROPERLY VETTED MALE!
Definitely check out the women's conference. The women's conference appears to be an excellent gathering of women go getters, but it also might not hurt to remind them how disingenuous Maria Shriver's position has become.
Maria Shriver actively being against Hillary Clinton but being for the empowerment of women equals Rush Limbaugh unfairly slamming a talented football player like Donovan McNabe specifically because McNabe is african american, and then afterwards trying to become part owner in a football team.

Monday, October 26, 2009

SEIU Twitter Link has up to date Showdown in Chicago tweets.


I guess I'll need to learn more about the SEIU. Until then, you can stay in touch on the Showdown in Chicago by following their tweets on twitter.

I'd also like to point out that without some gun nut showing up and firing off some shots, I wonder if this relatively peaceful protest will get the coverage it probably deserves from the media.

TheBurningPlatform.com » Economy » DIRTBAGS IN CONGRESS HIDE DEBT CEILING INCREASE

TheBurningPlatform.com » Economy » DIRTBAGS IN CONGRESS HIDE DEBT CEILING INCREASE

Don't forget, the Cat Who Ate Chase Bank Book, coming this December.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

SHOWDOWN IN CHICAGO, a United Front Against the Banks, Almost, but not Really.

Click here for the most recent DailyPUMA article.

When Barack Obama "won" the 2008 democratic primary and the 2008 election, groups as diverse as bankers in suits and the everyday younger tecknogeek dressed up for the celebration.


Showdown in Chicago reminds me of the numerous situation comedy skits where the main character has inadvertently set up two dinner dates at the exact same time and place and tries to prevent each "date" from seeing each other. The main character keeps excusing themselves from one dinner table to go to the other dinner table so they can spend time with their "co-dates".

Usually there are a set of eye glasses involved that have to be put on for one of the dates, but then taken off before approaching the second date. Many many bathroom visits provide the impetus for the double dipping dater to flit from one dining table to the other. Eventually, the main character gets confused and leaves the glassed on for the wrong date and is found out by both dates. Hilarity ensues (oh how ironic the word Hilarity really is.) as both dates find out that they have been two timed.



The main character in our sit com is none other than....Barack Obama! Yep, Bankers are descending upon Chicago from all over the country the final weekend of October 2009 while dozens and dozens of community activist groups, the kind that most likely overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama not only in the 2008 presidential election, but also in the democratic primaries as well, will also descend upon Chicago to protest the bankers. Poor Barack Obama, what is he to do?

Can Barack Obama successfully flit from his date with the bankers to his date with the community activists at the very same time without being noticed?
Does anyone get the serious irony going on here? Maria Shriver starts up a womans group to promote women's run for public office a year after choosing Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. Then Michael Moore releases his movie a year after absolutely spitting on anything and everything HIllary Clinton, the very people who would have supported his movie as strongly as any other group out there.

Now we have activist groups who helped Barack Obama win against Hillary Clinton coming from all over the country to Chicago to protest the bankers, the very same bankers that are Barack Obama's best friends, sit in his inner circle, and are among the people he most admires and is constantly talking on the phone to, and whom may have colluded in some mysterious way to allow tens of millions of dollars in fake credit card campaign donations to freely flow in to Barack Obama's 2008 campaign!



Die Fledermaus anyone? (no I'm not that cultured, but I did videotape several operas years ago after first sleeping at a Holiday Inn). " 'Ha ha Ha', let us get this farce on the road" a famous line from Die Fledermaus as everybody awaits to dance at the ball, each wearing a mask to hide their true identity.

Everybody showing up at the Barack Obama Bankers Ball in Chicago, be they the jilted lovers, or estranged wife, or future mate, will have a ball as they wait to dance with the main man, Barack Obama.

All you community activist ACORN type protestors, if only you had just voted for Hillary Clinton, I am pretty certain she would not have been in the pocket of the bankers to the extent that Barack Obama appears to be. So, knock yourself out this coming weekend in Chicago, protest the banks that are Barack Obama's biggest supporters even as you swoon for a glimpse of the exalted one himself.

Wow, German farcical opera actually coming to life in 2009 in Chicago. All of this could have been avoided if the yoots (aka youths) could have just learned to respect their elders rather than ridicule them for not knowing how an Ipod works.How will you know that the protestors are fervently Barack Obama supporters who still believe in him? You won't see any "Hillary Clinton we are Sorry" signs anywhere when they probably should be considering carving that message into their own flesh.

Rush Limbaugh's Donovan McNabe tirade a few years ago comes back to haunt Rush now that he wants to be part owner of an NFL Football Team.

Several years ago, Rush Limbaugh went on a tirade about Donovan McNabe, quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles. Rush's basic claim was that the media wanted to have an african american quarterback they could rave about whether or not the quarterback was any good, and Donovan McNabe was the chosen one.

There are a couple of ironies about what Rush said back then. The first irony is that no truer words could have been spoken if Rush had been talking about the 2008 democratic race in which the media was indeed looking for an african american political candidate for president that they could rave about.

However, in Donovan McNabe's case, I think Rush Limbaugh should have taken a different tact, and a funnier more effective one as well.
If ever somebody had a name that screams out Hollywood swashbuckling celebrity, it's the name Donovan McNabe.
Rush Limbaugh could have simply avoided the race card and done a rant about Donovan's name, not his race, and gotten a big laugh as well. But Rush Limbaugh did play the race card back then, and now some have not forgotten and they don't want his money in the NFL.

It was silly to pick on Donovan McNabe, who at that time had led the Eagles to at least two NFC championship finals on his way to four consecutive NFC conference finals. That's really not so bad for what Rush Limbaugh seemed to be saying was an overrated african american quarterback that the media was overhyping simply because he was african american.

I don't know which year among those four straight NFC conference final series Rush made his comment, but if he made them after all four appearances, it really makes no sense since McNabe took his team to what amounts to a final four four years in a row. If Rush made the comments after the second of those four consecutive years, then McNabe proved Rush Limbaugh wrong by going to two more championship finals after Rush made his comments.

The bottom line is, McNabe has proven solid enough to be a final four quarterback a total of five times in his career, and that is very impressive.
I don't have a way to look this up, but Donovan McNabe may be the youngest football player to have he took his team to the fifth football conference playoff finals game of his career.
And this is the guy that Rush Limbaugh is claiming is a token african american quarterback that the media is overhyping?

yeesh.

As great as John Elway was throughout his NFL career as quarterback of the Denver Broncos, it wasn't until John Elway was in in his final season with Denver that he won his first super bowl, which in turn led Mr. Elway deciding to come back for one more season in which he won his second super bowl ring at the age of 38 years, old by NFL standards.
What if Elway had taken a real hard hit in the final game of the season before his first super bowl win, and had decided to retire right then and there? John Elway might have gone down as the biggest underachiever of all time for a quarterback with so much talent, it was not until John Elway was in his LATE 30'S that he actually lived up to the media hype surrounding his career. Yet there is Rush Limbaugh, blasting an african american quarterback was just in his late 20's!
So the question remains, why hate on Donovan McNabe when he had already taken his team to several NFC conference finals, and was still in the prime of his life and had many more seasons to still try and win a Super Bowl?

In the case of John Elway, one could further make the argument that it was Denver's improved defense, and a solid running game that actually allowed Elway's talents to truly shine. It becomes very clear that the difference between a great quarterback and a solid quarterback may not matter as much when it comes to winning a super bowl, it's the defense and running that appear to be the foundation for winning super bowls.
Rush Limbaugh's remarks about Donovan McNabe were not only off the mark, they could have been a lot funnier and poignant if Rush had done a rant about how reporters obviously liked McNabe because of his name and wanted to see him succeed, because of his name, and not his race. Now that would have been a breathe of fresh air, especially coming from Rush Limbaugh, clearly Rush Limbaugh dropped the ball on that one.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Apparently, a couple of PUMA blogs are not updating...

DailyPUMA doesn't have total control over the automatic updating feature. If your blog is not updating please don't take it as a slight. Feel free to contact me and I can try to reset your blog to see if that jump starts it, otherwise, I don't know what the problem is and am open to suggestions.

Good News, even though I really have very few options, I was able to get about four puma blogs that were not auto updating jump started so they now appear to be auto updating.

Mistress cut out of will  | ajc.com

Mistress cut out of will | ajc.com

Was Ann Melican treated fairly when a judge cut her out of Harvey Strother will? Harvey Strother searched out Anne Melican after Harvey's previous mistress died. To compare Ms. Melican to someone like Anna Nicole Smith is ridiculous. Anna Nicole Smith used her exotic dancing to lure an 88 year old man into her life, in this instance Harvey Strother appears to have lured Anne Melican into his life by crying into her bosom over the death of his previous mistress.

For the judge to cut Melican out of a very substantial will that had enough for everybody is ridiculous. Nuances matter. I get tired of how the media tries to lump entirely different cases together when they do not relate at all.

The fact that Harvey Strother had a prior mistress, and used the death of the prior mistress to cry uncontrollably in front of Ms. Melican to show how sensitive he was is further proof that Mr. Strother was the hunter, not the hunted. The judge messed up on this one and I hope Ms. Melican appeals and wins something.

Posted using
ShareThis

Monday, October 19, 2009

Fear

Fear & Loathing In Uganda

Maybe we should send those 40,000 troups to Uganda instead Afghanistan. Nazi like Gay laws to be implemented, by whom, closet homosexual politicians who don't want their secret brood touched by non political gay types, perhaps?

Posted using
ShareThis

The Latest Ridiculous Headline Spin from the Conservative Side, "White House boasts: We 'control' news media."


----------------------------


There is NO STORY here other than the disingenuousness of some conservative headlines. What is so laughably ironic about this World Net Daily news release is that it does EXACTLY what the youtube video itself says it tried to avoid during the 2008 campaign, News Groups creating their own headlines and excerpts from provided content.

"We control the media" is being taken out of context.
Controlling the message that the media receives is exactly what was being talked about in the youtube video.
WATCH the youtube video, don't just repeat the utterly nonsensical headline that is the latest conservative salvo against the Barack Obama administration.

Wouldn't you want your messages to not be filtered by sources, (such as World Net Daily) into a completely different meaning from what you intended? That is all the youtube video is talking about.

The reason I am so offended by this tactic is it means we can't trust the conservatives if they are this desperate to make a mountain out of a molehill. Additionally, it takes attention away from the REAL damage and control that the Barack Obama team actually did do in 2008.

If the conservatives want to investigate the fraudulent credit card donations that Barack Obama received in 2008, the fake vote stuffing that occurred in the 2008 democratic caucus contests that benefited Barack Obama and hurt Hillary Clinton, fine, go for it.

When conservatives make sensationalistic headlines where none exist, it just makes me wish we had a THIRD PARTY to choose from.

Friday, October 16, 2009

This Current TV video cartoon is for those of you that don't get Twitter or can't stand Twitter.


This Current TV video confirms what I
learned many many years ago. The most
successful videos have a great soundtrack,
an excellent sound mix, and sharp writing.

The Picture is the bonus. If you really want to have a laugh, imagine that all the background people are Obots.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

This is Just Wrong. It is so funny that it may not be funny at all, it's where the rubber meets the road.

Do you think this video is fall down funny, or actually kind of twisted and harmful? If the person who this happened to thought it was real when it was happening, and experiences a momentary rush of fear and adrenaline that is no different than if it really happened, is it really funny?

What if we discovered that adrenaline rushes caused by a perceived life or death moment actually shortened one's life? Would you still think this video was funny? Is it possible that somewhere in the future this "joke" could end up being the deciding factor in this couple's break up?

One of the joys of being a human, in my opinion, is having some place where you believe you are safe. If that safe place is violated in such a manner as this youtube video prank, might there be future psychological consequences to what was supposed to have been a funny prank? Nightmares, seeing things that aren't there?

Or..., do we take our safe places for granted and sometimes a wake up call (literally in this case) such as this youtube video reinvigorates our senses? Is it also possible that the victim of this joke will actually appreciate her safe places even more in the future because she got to feel the fear without it being real, even though for several moments she thought it was real?

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

David Letterman owes Bill Clinton an apology, but does David Letterman and CBS owe even more than that?

If we could establish a time line of David Letterman's co-worker trysts and his late night stand up "comedy" routines at the expense of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky during the Clinton presidency, would we not find an absolute level of Letterman hypocrisy that would just make one's jaw drop?

Is it acceptable on any level to tell jokes about another when you yourself are doing the exact same thing but have kept your own indiscretions quiet? Is it acceptable to profit from such activity? Is it legal to profit without at the very least, putting a "disclaimer" on Letterman's show that warns the audience that the joke teller host who is making fun of others does not necessarily imply that the host's morals are any better?

If David Letterman had "come out" during the Clinton Administration and admitted he was doing the same thing as Bill Clinton was accused of doing, would any future jokes about Bill Clinton by David Letterman have had a different result?

Did David Letterman and his parent company, CBS, by having no morality disclaimer broadcast during Letterman's show, commit fraud by not disclosing his own relevant personal behavior when he was actually profiting by ridiculing others for that same behavior? Isn't it fraud to not disclose behavior patterns that might LIMIT the effectiveness of a show's host to make fun of others when the humor might be muted because of their own personal behavior?

If Letterman had admitted he behaved the same as those he regularly made fun of, he still could have told the same jokes, and they may have been funny, however, the audience laughter would have been more squarely directed at David Letterman himself, rather than those named in the joke.

Did not David Letterman and CBS allow the telling of jokes for profit with the implied belief that the joke teller, David Letterman, was above the very behavior he was ridiculing? I think the answer is yes and I wish someone would sue the pants off of them.


Hillary Clinton is asked if she will run again for President, I'm kind of wishing it were Barack Obama being asked.

Another one of those questionable questions asked of Hillary Clinton, this time by CNN, that can only be answered one way.
"Will you run for president in 2012 or 2016"? Of course she won't run again, ever, she loves her current job. What else is she supposed to say?
The training Hillary Clinton is getting now would make her the ideal presidential candidate in the future.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Sherrice Iverson was molested and murdered while David Cash stood guard outside of a Las Vegas Casino Restroom, Prosecutors refused to press charges.


In 1997, 7 year old Sherrice Iverson was molested and murdered in a vegas casino public restroom by Jeremy Strohmeyer while his friend David Cash witnessed part of the assault. I never forgot that story because it involved such a young girl in a Vegas Casino bathroom. and because the witness, David Cash, who knew what was happening and did nothing, was never charged with any kind of a crime.


I seem to recall Cash hung out at the doorway of the restroom as a lookout for part of the time, the wikipedia description seems to downplay that aspect of the case although they place David Cash actually in the next stall watching part of the rape and torture before he leaves to go grab a meal.

Why can't Mr. Cash have his day in court now? Why not let David Cash prove in a court of law that his actions did not contribute to the death of Sherrice Iverson? Why did the district attorney pre-decide that David Cash was not guilty?

If the internet had not been in its infancy back then, isn't it a no brainer public outrage would have made it harder to camouflage that Strohmeyer's friend, David Cash, was never charged with a crime? Wikipedia offers a description of what David Cash did and did not do.




What I found troubling about the prosecutors not even attempting to file charges is that the young girl, seeing a second male nearby do nothing while she was being beaten and raped, could quite possibly not have struggled as much knowing that even if she could get away, there was someone else right there to stop her.

We don't know if Strohmeyer could have said, "don't even try and get away, my friend is by the door making sure you don't escape". Just because there was "no good samaritan law" back then does not mean David Cash should not have stood trial.
How can a seven year old mentally process a situation in which she is being abused and sexually assaulted while a SECOND ADULT is acting as if it is no big deal?
The emotional paralysis of knowing that David Cash was nearby and doing nothing to help could have caused Sherrice Iverson to not even bother to scream or try as hard to escape because she knew there was a second adult there to stop her. I believe there are experts who could testify that by David Cash being there, doing nothing, actually weakened Sherrice Iverson's RESOLVE to try and get away.

After David Cash witnessed a portion of the assault on Sherrice Iverson by Jeremy Strohmeyer, he left to go grab a meal. The young girl could have thought David Cash was going to get help. Dave Cash then leaving could have tricked the young girl into thinking she didn't have to escape, just hold on long enough until David Cash returned with help.

Whether these scenarios are provable or not, they are POSSIBLE, and reason enough that David Cash should have had his day in a court of law and let a jury decide.
Since David Cash was never charged back then, could he still be charged now?

For more info, here is one more article.   There is also a "Rip Off Report" about David Cash, which makes sense since he did rip off society by not standing trial.

In case you're wondering why I am bringing this story up now, 12 years later, I actually tried to find this story a couple of years ago but could not remember any of the people's names involved and was not able to find any details about the murder. I recall researching for at least an hour with no luck. For some reason, I found something right away this time.

Additional archival articles can be found here.

Share Gadget

10,000 Dollar Grant! Another Great Find from FABULOUSLY40.com

10,000 Dollar Grant! Another Great Find from FABULOUSLY40.com
Would this be a good way to win funds for Louisa's Law ?