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.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Consumer Protection Financial Agency works perfectly fine in Canada, why not here?

Before Barney Frank turns the proposed Consumer Protection Financial Agency into "Barney's Rubble" by granting waivers to all the businesses that the agency is supposed to oversee, please read this article.

The article states that in Canada there was a flurry of protesting by businesses when a similar agency was proposed back in 2002, yet once the Canadian agency was passed, without "Barney's Rubble" added in, businesses to this day have been accepting of the agency.

Why should Canadian businesses complain anyways when their consumer protection financial agency provided a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR ALL and did not necessarily cause Canadian businesses to go out of business, at least the ethical ones anyways.


Jessica Watson, youngest teen to ever attempt to circumnavigate the world on a boat, alone.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE. Original Image at Marinasguide.

Good Luck Jessica Watson. Jessica is attempting to become the youngest teen to circle the globe, alone, on a boat.

If David Letterman wanted to slightly atone for his various mean and degrading talk of young women that seems to permeate his stand up routines from time to time, he'd do a show from your boat, or at least do update feeds.

Jay Leno, are you paying attention?

My concern about Jessica is not her ability (although apparently she did bump into a huge craft while preparing for her journey), but is her boat the kind of boat one takes around the world? I have to assume yes as she has sponsorship and all kinds of navigation and nautical gear on the boat, but if anyone can fill in more details, I'd like to learn more.

(Edit update, you can follow Jessica's tour around the globe by looking to the right of this column and finding her blog, called "Youngest Round").

Thursday, October 8, 2009

The Great, Dr. Phil vs Jezebel debate over what is "Shameful" teen girl behavior. Who is right?

Why does shame exist? Is shame outdated?

Why does society place "shame" on people, especially if the behavior that is considered shameful is between consenting people of similar ages. Does shame exist to punish those who give in to all of their impulses and as a way to elevate those who don't give in to those same impulses?

Is text messaging and all the instant gratification wireless communicating creates manifesting a culture of "impulse madness", are people beginning to believe that acting on all of their impulses is a "right"?

Imagine being a teenage girl who is shunned by boys because she controls her impulses better than another girl who simply enjoys her impulses. If shame didn't exist, girls who adhered to a stronger form of impulse control would lose out to those willing to be "looser" with their impulses. What do I mean by "lose out". lol, I'm not sure.

Clearly an impulse controller would lose out of being on the receiving end of inmature brats with a limited attention span who only value people that just want to have fun. Is that a bad thing? Or, is it just part of growing up to be able to interact with people of a similar age no matter how stupid or pointless their behavior might be? Is being so in control of impulses that elders respect you but people your own age ignore you also a detriment?

Is it shameful to enjoy giving in to consensual impulses?

If someone is labeled a "whore" but they like being a whore and like what a whore does, are they really a whore? It would seem to me a whore is someone who does something for money that they don't like to do. Uh oh, that definition could apply to most of us who have taken jobs we did not believe in but did it because we would be paid and needed the money.

If a teenage girl is paid by a teenage boy to perform a sexual act on him, should she be shamed by others who found out about what she did? The website Jezebel says no, how dare anybody judge a teenage girl. On the other side, a Dr. Phil video clip featured in that same Jezebel article says its time to take back your child from bad behavior.

The old school method taught by many of our moms was that it is the girl that dictates a boys behavior. If a girl is stricter in controlling her own impulses, we boys will follow and be more respectful as well. In the old school way, formality ruled and being formal was supposed to create respect, if not from one's peers, than from the adults.

Jezebel is saying forget that, each sex should have its own standard that is not codependent upon the other side, or, the two sides should be judged equally when an allegedly shameful act occurs. Jezebel also appears to be asking why is it society's business to judge consensual acts anyways?

Why should a teenage girl be shamed by society for performing a sexual act on a teenage boy of a same age, for money, while the boy receives no label in return? Either both people get a label, or nobody gets a label is the message that jezebel is espousing. I suppose the question of legality is also an issue as well. But is that really the reason the act is considered shameful, because it is illegal?

If we really took a big step back, wouldn't the person who pays for sex be the one who should be more "ashamed" than the one who receives money? Yet somehow, in general, the performer is considered by society to be the one who should be shamed more, especially if they happen to be female.

Is it wrong to try and shame people of similar ages who engage in consensual acts? If shaming children is not an option, does that diminish the role of the parent to nothing more than a room and board provider if they can't use shame to guide their child's growth towards adulthood?

Or does successful parenting involve teaching children without shaming them? What if shame is proving to be the most successful method for teaching a particular child?

There are exceptions to the shame rule of course. If the recipient is famous enough, then they actually will be shamed more than the performer. But if the two people involved have a similar standing in life, it seems like the performer who is being paid is supposed to be shamed more than the recipient, especially if they are female.

Is the standard of shame changing as each new generation creates their own rules. Will the day will come when shame is no longer a tool used to mold or manipulate behavior? If the day comes when shaming is considered shameful, will be a good day, or a bad day?

If Barack Obama ends up being a really bad president, and all of the reasons PUMA gave for why Barack Obama would be a bad president prove to be true, should people who ridiculed PUMA feel ashamed?

REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS FAVOR HALLIBURTON RAPISTS OVER THE VICTIM. FOR SHAME.


Thanks to ABC 20/20 for Broadcasting this story and several PUMA blogs for already writing about this on their blogs... Uppity Women, The Confluence, plus, Down with Tyranny.

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.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

TheBurningPlatform.com - Economy equals BIGGEST SUCKER RALLY SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION.


------click on link above to see article------

(Edit update - There does appear to be an ironic ally alongside the bankers and foreign banks that is helping to prop up Wall Street, it's younger people that had and have a job, but did not own very much prior to the economic meltdown. They didn't lose much because they did not have much, their spending power is increasing as prices drop on certain items, they know not to trust the banks or credit cards, stocks prices look low enough, and apparently they are looking for stock market deals.

It will be easier to have a stock market rally if the Barack Obama administration continues to ignore the middle agers who lost half their wealth in favor of the younger core group that voted him into office and had much less to lose.)

I believe this is a suckers rally as well. Better to pay down your debts than hope for change from the stock market. Undeserving and unearned bankers bonuses can go a long way towards creating a fake reseeding of the stock market. Fake enough to lure you back in.

Those who put their money in first, second and third, the bankers, can simply use their bonuses to seed the market, then get out once you put your money in.

If Bankers don't get that charging 15-25 billion dollars A MONTH in interest rates on EXISTING consumer credit card debt is a charge the american consumer cannot afford to continue paying while also trying to reseed their own lives, then they are idiots and we should not follow where idiots tread.

I believe what is also happening is the government and the banks want us to invest in stocks that have no guarantee versus bank accounts that are supposed to be safer, and insured. I fear Barack Obama was spawned from the trenches of Wall Street, and they both tap dance the same tune, a tune that makes you feel good even as the titanic heads for more icebergs dead ahead.

Shared via AddThis

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Another Creepy, One Dollar a Share Deal proffered by the Barack Obama administration during the bailout talks.


CLICK HERE TO ENLARGE IMAGE.

Lets not forget how Chase Bank was able to "buy" WAMU for what turned out to be a dollar or two a share even though WAMU had huge assets at the time. The shareholders at the time of the WAMU Chase merger lost all of their stock value when the merger happened.

The WAMU Chase merger had to do with the Bush administration. It's almost as if the Barack Obama administration wanted to have their own dollar a share company the way the Bush administration did. It's as if they were thinking, "If the Bush administration can orchestrate a huge take over of a company and destroy shareholder equity overnight, we can too"...

Best Quality VHS to Digital Transfers

Best Quality VHS to Digital Transfers
Serious Customers Welcome.

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 ?