Osi Speaks!

Palin The Pretender: "A Midlife Meltdown".

2009-07-12T11:36:00.000-05:00

Palin the Pretender: 'a midlife meltdown'
Ellen Goodman

BOSTON — It's probably dangerous to admit to a moment of empathy. I'll either get disqualified from ever becoming being a Supreme Court justice or be asked to turn in my press card.

But after watching reruns of Sarah Palin's resignation from the governorship, after hearing every grammatically challenged sentence and inconsistent paragraph dissected by some talk show host, I started to (blush) feel her pain.

There was the frozen smile, the vulnerability, the odd grab bag of unfiltered, unedited, unintelligible un-reasons scattered across the lawn. Palin quit to avoid being a quitter. She cut and ran as an act of self-sacrifice. She left her job to serve her country.

It wasn't like watching a car wreck. It was like watching a midlife meltdown. It was seeing her self-image as a strong, confident, ambitious woman shaken to the core. All that was holding her together was chewing gum, family and a little righteous anger.

What had happened to Sarah the Barracuda? The pit bull with lipstick? The mother of five, moose killer and marathoner who juggled a BlackBerry and a breast pump?

Ten months ago, when John McCain picked her as his running mate, it was like starting a middle-school basketball star in the WNBA. No, the NBA. As governor, she once remarked about an opponent's ability to spout off facts and figures, "Does any of this really matter?" As running mate, a McCain aide said, she doesn't even know what she doesn't know.

I was among those who harbored the "elitist" belief that a vice presidential candidate should know as much about public policy as, say, Katie Couric. Yet, I delighted in the fact that because of Palin, conservatives lashed out against "sexism," the religious right described teen pregnancy as a "challenge," and it became politically incorrect for the most reactionary Republican to criticize working mothers.

I never believed that it would be easy for Palin to go back to Alaska after the bright lights, big cities lure of a national campaign. But I didn't expect this.

SILLY Sarah Failin' (Palin). Laugh All You Want.

2009-07-12T10:46:00.005-05:00

CIA Gone Rogue -- Again?

2009-07-11T23:28:00.001-05:00

George Bush, Revisited.

2009-07-11T22:34:00.000-05:00

More below:

In Case You Missed it: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2009-07-11T21:44:00.000-05:00

133 East Street, SE, Washington, D. C., Home Of The "Family".

2009-07-11T17:15:00.000-05:00

Michael Jackson's Dad, Joseph, Suspects Foul Play In His Death. I Say He Should Suspect Drug Play Instead. Watch Video.

2009-07-11T15:44:00.000-05:00

Click here to read about some of his drug pushing doctors.

POTUS Barack Obama Delivers NEEDED Message To Africa.

2009-07-11T13:30:00.000-05:00

Watch more:

Africa Welcomes Its Son, POTUS Barack Obama. Watch Video.

2009-07-11T11:27:00.000-05:00

General Motors (GM) Emerges From FORCED But Needed Bankruptcy, & I Expect The Auto Manufacturer To Build The World's Best Autos. I Can't Wait. Watch.

2009-07-11T09:35:00.004-05:00

This Carton From Joel Pett Is FUNNY.

2009-07-11T07:33:00.000-05:00

A Lawyer Writes About Judge Sonia Sotomayor, While Her Supporters Launch Warfare Against A Firefighter Opponent.

2009-07-10T23:53:00.001-05:00

Check out "The Judge Sotomayor I've Faced
Her questioning is tough and fair, demanding and acute.
By FLOYD ABRAMS" below:

Having argued cases before Judge Sonia Sotomayor on a number of occasions, I have been struck by the assertion by some lawyers that her questioning has been too harsh, even abrasive. True, Judge Sotomayor once described herself in a speech as a "bear on the bench." And her questions can lead some lawyers to wish they had been quizzed in a far more cuddly manner.

But in my experience her questions are tough and fair, demanding and acute. One could say worse things about a judge.

Consider two of the cases I have argued before her. One arose after a jury had been chosen in federal court to hear accusations that a prominent Wall Street investment banker, Frank Quattrone, had obstructed justice. Days before Mr. Quattrone's trial commenced in April 2004, a state court judge in another widely publicized case ordered a mistrial after two New York newspapers published the name of (and much critical and personal commentary about) a juror who'd behaved in a manner that led many to think she favored the defendant. Concerned that the same might occur in his court, the federal judge in the Quattrone case entered an order barring the press from publishing the name of any juror.

President Barack Obama and Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Well-intentioned as the judge was, his action ran directly into a First Amendment wall. The order was not only a prior restraint on the press, and thus very likely unconstitutional. It also barred publication of juror names already referred to in open court. If anything, this was an even clearer basis for the Second Circuit of Appeals in New York to strike down the lower court's ruling. Many cases had held that what occurs in a public court is public property, and that the press may not be punished for publishing it.

I pressed the latter point in my oral argument on behalf of a number of press organizations. This was, I said, one of the rare legal rules that were truly absolute.

Judge Sotomayor quickly responded with a series of questions about whether I really meant that the rule was absolute. Yes, I said, I meant it.

What if, she asked, there was some emergency that required a brief halt on publication and to do otherwise would cause grave harm? If the information was already revealed in open court, I said, neither the press nor anyone else could be prevented from revealing it.

Suppose, she said, a hired mob assassin stood up in open court and announced that 20 minutes later a particular person would be killed if the information were made public. Did I really mean that even in that circumstance the courts were without power to act?

Good question. Too good. I paused, concerned that I was wearing out my welcome by taking what increasingly seemed (because of Judge Sotomayor's questions) a far too extreme position.

I made a last try. If that occurred, I said, you could lock the doors of the courtroom to keep the press and everyone else from leaving, but you could not enter an order barring them from publishing what they had heard in court.

She looked at me in a bemused way. I looked away and started talking about something else.

We won the case a few weeks later. Judge Sotomayor's opinion concluded that the order barring publication of the juror names was unconstitutional because it was a prior restraint on speech and because the information had been revealed in open court.

Then she added two elegant lines. "We need not address what exceptional circumstances, if any, could justify a departure from the doctrine barring restrictions on the publication of information revealed in open court. It suffices to hold that the record is devoid of facts that could justify creating such an exception in this case."

Another encounter was in the 1999 Brooklyn Museum Case, arising out of then Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's efforts to strip the museum of all city funding and evict it from its home because it refused to remove a painting the mayor found offensive.

The questions Judge Sotomayor asked the city's lawyer were the judicial equivalent of hard left jabs in a boxing match. The U.S. Constitution generally bars sanctions against speakers based on their viewpoint. So she asked the lawyer:

"I'm still having difficulty understanding how this is not viewpoint discrimination. Please explain to me what the difference between this is and viewpoint discrimination by a state actor. There's a legion of Supreme Court cases holding that viewpoint discrimination can't be upheld."

And then:

"Give me an example of what is impermissible viewpoint discrimination."

Judge Sotomayor was no easier on me. She pressed me hard on my contention that the museum needed an injunction to protect it against the mayor. She pointed out that if we won the case the museum would get back all the money Mr. Giuliani had withheld. She required me to concede that the museum would suffer no immediate financial hardship if there was no injunction. She asked a series of increasingly difficult questions testing my contention that the case could be in federal court in the first place.

We never had a ruling in the Brooklyn Museum case, since Mr. Giuliani threw in the towel before the court could rule and abandoned his efforts to pressure the museum to remove the painting. But hardball questioning of both sides was precisely what good judges do.

Long before Judge Sotomayor was appointed a federal appellate judge, the single most honored and esteemed member of the U.S. Court of Appeals was Learned Hand. Routinely described as the single greatest American jurist never appointed to the Supreme Court, Hand could terrorize counsel who appeared before him.

When counsel made an argument Hand thought was inadequate, he was notorious for turning his chair around so his back faced the hapless lawyer who was arguing. Hand's questioning, his biographer wrote, led lawyers "to blanch and shake." That's how a bear in a courtroom behaves.

Mr. Abrams is a partner in the law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP and the author of "Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment" (Viking, 2005).

Then check out her supporters warfare here.

Wanna Hear More About Michael Jackson. Check Out Some Drug Stories Below.

2009-07-10T23:32:00.001-05:00

Check out here.

NO Brotherly Love Here, As Philadelphia Swim Club Is Concerned About "Changing Complexion" Of Black Visitors. Watch Video.

2009-07-10T22:37:00.001-05:00

Update: Now the lying begins. Watch video below:

A Republican Senator Showing Brotherly Love? Watch Video.

2009-07-10T21:37:00.000-05:00

Kentucky Administrative Office Of The Courts (AOC) Hires Felons. WTF.

2009-07-10T20:46:00.000-05:00

AOC's puzzling hire at the jail

The Administrative Office of the Courts deserves credit for hiring felons, a class of people who are particularly at risk of dropping into permanent, debilitating unemployment.

That said, the AOC will perform a much greater service in the future if it avoids the mistakes made with Francis Baker.

Baker is the persistent felony offender (18 convictions over almost two decades on charges ranging from burglary to facilitating the trafficking of controlled substances) who the AOC hired in July 2007 as a pre-trial officer while he was still on parole.

Assigned to the Lexington-Fayette Detention Center, Baker met with new inmates, reviewed their records and made bond recommendations to judges.

He was also stationed at the Fayette County courthouse where he worked in a program that involved drug screening of defendants who will be released with electronic monitoring.

One of those defendants made complaints about Baker, as did a corrections officer at the detention center, Doris Zirbes.

In a lawsuit against the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Zirbes alleges that she was punished for telling law enforcement officials about Baker's background, that he had access to law enforcement databases that were supposed to be off-limits to him, and that he gave some female inmates special treatment.

The AOC has moved Baker to a job in Frankfort where he will have no contact with people in custody, noting his "inability to effectively perform his job duties," as a pre-trial officer.

This situation, reported by Herald-Leader staffer Valarie Honeycut, is packed with unanswered questions but the biggest ones revolve around this: What was the AOC thinking?

Baker is not a guy who got into trouble once or twice and just seemed to need some help getting back on the right track. His criminal history record goes on for pages, stretching back to 1981 when he was convicted of receiving stolen property.

While the AOC may have had some job that would suit Baker and help him get settled in society, it's hard to understand how anyone could think that, while he was still on parole, it made sense to put him in a job that required judgment and discretion and involved access to both vulnerable people and their histories.

Equally puzzling is the question of how much supervision Baker received from the AOC. The Lexington government, responding to Zirbes' lawsuit, contends that while he worked in our local jail, Baker was an employee of the AOC, which was responsible for his supervision. Did someone in Frankfort keep close tabs on Baker? Who knew what he was doing day in and day out in his job?

Finally, while the AOC contends that hiring Baker and other felons stems from it's commitment to rehabilitation — an admirable goal we fully support — it has no data on how many it has hired.

Presumably that also means it doesn't keep track of how many have fared well in their assignments, what support systems help them make the transition or other data that could inform and guide the AOC as it pursues that goal.

Politico.com Names Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning A Political "Dead Man Walking".

2009-07-10T19:55:00.001-05:00

In Kentucky, Bill Londrigan, Head Of AFL-CIO, Wants Steve Beshear To NIX Idea Of Having Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson As 2011 Running Mate.

2009-07-10T18:56:00.000-05:00

Read more here, or excerpts below.

The head of Kentucky's largest labor federation has asked Gov. Steve Beshear not to consider Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson as his running mate if he seeks re-election in 2011.

"I am writing to express our strong opposition to Mayor Abramson for Lt. Governor," Bill Londrigan, president of the Kentucky State AFL-CIO, said in a letter dated Thursday. "Mayor Abramson has established a long record of antipathy towards organized labor, both during his tenure as Mayor of Louisville as well as the merged Metro Government."

Beshear, a Democrat, is believed to be considering Abramson to replace Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo on the ticket. Mongiardo is running for the U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Jim Bunning in next year's election. ...

Abramson has had a difficult relationship with labor unions during his three terms as mayor of the old City of Louisville and his two terms leading the merged Louisville Metro Government.

Londrigan said in an interview that Abramson has a long record of opposing unions and that some unionized metro government workers have gone years without contracts.

And he noted that Abramson vetoed union-friendly legislation tied to downtown arena construction and even crossed a picket line several years ago when the Aegon Tower was being built.

The labor federation, which represents about 100,000 members and affiliate members around the state, is not threatening to withdraw support from Beshear if he chooses Abramson but simply wants the governor to understand the intensity of their opposition to the mayor, Londrigan said.

"We would be very concerned having ‚Ä¶ (Abramson) one heart-beat away from the governor's office," he said.

As Louisville's budget woes have deepened, Abramson has found himself increasingly at odds with the unions that represent city workers.

Earlier this year, the Teamsters union sued the city over proposed worker furloughs that weren't negotiated as part of a contract. And the Fraternal Order of Police, the labor union that represents city police officers, sued over the mayor's decision to charge officers who take their patrol cars home with them.

More recently, Abramson vetoed an ordinance that would have required prevailing wage to be paid on all projects involving $500,000 in city funds.

Beshear has said he plans to announce this summer whether he's running for re-election and, if so, who his running mate will be.

Reporter Joseph Gerth can be reached at (502) 582-4702.

Levi Johnson Of Bristol Palin's Fame: SILLY Sarah Failin' (Palin) Is All About Taking The Money And Running; Not Qualified For Job. OUCH. Watch Video.

2009-07-10T17:55:00.000-05:00

SILLY Sarah Failin Is Lyin'. Watch Video.

2009-07-10T14:56:00.001-05:00

Peggy Noonan: "Palin Was Bad For The Republicans—And The Republic."

2009-07-10T12:33:00.000-05:00

A Farewell to Harms
Palin was bad for the Republicans—and the republic.
By PEGGY NOONAN

Sarah Palin's resignation gives Republicans a new opportunity to see her plain—to review the bidding, see her strengths, acknowledge her limits, and let go of her drama. It is an opportunity they should take. They mean to rebuild a great party. They need to do it on solid ground.

Her history does not need to be rehearsed at any length. Ten months ago she was embraced with friendliness by her party. The left and the media immediately overplayed their hand, with attacks on her children. The party rallied round, as a party should. She went on the trail a sensation but demonstrated in the ensuing months that she was not ready to go national and in fact never would be. She was hungry, loved politics, had charm and energy, loved walking onto the stage, waving and doing the stump speech. All good. But she was not thoughtful. She was a gifted retail politician who displayed the disadvantages of being born into a point of view (in her case a form of conservatism; elsewhere and in other circumstances, it could have been a form of liberalism) and swallowing it whole: She never learned how the other sides think, or why.

In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity. She experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because she could see no truth in any of it. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence. "I'm not wired that way," "I'm not a quitter," "I'm standing up for our values." I'm, I'm, I'm.

In another age it might not have been terrible, but here and now it was actually rather horrifying.

McCain-Palin lost. Mrs. Palin has now stepped down, but she continues to poll high among some members of the Republican base, some of whom have taken to telling themselves Palin myths.

To wit, "I love her because she's so working-class." This is a favorite of some party intellectuals. She is not working class, never was, and even she, avid claimer of advantage that she is, never claimed to be and just lets others say it. Her father was a teacher and school track coach, her mother the school secretary. They were middle-class figures of respect, stability and local status. I think intellectuals call her working-class because they see the makeup, the hair, the heels and the sleds and think they're working class "tropes." Because, you know, that's what they teach in "Ways of the Working Class" at Yale and Dartmouth.

What she is, is a seemingly very nice middle-class girl with ambition, appetite and no sense of personal limits.

"She's not Ivy League, that's why her rise has been thwarted! She represented the democratic ideal that you don't have to go to Harvard or Brown to prosper, and her fall represents a failure of egalitarianism." This comes from intellectuals too. They need to be told something. Ronald Reagan went to Eureka College. Richard Nixon went to Whittier College, Joe Biden to the University of Delaware. Sarah Palin graduated in the end from the University of Idaho, a school that happily notes on its Web site that it's included in U.S. News and World Report's top national schools survey. They need to be told, too, that the first Republican president was named "Abe," and he went to Princeton and got a Fulbright. Oh wait, he was an impoverished backwoods autodidact!

America doesn't need Sarah Palin to prove it was, and is, a nation of unprecedented fluidity. Her rise and seeming fall do nothing to prove or refute this.

"The elites hate her." The elites made her. It was the elites of the party, the McCain campaign and the conservative media that picked her and pushed her. The base barely knew who she was. It was the elites, from party operatives to public intellectuals, who advanced her and attacked those who said she lacked heft. She is a complete elite confection. She might as well have been a bonbon.

"She makes the Republican Party look inclusive." She makes the party look stupid, a party of the easily manipulated.

"She shows our ingenuous interest in all classes." She shows your cynicism.

"Now she can prepare herself for higher office by studying up, reading in, boning up on the issues." Mrs. Palin's supporters have been ordering her to spend the next two years reflecting and pondering. But she is a ponder-free zone. She can memorize the names of the presidents of Pakistan, but she is not going to be able to know how to think about Pakistan. Why do her supporters not see this? Maybe they think "not thoughtful" is a working-class trope!

"The media did her in." Her lack of any appropriate modesty did her in. Actually, it's arguable that membership in the self-esteem generation harmed her. For 30 years the self-esteem movement told the young they're perfect in every way. It's yielding something new in history: an entire generation with no proper sense of inadequacy.

"Turning to others means the media won!" No, it means they lose. What the mainstream media wants is not to kill her but to keep her story going forever. She hurts, as they say, the Republican brand, with her mess and her rhetorical jabberwocky and her careless causing of division. Really, she is the most careless sower of discord since George W. Bush, who fractured the party and the movement that made him. Why wouldn't the media want to keep that going?

Here's why all this matters. The world is a dangerous place. It has never been more so, or more complicated, more straining of the reasoning powers of those with actual genius and true judgment. This is a time for conservative leaders who know how to think.

Here are a few examples of what we may face in the next 10 years: a profound and prolonged American crash, with the admission of bankruptcy and the spread of deep social unrest; one or more American cities getting hit with weapons of mass destruction from an unknown source; faint glimmers of actual secessionist movements as Americans for various reasons and in various areas decide the burdens and assumptions of the federal government are no longer attractive or legitimate.

The era we face, that is soon upon us, will require a great deal from our leaders. They had better be sturdy. They will have to be gifted. There will be many who cannot, and should not, make the cut. Now is the time to look for those who can. And so the Republican party should get serious, as serious as the age, because that is what a grown-up, responsible party—a party that deserves to lead—would do.

It's not a time to be frivolous, or to feel the temptation of resentment, or the temptation of thinking next year will be more or less like last year, and the assumptions of our childhoods will more or less reign in our future. It won't be that way.

We are going to need the best.

Editor's comment: This piece IS why I love Peggy Noonan; You should, too.

Those Who Find Reason To HATE Potus Barack Obama Claim He Was Lusting After A Young Woman At G8 Summit. WRONG They Are! Watch Video.

2009-07-10T11:31:00.000-05:00

Evian Water Rollerskating Babies. Watch And Smile.

2009-07-10T11:00:00.001-05:00

Below is one from 1998:

"Shattering The Smoke And Mirrors Of Cap And Trade".

2009-07-10T10:26:00.002-05:00

Shattering the Smoke and Mirrors of Cap and Trade
Submitted by John Walsh

In the last month, there has been a very heated debate of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 otherwise known as cap and trade. During these debates, we have heard many reasons why we should not do more to protect our environment. One of the most outspoken opponents against this momentous environmental program was Congressman Geoff Davis who labeled it a “National Energy Tax” and based his claims against this bill partly because, “the plan could increase the cost to average Kentucky family as much as $1798.23 annually.” This statement by Davis is dubious at best and outright falsehood at worst. The question is according to what source would the cost be this much? The answer, not surprisingly, is the fossil fuel industry and its benefactors.

Davis further states, “In addition, this proposal could result in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.” This time he did not even bother to be specific, which is quite deliberate, the vagueness of these numbers is itself designed to create anxiety and fear in the population. It is a scare tactic plain and simple and it is dishonest. When a sitting Congressmen tries to create fear for his own political gain, that brings into question his integrity and fitness to hold office.

Davis adds to this egregious claim by stating that, “Kentucky families deserve a better solution that will protect our energy future, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, protect our environment through improved technology and incentives for cleaner energy production. With the right plan, we can achieve these goals and stimulate job creation.” If Davis has “the right plan” then why is he not willing to tell us what it is instead of hiding behind vague promises he hopes nobody questions, a tactic all too familiar with the Republicans in Washington D.C.

The truth about clean energy is it will create more jobs versus fossil fuels. The comparison between clean energy and fossil fuels is stark considering for every $1 million spent on clean energy would create 16.7 jobs versus 5.3 jobs for every $1 million spent on fossil fuels. An investment of $2 billion in clean energy in Kentucky would create 25,705 new jobs while lowering our unemployment rate to 5.2 percent (Center for American Progress).

The ultimate question is why exactly did Davis vote against cap and trade if the facts are clear that moving towards green energy is good for Kentuckians. It appears that special interest money influenced this decision and the money trail speaks for itself, which shows the lifetime contributions from various interests: Energy Sector $366,296, Oil and Gas $162,485, Electric Utilities $34,865, Coal Mining $119,400, Construction $363,167, Automakers $2,250 (Open Secrets)

America can once again show that we are global leaders by producing innovative legislation where other nations such as China, India, and other rapidly developing nations will be influenced to follow. If we move towards green technology, other nations will be more likely to follow but if we continue to do nothing our manufacturing sector will once be left behind again.

Our manufacturing sector has been decimated over the last thirty plus years and is one of the key parts of our economy in Kentucky. Right now China is already ahead of the curve in clean technology manufacturing and it is time to start a green revolution for our manufacturing sector. We can do this by providing incentives to attract new companies that can utilize factories that have been closed to spark our manufacturing sector once again in Kentucky.

America can once again show that we are global leaders by producing innovative legislation where other nations such as China, India, and other rapidly developing nations will be influenced to follow. If we move towards green technology, other nations will be more likely to follow but if we continue to do nothing our manufacturing sector will once be left behind again. This move towards clean energy technology can be an essential key to revitalizing our economy and ultimately will benefit generations to come.

Lexington Herald Leader Editorial: "More Scrutiny Appreciated".

2009-07-10T09:31:00.000-05:00

More scrutiny appreciated

Officials at the state Department of Insurance rightly have begun a review of operations at the Kentucky Association of Counties and the Kentucky League of Cities.

In addition to the other services these two organizations provide for the state's counties and cities, both offer various forms of insurance to their respective members.

And as recent Herald-Leader stories have detailed, KACo and the League have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the last few years on travel, entertainment and gifts.

Put these circumstances together, and there is reason for state insurance officials to step in and make sure the portion of the two organizations' wining and dining that benefited officials of their member local governments did not take the form of improper inducements designed to influence those local governments' decisions concerning insurance.

As the recent articles have detailed, both KACo and the League have been rather cavalier about justifying all their entertainment and travel expenses.

That sloppiness may make it difficult to determine whether either organization crossed the line in this regard.

But even if the state review turns up no evidence of improper inducements, it is still a worthwhile exercise if it impresses on KACo and League officials the importance of erecting some kind of fire wall between their insurance operations and those portions of their organizations where entertainment expenses of a limited nature might seem more appropriate.

Their free and easy spending habits suggest that the need for such bright lines of division may not have been evident to them in the past.

But it certainly should be in the future.