Daily Archives: December 26, 2010

Global "Climate Change Battlers" Crying

“For advocates of action to prevent climate change, 2010 was mostly a year to forget.”

“It began with gloom, after the collapse of the Copenhagen climate meetings in December 2009. The mood darkened further as it became clear that cap-and-trade legislation to combat greenhouse gas emissions would not pass the U.S. Congress.”

“A sliver of hope came from a modest agreement at climate meetings in Cancún, Mexico, earlier this month, on a more solid multinational commitment to finding ways to cut emissions. Another development, bringing perhaps more relief than hope, was the rejection by California voters of an effort, backed by oil companies, to suspend the state’s landmark law to combat global warming.”

“The year 2011 may not bring too much improvement, from environmentalists’ perspective. Budget deficits and a still-sluggish economy in the United States and elsewhere may complicate investments in clean-energy technologies. And international negotiators have plenty of tough work ahead, the progress at Cancún notwithstanding.”

I/O/W – WAAAAAAAAAAAA, the people get to keep more of the freedoms.

New York Times (this is a link, David)

More infinite wisdom from the New York Times, “We’re freezing because it’s getting hotter” (That’s another link in there, David)

The Abiding Faith Of Warm-ongers
(yes David, this is a link too)

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Zero "Fact Checks" Our Blog Post. We Rate Their Response "Politically Naive"

It’s clear that the Blogforce who write for this website have captured the notice of the liberatti, local institutions and the daily newspaper of record with our opinion pieces about the Kyron Horman case by former Multnomah County Sheriff, Bernie Giusto, and Bruce McCain (here and here and and here. ) and Pete the Banker’s demonstration that then candidate, John Kitzhaber’s home loan was and is illegal (here and here and here). Mr. Why has captured the notice of the land use and light rail crowd including Tri Met’s hired blogger/commenter (here and here). Rees Lloyd’s pieces go national with regularity (here and here) and Lew consistently tweaks the noses of the power crowd which can’t make them happy (here and here). I spend a lot of time writing about local stories such as Mo Mo, local government’s overreaching etc. See examples here, herehere, here, and here.

Our blog posts, as most blog posts do, take a set of facts about which we have an opinion. We lay them out for you to read and accept or dismiss at your whim. 
The Zero’s “Politifact” reporter, Janie Harr scrutinized Rees’ recent piece about the reduced breakfast program at a local Portland Public School. Rees is pretty steamed about the program  because it, among other things, apparently invites any adult who wants, to come on in, pony up $1.75, a taxpayer subsidized meal. See his piece here.

He doesn’t fancy strangers or dead beats (or rich dead beats for that matter) making a beeline for a school filled with innocents. Who can blame him? Add the fact that the taxpayers are subsidizing the meals for people who can well afford to buy their own food and he’s downright irate.
Here’s what Harr reports about Rees’ claim:

Matt Shelby, spokesman for the school district, confirms that a Dec. 9 school e-mail re-posted on Taft’s blog is correct. In it, district nutrition services program manager Kristin Palmer reminds “West Sylvan parents and staff” that hot and cold breakfasts start up again in the new year.

Adults unaffiliated with the school need to sign in to get on campus, so the idea of an undocumented worker dropping “in at West Sylvan School for a $1.75 breakfast on their way to a job ‘Americans don’t want’” is pretty far-fetched (contrary to Lloyd’s musings). Strike this part as a Pants on Fire claim.

(By the way, Lloyd doesn’t buy it. He interprets the e-mail as a more sweeping invitation, despite it being addressed to “West Sylvan parents and staff.” “That’s what makes it so stupid, inviting adults to come in for $1.75. It’s without limitation and they know damn well we don’t want people walking into schools, what in the hell are they thinking? If they’re not inviting everyone in there, they should know how to say so.”) 

Clearly, the breakfast offer is not intended for the general public, which means no drug addicts, homeless or suspected terrorists, domestic or otherwise, get to mingle with the kids unless they happen to be staff or parents at the well-to-do school.

She gives Rees an atta boy for being concerned about taxpayer money but then gives the claim that the meal is open to anyone a “barely true.” 
Why would Rees every think that a school meal program would be open to anyone? Oh, I dunno, maybe because they are. Here’s a factoid from the summer breakfast and lunch program at PPS schools (here), 

No application or paperwork is necessary to participate. Sites are open to all children on a first-come, first-served basis; adult meals cost $3.75.

We know Matt Shelby says the intention is to have only school attached adults and children avail themselves of the program. And very few adults do take advantage of them. But who will be at the door turning unknown adults away? Who’s ever turned down for a free school  meal program. That’s what I thought. 
Consider what Matt Shelby himself tells Harr,

Shelby says the USDA reimburses the district $1.76 for every free breakfast, $1.46 for every reduced-price breakfast and 26 cents for every fully paid breakfast. The district is not reimbursed for adult meals, which is why adults pay $1.75 to cover the cost of labor and food. The total districtwide budget for school lunches and breakfasts is $17.5 million, sustained by sales of meals to students and reimbursements from the federal government.

On our ratings system we rate the reporter and any adult who doesn’t think this program will be abused: politically naive. 

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Cash For Clunkers 2.0; General Motors – A Federal Government and TARP Success Story?

By Pete the Banker

The Administration and Treasury have been promoting GM as an amazing success story due to the Federal Government’s involvement and TARP. Yet prompting GM’s “success” is nothing more than the Federal Government’s acting as owner, manager, financier, and biggest consumer.

GM was reputed to have paid off all their debt in record time, in April, 2010 or at least according to Media headlines. Others including Inspector General Barofsky suggested the assertion was premature.

More recently with the approaching of the initial public offering (IPO), we were suddenly informed through the same Media that the Government was still due some $50 Billion through their GM stock and debt holdings. Was the disclosure last Spring simply a minor oversight by the Media and then GM CEO Ed Whitacre?

And GM is now profitable with its latest quarter profit of $2B; its first profit in five years. An amazing accomplishment, even given cost reductions associated with the eradication stockholders’ and diminution of bondholders’ interests. And GM products are flying off the showroom floors like hot cakes. Well, at least heavy pickup trucks and older models are flying out of the showroom floors.

The much heralded and under achieving Chevy “All Electric” Volt which has been promoted to get 93 miles per gallon (down from 230 mpg last year) hasn’t received tremendous public reception yet. And well the Volt, despite GM’s assurance, is not quite “all electric”, nor quite all that energy efficient. So why is it surprising it hasn’t garnered much consumer enthusiasm. Rumors suggest however that the nascent demand on the highly touted Chevy Volt and other “hybrids” is likely to be reversed when a major fleet buyer swoops in to buy the unpopular vehicles.

And that rumored buyer is none other than the Federal Government.
“U.S. sales of hybrids are projected to decline for the third year in 2010, and will account for less than 3 percent of all auto sales. For American automakers, the news gets worse: More than half of all those sales were Toyota Prius’, and Uncle Sam bought almost a fourth of the GM and Ford Motor hybrids, according to government data obtained by Bloomberg News.” And what will be the ultimate taxpayer cost incurred by the purchases and reduced productivity inherent in the Volt?

And while GM and the Administration seemed to assure us that the Government was paid off six months ago, the recent IPO raised some $13.7 Billion in equity funds and another $9.5B in debt of the remaining $50 Billion still owed to the Treasury by GM?!? The United Autoworker’s Health Care and Pension Trust Fund also received $3.4 Billion.

So now the Administration, the Treasury, and General Motors are all now touting the IPO and Government rescue as an outstanding success? Yet GM has misled about Spring payoff of debt obligation to the Federal Government. GM has misled about the all “electric” Chevy Volt and 93 mpg (assumes multiple battery recharging stops at 4 hours each). GM’s first profit in five years is not because of their new “green” product line which wasn’t readily pointed out by the company. GM’s “success” in new compacts and hybrids sales depends on major fleet orders from the Federal Government again bailing out GM at American taxpayer expense.

GM still owes the US taxpayer nearly $30 Billion after the IPO, with the Federal Governments equity stake in GM still accounting for 33% of GM’s outstanding stock. So is this truly a success story? Or do you suppose that GM, the Treasury and the Administration are guilty of using deceptive sales practices with the general investment public in their disclosures about the success of GM’s marketing, sales, and financial initiatives as well as the quality/consumer reception of their new products like the Chevy Volt?

Where is the outrage from Attorney General Eric Holder, Consumer Advocates and the reigning Democrat House and Senate Committee Chairs? Where were the calls for Congressional investigations? So why isn’t the FBI raiding the offices of GM, the Treasury and the White House for deceptive sales and securities practices? After all the FBI is raiding Hedge and Mutual Funds for violating insider trading laws. And how much future cash will taxpayers’ be called upon to pump into GM to save it and its new poorly conceived product lines supported by Federal Government fleet purchases?

See also, Dec 27, 2010 Wall Street Journal Car Dealers Hope for a Year-End Bump

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Rees Lloyd: Repeal Lame Duck Democrats’ Destruction of DA/DT in 112th Congress


As a former enlisted man who joined the Army at the age 17, as do many recruits, I know about the enormous power of non-commissioned and commission officers over the lives of those in the enlisted ranks. I think it is unconscionable for members of House, Senate, and the White House to congratulate themselves on voting to compel young enlisted men and women to serve under openly practicing homosexual non-coms or officers, including predatory homosexuals, who may have a sexual rather than military interest in them, and who have enormous power to retaliate if their advances are rejected.


Just how does a young man or woman subject to military discipline, culture, and control, protect himself or herself, and seek redress, from unwanted sexual interest, advances, or assaults? A member of the military in the ranks is often at the mercy of non-coms or officers, including in duty assignments which can not only be the worst of unwanted duties but assignments which can put them in harm’s way at risk of loss of limbs or life.
Does Coming “Out” Serve Country or Individual?

Simply stated: Military life is not civilian life. A victim of “sexual harassment,” predation, or actual assault in the military cannot respond to such sexual abuse as can a person in civilian life. Enlisted personnel cannot, without great fear of retaliation, report a non-com or officer for homosexual misconduct. A member of the military cannot respond to an advance by a homosexual non-com or officer with crude language, or threats of physical action that would be used in a civilian situation. A member of the military cannot physically ward off unwanted homosexual contact by a non-com or officer without risk of court martial for a major crime, i.e., “assault on an officer.” A member of the military cannot file a complaint with local police, or with local, state, or federal agencies enforcing anti-discrimination laws. A member of the military cannot sue a homosexual molester, or the predatory homosexual’s employer, i.e., the military branch in which the victim serves.
A member of the military cannot simply “quit and get another job” if subjected to unwanted homosexual attention by a superior, as a civilian can if harassed by a supervisor. Military personnel are in the their military branch for the duration of their period of enlistment, even if a homosexual clone of Chester the Molester is their platoon sergeant, First Sgt., or an Officer. One can’t “resign” from the military because of unacceptable working conditions, including predatory homosexual superiors.
Consider: Just what does a 17-year-old heterosexual recruit, male or female, do when a 35-year-old same-sex predatory non-com or officer decides to join that 17-year-old in the shower, or latrine, or field tent, or common area, and not only “tell” about but act out his or her homosexuality?
For one personal example of homosexuality in the military, even when it was forbidden, when I was stationed at Ft. Bliss in Texas, I was dating a bright, young, woman of my age who joined the Women’s Army Corps because she grew up in extreme poverty in the South and thought the WAC would provide her with opportunities. Instead, she begged me to marry her to get her out of the WAC, which was possible then, and quickly divorce once she was out. Why? Because, even though she was not personally a victim — she visibly had a man to protect her — she couldn’t take the almost nightly attacks on young WACs by older lesbian non-coms. In the barracks of Ft. Bliss in that Vietnam-era, such attacks were not silent affairs. Anyone who served in such barracks will understand what I mean about the acoustical effects of sexual activity.
I didn’t marry that fine young woman as she asked, so she could escape from predatory homosexual female non-coms, but I have never forgotten her, or her anguish, anxieties, and disgust, at being caught in a situation in which she was under the control of predatory homosexual WAC non-coms and could not extricate herself from that situation. We even strolled about the WAC area arm-in-arm to make a display of our relationship and her heterosexuality, making it clear that she was attached to a man, if not engaged. She informed me that she deliberately told the other women that while I was a nice guy to her generally, I had a violent temper and was wildly jealous about her. Who knew what I might do if she was molested?
Truth was, at 17, she wasn’t making it up. Like many others coming to the Army from some very rough streets in a Midwest steel town, I was a wild man; resistant to orders and barely controllable even under military discipline, which I admit I often observed in the breach. My one stripe was pulled off so often I stopped sewing it on and attached it with velcro–easier for the sergeant to pull off. Had I been advanced upon or assaulted by a homosexual in the Army, including a non-com or officer, at that still-wild age, there would have been mayhem, the consequences be damned. What are young heterosexual men and women in military service to do now that open homosexuality is not only not forbidden, it is approved?
I reflected much on the memory of my relationship at Ft. Bliss with that decent young WAC from the South who abhorred the homosexual reality she was trapped in, when my own elder daughter elected to follow in the footsteps of her great- grandfather, her grandfather, and her father (me) and join the military at 17, right out of high school, in order to serve her country in this time of war against terrorism. She is the fourth generation in America and all four have served. Had the military by Act of Congress made acceptable and even advocated as a norm the kind of homosexual conduct I had witnessed pertaining to my WAC girlfriend described above, I would have done my best to dissuade my daughter from joining the service rather than risking that kind of homosexual degradation.
Does any one of those liberal “progressives” who voted to impose open homosexuality in the military seriously believe that homosexual predators can be kept out of the military, or controlled in it? Have the female members of House and Senate considered the impact on young women who will be exposed to predatory lesbian non-coms and officers, of which there is no shortage? Does anyone seriously believe that predatory homosexuals, male or female, will not be attracted to the armed forces, or remain in, with all those young “targets of opportunity” in the ranks, and Congress approving of open homosexuality?
Consider, especially, those troops in combat zones, and their parents and loved ones back home worrying about them. Just how much confidence can they have that their lives and limbs will be equally valued and defended if their officer or non-com, or fellow troop, is having a homosexual affair with one or more of the other troops? Can they have confidence that they are not at risk if some of the troops are in homosexual relationships with each other, or with non-coms or officers? Will non-coms and officers, or troops, who have a homosexual interest or relationship with one or more of the troops, not act to save their “significant others” before other troops? Can anyone say with confidence that a homosexual in a sexual relationship with a troop will not act to save that troop first, or otherwise favor that troop so as to keep him or her out of harm’s way as much as possible? In that regard, do men and women, no matter how decent, not act first to save their own spouses or children, rather than someone else’s spouse or child, in a disaster, accident, or other life-threatening situation? Why would anyone think homosexuals would not act in the same way when the object of their homosexual love is the one at risk?
Liberal “progressives” are great at imposing on American citizens policies which cannot affect them. DA/DT is a prime example: Most in Congress have not served in the uniform of their country. The present President of the United States never deigned to serve. He is only the second president of the modern era not to serve, other than liberal progressive Bill Clinton. Ironically, it was Clinton who in fact established DA/DT in his regime. Clinton never served, and distinguished himself, it should be remembered with disgust, by chatting on the phone with a member of Congress about troop decisions while being serviced below by Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. Why should anyone be surprised that such liberal “progressives” as Obama, the President Who Bows From the Waist, and Clinton, President Fellatio, would be in favor of elevating anal and oral intercourse to a norm in the military
We are told by the same Democrat Liberal Progressives who have destroyed DA/DT that open homosexuality in the military will not be a problem, including as to unit cohesion, putting enlisted men and women at risk, and that they can control homosexual predators. Really? Just look at Liberal Progressive Portland, the Principality of Political Correctness, which reportedly strongly supports abolition of DA/DT. Portland could not even keep its predatory homosexual Mayor Sam Adam from preying on a 17-year-old male intern in the City Hall Men’s Room in the now infamous Beau Breedlove affair. What a field day such a homosexual predator would have in the closed military circumstance now that open homosexuality is to be the military norm.
Those voting for abolition of DA/DT and for the norming of open homosexual conduct as acceptable in the military, all those politicians in House and Senate and the President-Who-Never-Served, are preening in their self-righteousness in establishing a military policy which will never affect them, and is unlikely to affect their sons and daughters, since the progeny of those liberal “progressive” legislators are unlikely to have an economic incentive to join the armed forces.
I believe that the incoming 112th Congress should repeal this Lame Duck Democrat Liberal Progressive destruction of DA/DT. Such fundamental changes in the military culture, and the Military Code of Justice, and leave it to the military to decide what to do and how to do it. The most important voice in the ultimate decision should be the members of the military most immediately affected, — combat troops.
The ultimate decision should not be made by liberal self-defined “progressive” politicians, bureaucrats, self-interested predatory homosexuals like Portland’s Progressive Mayor Sam Adams, or military personnel far from combat and unlikely to have to depend on a homosexual with a sexual interest in him or her or in some other troop with whom they may have a homosexual crush or be a bedmate.
Further, unless and until the action of the Lame Duck Obama-Reid-Pelosi 111th Congress is repealed, every member of the House and Senate, as well as Obama, He Who Bows From The Waist, and his White House gaggle of liberal “progressives” creating their Brave New Homosexual Military World, should be compelled to shower daily with the homosexual Barney Frank in the Congressional gym. If they won’t do that, then they should not inflict a similar fate on members of the American military, and their families.
Indeed, Americans should repeal the Lame Duck Democrat DA/DT destruction in the 112th Congress, and repeal of them in House and Senate who voted for it, and real him who so gushingly signed it, in the 2012 election.
In support thereof, I urge you again to read the report in WorldNetDaily.com by Eugene Koprowski on the growing response of troops and veterans to open homosexuality in the military: “Vets Protest Plan Opening Military To Homosexuals”


NOTE added by Lew: The Department of Defense now has a Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program, where Troops are being inundated with ads informing them just what sexual assault is and how to report it. While a step to correct an dangerous situation, unless there is physical evidence it largely amounts to who is believed, the senior NCO, Officer or a young enlisted man.

In fiscal year 2009 a total of 3,230 restricted and unrestricted reports of sexual assault were filed, representing an 11% increase over fiscal year 2008.

As reported in the Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, page 359 “During FY09, there was a strong education campaign, Navy/Marine Corps-wide, to educate Sailors, Marines and civilians about sexual assault reporting options (Restricted and Unrestricted), services available to victims of sexual assault, and crime prevention. Training focused on defining criminal behavior so that more personnel within the Department better understand and recognize a sexual assault. As Sailors and Marines receive this training ad become better educated about the SAPR program, they have begun to report their sexual assault victimization in larger numbers. By way of example, male victim reports nearly doubled in FY09 and rose from 9% in FY08 to 17% in FY09.”
Our Troops do not deserve to be further saddled with even more of the above at a time they are expected to fight a two front war.

[Rees Lloyd is a longtime civil rights attorney, a veterans activist, and, among other things, a member of the Victoria Taft Show Blogforce.]

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Global "Climate Change Battlers" Crying

“For advocates of action to prevent climate change, 2010 was mostly a year to forget.”

“It began with gloom, after the collapse of the Copenhagen climate meetings in December 2009. The mood darkened further as it became clear that cap-and-trade legislation to combat greenhouse gas emissions would not pass the U.S. Congress.”

“A sliver of hope came from a modest agreement at climate meetings in Cancún, Mexico, earlier this month, on a more solid multinational commitment to finding ways to cut emissions. Another development, bringing perhaps more relief than hope, was the rejection by California voters of an effort, backed by oil companies, to suspend the state’s landmark law to combat global warming.”

“The year 2011 may not bring too much improvement, from environmentalists’ perspective. Budget deficits and a still-sluggish economy in the United States and elsewhere may complicate investments in clean-energy technologies. And international negotiators have plenty of tough work ahead, the progress at Cancún notwithstanding.”

I/O/W – WAAAAAAAAAAAA, the people get to keep more of the freedoms.

New York Times (this is a link, David)

More infinite wisdom from the New York Times, “We’re freezing because it’s getting hotter” (That’s another link in there, David)

The Abiding Faith Of Warm-ongers
(yes David, this is a link too)

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

A Soldier’s Christmas Poem

For all who have served or are currently serving, especially those who might be far from home, or have missed having holidays with their families.

Have tissues on hand.

As Christmas draws to a close, please remember those far from home and their families.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com