HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Divernan » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Divernan

Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 11,354

Journal Archives

Dem.Rep. Readshaw's daughter tries to run over Planned Parenthood demonstrators.

Due to redistricting, Readshaw is running in the primary against another sitting Democratic state representative. After reading this account I hope anyone in this House District will support his primary opponent, Erin Molchany.

The article details how Readshaw often votes with the Republican caucus. I saw this when I worked for the Dem. Caucus in the state house for 10 years - 1993 to 2003. Readshaw was one of a quartet of Democratic state reps - forerunners of the Blue Dogs - who repeatedly sold their block of 4 votes to the Republican caucus leadership to either block Dem. initiatives, or support GOP ones. The other 3 were Joe Markosek of Monroeville, Ralph Kaiser, and Dave Mayernik. The latter two were eventually pushed out of office in 2002, by Dem. leadership, when districts were re-drawn. Markosek through his seniority is now in leadership so he's behaving himself.

http://voices.yahoo.com/advocates-protest-readshaws-record-womens-health-12647058.html?cat=17

Part One: Assaulting Women's Health Care Rights

Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates PAC organized the event. More than two dozen activists and constituents demonstrated at Readshaw's (D-Allegheny County) Pittsburgh office for 31 minutes, representing his 31 repressive votes against women's reproductive health. A handful of constituents spoke against his extreme record of compelling government to interfere with women's personal health care decisions and its harm to their lives. The crowd included members of Organizing for America, the National Organization for Women, the Mon Valley Unemployed Committee, Service Employees International Union, and supporters of Erin Molchany, his primary election opponent.

Readshaw has represented Pennsylvania's 36th legislative district since 1995 and calls himself a Democrat. But he's joined with PA Republican Governor Tom Corbett and the GOP in 38 other states to pass unconstitutional restrictions on abortion, prohibit private insurance coverage for abortions, mandate oppressive building code and staffing standards for abortion clinics, and more. In 2011, he introduced a bill which would have required any woman seeking an abortion to undergo a medically useless ultrasound procedure, and would have forced the woman to view that ultrasound image against her will. It's all part of the Republican Party's campaign against women's health.

We demonstrated to bring attention to Readshaw's abysmal record of callous disregard for women's health and women's rights.


Part Two: Assaulting Women's Health Care Advocates

I've been to hundreds of demonstrations in my lifetime. This began as a pretty standard event. We circled the sidewalk in front of Readshaw's office until a woman in a large SUV backed up along the curb, nearly hitting some protestors and reporters. Jeanne Clark, a longtime Pittsburgh activist, walked to the driver's window and said "Stop. There are people behind you." The driver said "You don't care about killing babies", and she did it again. Deliberately. She sat in the car screeching "Abortion is murder." Apparently, she doesn't have a problem with vehicular homicide or critical injury. Pro-life my ass.

We learned that the woman is Megan Readshaw Perfetti, Harry Readshaw's DAUGHTER.
Perfetti is a health teacher and coordinates the health education curriculum for the Pittsburgh Public Schools. I guess she doesn't think women need health care.

Before the event even began, a man from the business next door strongly objected to our presence. He shouted that he was calling the police. No one cared, since we were protesting legally. A Pittsburgh Police car arrived a few minutes later, after Perfetti's stunt, and sat in a parking space across the street. Perfetti walked over to talk to the officer. I don't know what they discussed, since she was clearly the only person committing a crime at the time, but the officer never left his car. He drove away as the event ended.

During the entire demonstration, the nasty neighbor tried valiantly to trip several of us, including me, with his broom while "sweeping the sidewalk" where we were walking. When I took his picture during one confrontation, he grabbed my camera, which was on a strap around my neck. He let go and slunk away when I shouted at him.

Vet kept supposedly euthanized dog alive - used it as blood donor

Six months ago, a family in Texas was advised by a vet that their four year old dog was suffering from a degenerative spinal defect and needed to be put to sleep. Just last week, the family were contacted by a vet technician who told them she'd quit working at the clinic because animals were being abused, and that the family pet wasn't dead, but was being kept alive to be used as a blood donor for other dogs.

Marian and her husband immediately sprang into action and went to the vet to rescue Sid. While her husband distracted the receptionist and friends stood as lookouts, Marian hunted for their pup. He was found in a cage in a back room and happily jumped into her minivan.

The Harrises whisked Sid away to another animal hospital, where he was said to be fine. But the vet there noticed something: Sid showed signs of blood transfusions.

Jim Eggleston, the Harrises attorney, tells the Telegram that Sid was used as a blood donor and to test experimental treatments. He has heard that it may have happened to other dogs and some cats, too.


The vet has been arrested and other animals rescued from his facility.

Read more: http://blog.triblive.com/thisjustin/2014/04/30/family-says-dead-dog-alive-used-as-blood-donor/#ixzz30RGbteJi

Authorities raided a popular veterinary clinic Tuesday morning after a family’s shocking discovery that their pet that they thought was euthanized was kept alive.

The family alleges that a veterinarian at the Camp Bowie Animal Clinic kept their dog, Sid, alive for six months. Sid’s owner, Marian Harris said she gave Dr. Lou Tierce permission to put the four-year-old Leonberger down last October due to health problems. But eight days ago, Harris received a disturbing phone call from a former employee of the animal clinic. The employee told her that Sid was still alive, imprisoned in a cage.

“The betrayal is so incredibly intense that nothing you have prepares you for the emotions. There’s anger, there’s joy that you have your dog back, there’s betrayal of this intense trust. And so it’s just really hard to camp on one particular emotion,” said Harris.

Harris and her husband said they marched into the clinic and found Sid living inside a cage in a back room. “He was able to walk and jump in the back of my minivan so it was an excitement to be reunited,” said Harris.

Also, http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/04/29/dog-kept-alive-months-after-supposed-euthanization/

Fortunately, you don't sit on the Supreme Court!

Seriously, and I say this as someone who is now retired but, over the course of my professional career was first a trial lawyer, then a law professor and finally a government attorney - this is an outrageously stupid and futile position for Obama and his Justice Department to take, and an egregious waste of taxpayer money - witness the fact that the justices across the political spectrum from Roberts to Sotomeyer have excoriated the Justice Dept. in oral argument.

And please, no more puffery about Obama being a constitutional law scholar.

He was NEVER a SCHOLAR on ANY legal topic, let alone Constitutional Law - i.e., he never published a scholarly paper, let alone book; never participated as a panel member at scholarly conferences; was known for NOT engaging in scholarly discussions/debate with fellow faculty members; wasn't even on tenure track. He was a "senior lecturer" - that's the lowest level of teacher at a law school, below Full, Assistant, Associate, Adjunct and or Visiting Professors -
- at University of Chicago. They are not on a tenure track. He never taught the basic, traditional course in Constitutional Law, required of all first year law students, and covered in detail in state bar examinations. He taught three courses:

At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer. His most traditional course was in the narrow constitutional area of (1) DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION of constitutional law. His (2) VOTING RIGHTS class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on (3) RACISM AND LAW.


Nor could his views be gleaned from scholarship; Mr. Obama has never published any.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Very interesting article on his years as a part-time instructor at the University of Chicago Law School. He was a popular teacher, but refused to intellectually engage with his fellow faculty. One sentence particularly sticks with me as showing that even at the beginning of his political career, he identified his future success and power as dependent upon wealthy whites.

Before he helped redraw his own State Senate district, making it whiter and wealthier, he taught districting as a racially fraught study in how power is secured.

He was a part-time, adjunct instructor - NEVER a professor at any level (assistant, associate or full), but merely given the courtesy title of "professor" by students addressing him.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/ppw.html

His publications page lists his two autobiographical books, but no academic work of any sort, much less any academic writings on constitutional law. Now, given his relatively strong academic credentials and the extent of affirmative action in academic hiring, if Obama had written articles about, well, pretty much anything, he would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position. But he didn't.

She'll be a hawk against Americans as well.

She's been building up an enemies list of everyone who crossed her, according to her close friend and confidant, the late Diane Blair, as documented in the recently released "Hillary Papers" - records kept by Blair. The full contents of the archive, which before 2010 was closed to the public, have not previously been reported on and shed new light on Clinton’s three decades in public life. The records paint a complex portrait of Hillary Clinton, revealing her to be a loyal friend, devoted mother, and a cutthroat strategist who relished revenge against her adversaries and complained in private that nobody in the White House was “tough and mean enough.”

Blair also noted a 1994 conversation in which the first lady asked her for advice on "how best to preserve her general memories of the administration and of health care in particular." When asked why she wanted to keep the documents, Clinton replied, "Revenge."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/politics/diane-blair-hillary-clinton-documents/

On top of that, the Clintons are stalling on releasing tens of thousands of additional documents/records from the Clinton presidency.
Yet more records are still being held back, according to Politico: "The Clinton Library has not published a comprehensive list of the materials held back from prior document releases. However, information posted online indicates that a number of the withheld records come from Hillary Clinton’s office.


What is Hillary hiding? I doubt that records of decisions on redecorating the Oval Office or selecting menus for state dinners would trigger a claim of executive privilege. Who knows what fresh hell will be brought to light concerning either or both of the Clintons, should she be the nominee. I have no doubt the GOP's own opposition research is saving a few bombshells to release in the event she is the nominee.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/clinton-white-house-library-records-103959.html#ixzz3056cfEVP

And that level of rage and vengeance was BEFORE she suffered international humiliation with the whole Ken Starr/Lewinsky/impeachment nightmare.

Electing Hillary would effectively give the Clintons a THIRD presidential term.

and would constitute an end run around the 22nd amendment. The Clintons said it in Bill's campaign - you get two for the price of one, i.e, Hillary was the co-president. And in fact, she was heavily involved in all policy matters and decisions.

Hillary's reign would definitely be Bill Clinton redux, only nastier, given her thirst for revenge and her enemies' list, as documented in the recently released "Hillary Papers" - records kept by her close friend and confidant, Diane Blair. The full contents of the archive, which before 2010 was closed to the public, have not previously been reported on and shed new light on Clinton’s three decades in public life. The records paint a complex portrait of Hillary Clinton, revealing her to be a loyal friend, devoted mother, and a cutthroat strategist who relished revenge against her adversaries and complained in private that nobody in the White House was “tough and mean enough.”

Blair also noted a 1994 conversation in which the first lady asked her for advice on "how best to preserve her general memories of the administration and of health care in particular." When asked why she wanted to keep the documents, Clinton replied, "Revenge."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/politics/diane-blair-hillary-clinton-documents/

Yet more records are still being held back, according to Politico: "The Clinton Library has not published a comprehensive list of the materials held back from prior document releases. However, information posted online indicates that a number of the withheld records come from Hillary Clinton’s office. What is Hillary hiding? I doubt decisions on redecorating the Oval Office or selecting menus for state dinners would trigger a claim of executive privilege.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/clinton-white-house-library-records-103959.html#ixzz3056cfEVP


Twenty-second Amendment, amendment (1951) to the Constitution of the United States effectively limiting to two the number of terms a president of the United States may serve. It was one of 273 recommendations to the U.S. Congress by the Hoover Commission, created by Pres. Harry S. Truman, to reorganize and reform the federal government. It was formally proposed by the U.S. Congress on March 24, 1947, and was ratified on Feb. 27, 1951.

22nd Amendment
Amendment XXII
Section 1.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

Emanuel cuts pension benefits, raises prop. taxes, subsidizes corp. donors TO THE MAX.

Nation of Change/David Sirota has a scathing article about how Rahm Emanuel has embraced old-style Chicago corruption by diverting property taxes each year into a half billion dollars a year slush fund which he as mayor controls absolutely.

Immediately after taking office, he doled out a $7 million subsidy to benefit a grocery chain, the CEO of which gave Emanuel's campaign $25,000. That's a 280% return on investment/bribe/"campaign donation".

Another $29 million subsidy went to support a new skyscraper development plan, i.e., "a very expensive corporate plaza" for the building. I know you join in me in being shocked, I say, shocked to learn that the building will house the new Chicago headquarters of a law firm whose employees have "given" Emanuel's campaign $125,000. That's a 232% return on investment/bribe/"campaign donation".

The final example is Emanuel's $55 million subsidy for a new hotel near Chicago's convention center. The investment company which owns a major stake in the construction firm gave Emanuel's campaign $31,500.
That, fellow DUers is an unbelievable 1,745% -ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FORTY FIVE PERCENT- RETURN ON INVESTMENT/BRIBE/"CAMPAIGN DONATION"


http://www.nationofchange.org/chicago-way-1397223853

According to a report by the taxpayer watchdog group Good Jobs First, the supposedly budget-strapped Windy City — which for years has not made its full pension payments — has mountains of cash sitting in a slush fund controlled by its poverty-pleading mayor. Indeed, as the report documents, the slush fund now receives more diverted property taxes each year than it would cost to adequately finance Chicago's pension funds.

Yet, Emanuel is refusing to use the cash from that slush fund to shore up the pensions. Instead, his new pension "reform" proposal cuts pension benefits, requires higher contributions from public employees, raises property taxes — but also quietly increases his slush fund.

Why, you ask, would Emanuel refuse to relinquish some of the half-billion dollars a year that is going into his slush fund? Perhaps because he has been using it to enrich Chicago's corporate class, including some of his biggest campaign donors.

Not to sound like a broken record, but again: This same thing occurs in states and cities across the country. The wealthy corporate interests who bankroll politicians have for years convinced those politicians to not make required pension payments and to instead spend the cash on taxpayer subsidies — the kind that happen to go to those politicians' donors. Now that the bill for such irresponsibility is coming due, those bankrolled politicians are trying to protect the subsidies their donors so cherish by trying to balance budgets primarily through punitive measures against taxpayers and public employees.

Documents show Margolies turned to own charity in time of need.

This expose of Congressional candidate Marjorie Margolies (in a crowded primary field of Dems for a congressional seat) has a tremendous amount of disturbing detail - my conclusion after reading the entire article(which I urge all to do) is that she and her ex-husband, ex-con, ex-Congressman, Ed Mezvinsky were two birds of a feather. No surprise that their son makes his millions from hedge funds. Both parents were very slick at scamming the system. She wouldn't stand a prayer of getting elected if she weren't now a Clinton in-law. There are several other candidates much more deserving of both respect and votes. But in such a crowded primary, sometimes the good guys divide the votes, and the least deserving ends up winning.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/31/marjorie-margolies-charity-_n_5043352.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
According to documents obtained by The Huffington Post, as Ed Mezvinsky's fraud was exposed, Margolies doubled her own salary as head of a small, largely taxpayer-funded charity into the six figures, attempted to have the charity renovate and lease a mansion in which she would live, billed the charity for her automobile lease and other expenses, and required charity staff to assist with her other responsibilities as a faculty member at a local university.

The Huffington Post earlier reported that over the past several years, Margolies was paid an unusually large salary given the size of her charity, Women's Campaign International, whose revenue in recent years was in the very low millions. In defending that salary in December, WCI noted that the charity's board of directors determines compensation -- not Margolies, who still runs the charity.

That explanation, however, elided one critical detail: For the first three years of WCI's existence, and at a crucial board meeting at which the decision about her salary was made, Margolies was herself the chairman of the board.

On Dec. 9, 2001, Margolies, as chairman, convened a meeting of WCI's board to discuss salary. Previous minutes date her chairmanship to Dec. 7, 1998, the charity's first meeting -- one month after she lost a bid to become Pennsylvania's lieutenant governor. For WCI's first three years, its only board members were Margolies, Fredrica Friedman and her husband, Stephen Friedman. Nonprofit watchdogs consistently warn charities that a husband and wife should not both serve on a board, that they certainly should not make up two-thirds of it, and that the head of the charity should not also be the board's chairman.

How TPP Would Harm You at the Drug Store and on the Internet

I don't care how much Obama and either Clinton have benefited or expect to benefit from past or future campaign contributions and/or board appointments from Big Pharma or other giant, monopolistic corporations. We know, thanks to Wikileaks that this secretly negotiated trade agreement and the fast track approval process Obama is pushing for are the antithesis of our government's balance of powers and what we progressive Democrats are all about, and it can prove lethal for the citizens of the USA or any other country affected by the TPP. When it comes to drug patents and prices, we're talking life and death.
http://www.nationofchange.org/how-tpp-would-harm-you-drug-store-and-internet-1393429679

One example of the way the intellectual property provisions favor giant, multinational corporations over smaller, innovative corporations and regular people around the world is in pharmaceutical prices. A company with a drug patent is granted a monopoly to sell the drug at any price they choose with no competition. Currently a drug might be patented for a limited number of years in different countries. When the patent runs out other companies are able to manufacture the drug and the competition means the drug will sell at a lower cost.

Leaked documents appear to show that TPP will extend patent terms for drugs. Countries signing the agreement will scrap their own IP rules and instead follow those in TPP. So giant drug companies will have the same patent in all countries, for a longer period, and the patent will prevent competition that lowers drug prices.

Currently smaller, innovative companies can produce “generic” drugs after patents run out. Because of competition these drugs can be very inexpensive. Walmart, for example, sells a month’s supply of many generic drugs for $4, while drugs still under patent protection can cost hundreds or even thousands. This is of particular concern to poor countries that will be under TPP rules
.
This would provide large pharmaceutical firms with new rights and powers to increase medicine prices and limit consumers’ access to cheaper generic drugs. This would include extensions of monopoly drug patents that would allow drug companies to raise prices for more medicines and even allow monopoly rights over surgical procedures. For people in the developing countries involved in TPP, these rules could be deadly – denying consumers access to HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and cancer drugs
.


As to the Internet, the IP section of TPP gives corporations power in deciding what regular people can see, do or say on the Internet. It would override our current rules and regulations, even imposing laws like SOPA and PIPA, which Congress has specifically rejected. More detailed information is provided at the above link.

If Obama and the global corporations gain fast track approval, it will be one-bribe(oh, excuse me/campaign "contribution")-fits-all on this straight up or down vote, and it appears Obama/Corporate interests wouldn't be pushing so hard for this unless they were confident they can buy enough Congressional votes to win this vote, no matter how horrific the provisions of the TPP.

Fast Track
An Undemocratic Path to Unfair “Trade”


Fast Track was an extreme and rarely-used procedure that empowered executive branch negotiators advised by large corporations to skirt Congress and the public and use “trade” agreements to rewrite policies that affect our daily lives – from the stability of our jobs to the safety of our food. Past “trade” deals rammed through Congress under Fast Track have empowered foreign corporations to attack domestic health and environmental policies, enabled pharmaceutical firms to raise medicine prices, and equipped banks with a tool to roll back financial regulation.

Because Fast Track’s dramatic shift in the balance of powers between branches of the U.S. government occurred via an arcane procedural mechanism, it obtained little scrutiny – until recently. Its use by Democratic and Republican presidents alike to seize Congress’ constitutional prerogatives, “diplomatically legislate” non-trade policy, and preempt state policy, has made it increasingly controversial.

A president cannot obtain Fast Track empowerment without a vote of Congress. President Clinton, renowned for trade expansion, only had Fast Track authority for two of his eight years in office due to congressional opposition. The last time Congress authorized Fast Track was in 2002, with a 3:30 am vote before a congressional recess in which the antiquated mechanism was approved by just three votes. Since 2007, Congress has refused to authorize this extreme procedure, even after its proponents tried to escape Fast Track’s bad reputation by renaming it “Trade Promotion Authority.”

As a candidate, President Obama said he would replace this anti-democratic process. But now he is asking Congress to grant him Fast Track’s extraordinary authority – in part to try to overcome growing public and congressional opposition to his controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) deals. To prevent an expansion of this unfair “trade” model, Congress must not allow the executive branch to once again gain Fast Track’s undemocratic powers.

http://www.citizen.org/fast-track

Chicago actor, writer & director Harold Ramis dies at 69

Source: WGN-TV, Chicago

Harold Ramis was one of Hollywood’s most successful comedy filmmakers when he moved his family from Los Angeles back to the Chicago area in 1996. His career was still thriving, with “Groundhog Day” acquiring almost instant classic status upon its 1993 release and 1984′s “Ghostbusters” ranking among the highest-grossing comedies of all time, but the writer-director wanted to return to the city where he’d launched his career as a Second City performer.

haroldramis2“There’s a pride in what I do that other people share because I’m local, which in L.A. is meaningless; no one’s local,” Ramis said upon the launch of the first movie he directed after his move, the 1999 mobster-in-therapy comedy “Analyze This,” another hit. “It’s a good thing. I feel like I represent the city in a certain way.”

Ramis, a longtime North Shore resident, was surrounded by family when he died at 12:53 a.m. from complications of autoimmune inflammatory vasculitis, a rare disease that involves swelling of the blood vessels, his wife Erica Mann Ramis said. He was 69.

Ramis’ serious health struggles began in May 2010 with an infection that led to complications related to the autoimmune disease, his wife said. Ramis had to relearn to walk but suffered a relapse of the vaculitis in late 2011, said Laurel Ward, vice president of development at Ramis’ Ocean Pictures production company.




Read more: http://wgntv.com/2014/02/24/chicago-actor-harold-ramis-dies-at-69/#1VEUbP4tRzvgAGaA.01

Wee Donald, defeated in Scotland, faces Irish wind farm battle.

US TYCOON Donald Trump could find himself again plagued by a wind farm near one of his signature golf courses – but this time in Ireland rather than ­Aberdeenshire.

Just days after announcing his £12.4 million investment in a County Clare centre instead of a second course in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, it emerged that a plan for nine wind turbines two miles south of Mr Trump’s newly acquired resort in the town of Doonbeg will be considered by the Irish local authority in the coming weeks.

Mr Trump lost in the Court of Session last week against the Scottish Government over an offshore 11-turbine wind farm near his luxury golf course on the Menie estate. He withdrew plans for the second course after the defeat.

The billionaire has repeatedly spoken out against the £230m European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (EOWDC) in Aberdeen Bay. Last week, he declared that wind farms were “a disaster for Scotland”.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/donald-trump-faces-irish-wind-farm-battle-1-3308678

The funniest part of this article is the comment section. Various Scots tear Trump to shreds. Here's a wee sample.
Ireland will rue the day if they let this arrogant balloon dictate to them.

His history in Aberdeen is sickening, with boast after boast, distortion of the truth time after time. His shameful attacks upon our planning system when it doesn't suit him.

But the very worst of it all was his disgraceful treatment of the residents who lived on or around The Menie Estate. He behaved like an 18th century "Clearances Lord" who used intimidation to try to evict them. Beware Ireland, Trump is a Bully--full stop !!!

Build your Windfarms and turn his next " world class golf course " at Doonbeg into BrigaDoonbeg, or BigBalloonBeg. If It all fails, Trump will blame you anyway !

From Roy Linton,
an Aberdonian who supported the Menie Golf Course at first, but then was sickened by Trump's stupid arrogance !
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »