Thursday, October 31, 2013

Medicaid Expansion Op-ed Article -

Fremont County Democratic Party

Posted on October 30, 2013

This op-ed article by FCDP Chair Bruce Palmer will be appearing in the October 30, 2013 Lander Journal:

On June 28 of 2012, the United States Supreme Court, a court stuffed with very, very conservative jurists sent Wyoming and 25 other states packing. The Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act was, in fact, the law of the land. It was a decision that delighted Democrats in Wyoming and across the nation who saw an opportunity to provide health insurance for all of our citizens while it caused outrage on the right where any victory seized by the President is demonized.

After the blush wore off, though, we discovered that the decision left open a door for Wyoming’s Republican obstructionists to continue their grandstanding while wasting money and denying a needed hand-up to those less fortunate. Sadly, the Court left it to the state’s discretion to fully participate in the Medicaid expansion providing the opportunity for Governor Matt Mead and our legislators to continue dithering and blustering against the Federal government.

It would be easy for Republicans to make the right decision for Wyoming concerning the ACA. The Wyoming Department of Health thoroughly investigated the costs and benefits of the expansion and said that it would save the state 47.4 million dollars over six years. Organizations across the state support the expansion including AARP, the Wyoming Medical Society, the Wyoming Association of Churches and the Wyoming Hospital Association. These are not fly by night organizations and you can bet they have done the math. Yet in this past legislative session, in a bad economy, our Republican legislators opted to waste taxpayer’s money in order to make a statement by choosing to not endorse the Medicaid expansion. And of course it isn’t just our tax dollars that they decided to flush down the toilet.

When people don’t have health insurance they still require health care, but they tend not to take preventative measures. When they become ill or injured, they go to hospital emergency rooms, where ultimately many of their charges must be written off. The Wyoming Hospital Association indicates that these uncompensated expenses add up to 200 million dollars a year. Who do you think pays this bad debt? You, me and every other person who buys health care or health insurance.

More importantly, good policy isn’t just about governmental spending policy. Our Republican legislature has decided to leave 17,600 of our Wyoming neighbors without health insurance. The optional expansion would cover people with incomes up to 138% of the poverty level. For a family of four this amounts to an income of $31,809. These are our state’s working poor—folks that our Republican majority try to shaft at every opportunity, whether it is changing the rules to take their earned vacation or pooling their tips to limit their income.

It doesn’t have to be this way, but it seems that our Republican politicians are dead set against doing the right thing for our citizens and our state. If the Federal government is involved it is bad, say our legislators. They don’t respond to my letters, says Governor Mead. The politics of divisiveness and childishness are alive and well in Wyoming.

Recently, Newt Gingrich said that Republicans have “zero ideas” on health care. Wyoming’s Republicans have less than no idea. Our Republican leaders have been wrong every step of the way, wasting money on a failed lawsuit, and time when we could have controlled our own destiny with a Wyoming Health Exchange run by Wyoming for Wyoming’s people.

Sadly, it is the people of Wyoming who are losing out due to this belligerence.

Next week provides a great opportunity to press our legislators to expand Medicaid. On Monday and Tuesday, November 4 and 5, the Legislatures’ Joint Labor, Health and Social Services Interim Committee will be meeting at the Best Western Inn at Lander and Medicaid expansion is on the agenda. Before the meeting, write or call Lander’s Representative Lloyd Larsen, a member of interim committee and tell him that expanding Medicaid coverage is good for our economy and good for our citizens. Then attend the Tuesday, November 5 meeting and make a public comment. Fremont County Democrats will be there along with others from around the state.

For more information and a complete agenda visit: TurnFremontBlue.com.

Make your voice heard!

Info on the November 5 meeting. Come and participate!

Legal Schnauzer: Liberty Duke Paid A Heavy Price In Quickie Divorce That Followed Extramarital Affair With Rob Riley

Legal Schnauzer: Liberty Duke Paid A Heavy Price In Quickie Divorce That Followed Extramarital Affair With Rob Riley!

 Alabama lobbyist Liberty Duke lost her interest in the marital home, waived all right to alimony, and agreed to pay all credit-card debts in her 2006 divorce, court documents show.

Sources tell Legal Schnauzer that the divorce came in the same general time frame as Liberty Duke's extramarital affair with Homewood attorney Rob Riley, the son of former two-term Republican Governor Bob Riley.

Duke and Rob Riley are suing my wife, this blog, and me, claiming that my reporting on their affair is false and defamatory. But court filings suggest that Liberty Duke's misconduct, of some sort, precipitated her divorce and put her in a weak bargaining position.

William Joseph Duke initiated the divorce on February 27, 2006, and the case was over in roughly five weeks--even though the couple was married 14 years, had two children, and owned a home. The husband filed the case in Talladega County, even though the couple lived in Chilton County. Talladega is known as an Alabama jurisdiction where divorces can be obtained quickly, and court filings are likely to be kept away from prying eyes in the home county.

A divorce agreement the couple reached illustrates the weak position in which Liberty Duke found herself. (See the full document at the end of this post.) Consider what happened with the Dukes' house, from the agreement:



2. Property
2.1 Real Estate
2.1.1--The parties jointly own real estate located at 1155 County Road 368, Verbena, AL 36091 (the House.) The Wife will convey to the Husband all of her right, title, and interest in the House by quitclaim deed. The Husband will have all rights to escrow account. Until August 31, 2006, the Wife will reside in the House and pay all expenses related to the House, including without limitation the mortgage. On or before such date, the Wife will vacate the House. After the Wife vacates, the Wife's obligation to pay the expenses of the House will stop.

We don't know how much the Dukes had invested in the house, but Liberty Duke gave up her share.

Did she make it up on alimony? Not exactly:


4. Alimony
Both the Husband and the Wife waive any and all right to receive periodic alimony, past, present, and future.

On top of that, Liberty Duke got stuck with a major chunk of the household debt:


3. Marital Obligations
3.1.1--The Wife will be responsible for all credit card debts of the marriage and will hold the Husband harmless from any liability arising from indebtedness related to the said accounts.

As for the children, the couple agreed to share joint legal and physical custody, with the kids' primary residence being with Liberty Duke. William Duke agreed to pay $703 a month in child support, but the overall  document gives the impression he could have gotten away without paying anything. One assumes, and hopes, that he cares enough for his kids to not go that route--no matter what their mother has done.

Liberty Duke claims now, under oath, that she did not have an affair with Rob Riley. But 2006 court papers from Talladega County indicate she sure did something that ticked off her ex husband--and she paid for it dearly.


Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Nurse Diagnosed with Breast Cancer Was Harassed, Refused Treatment and Finally Fired -- by her Hospital | Alternet

Nurse Diagnosed with Breast Cancer Was Harassed, Refused Treatment and Finally Fired -- by her Hospital 
 By Jodie Gummow

A Nurse is suing Kaiser Hospital for demoting her, endangering her life and ultimately firing her after she was diagnosed with breast cancer.
A California nurse has claimed in court that after she was diagnosed with breast cancer and required time off and chemotherapy treatment, her employer, Kaiser Hospital, demoted her, forced her to work through lunch hours to make up for time spent at chemo sessions and assigned her to work in the flu division despite doctors warning her that exposure to flu infection could kill her,  Courthouse News reported.
Petra Albert from Los Angeles, CA, has filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and affiliates for the merciless abuse and mistreatment she suffered at the hands of her employer whilst working as a nurse.
The claim states: "Before her return, Ms. Albert's doctors warned her that chemotherapy could seriously weaken her immune system and exposure to infections such as the flu could be disastrous or even fatal. Kaiser, however, did not attempt to accommodate Ms. Albert but rather put her in charge of the flu program, putting her health at serious risk.”
Albert, who has 25 years experience working in the nursing field was hired by Kaiser in 2009 as a nurse educator, was promoted within a year for successful performance. However, she was soon diagnosed with breast cancer and required a double mastectomy in 2010. 
Albert alleges that after she returned to work following her reconstructive surgery she received no accommodation, but instead was met with insults, hostility and callous comments about her cancer and forced to return to working 60 hours a week within the same month as surgery.
Moreover, she claims that her supervisor threatened her that if she didn’t quit her job and continued to work for Kaiser, “Ms. Albert would hate her life.”  
In October 2011 after her white blood cells dropped considerably, the nurse took another leave of absence involving more chemotherapy.  This time when she returned to work, she was called to a meeting where she was ridiculed before being forcibly banished to another hospital location. Kaiser subsequently refused any further requests for time-off for chemotherapy and fired her.
Consequently, Albert has filed suit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking general and special damages.
Read more
_____________________________________

By Jodie Gummow, who is a senior fellow and staff writer at AlterNet.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

The Accelerating Assault on Journalism


FAIR

Media Advisory

The Accelerating Assault on Journalism

Some media figures applaud the criminalization of investigative reporting

August 27, 2013

U.S. soldier Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning's 35-year sentence represents the harshest punishment issued to date for providing media with evidence of government wrongdoing (Forbes, 8/21/13). She is the first whistleblower to be convicted under the Espionage Act, ratifying the new reality that those who give the press information that the government wants to keep secret will henceforth be treated as spies.

Manning's sentence is only the latest example of the criminalization of investigative journalism that has greatly intensified in the Obama era (Extra!, 9/11). While whistleblowers have been the chief targets of the harsh crackdown on media challenges to official secrecy, journalists themselves are increasingly in the government's sights.

Fox News' James RosenFox News' James Rosen, for example, was declared a "co-conspirator" under the Espionage Act in the case of State Department contractor Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, accused of leaking information about North Korea; this allowed the Justice Department to read Rosen's emails, an intrusion on freedom of the press that is forbidden under the Privacy Protection Act unless a journalist is considered to have committed a crime (WashingtonPost.com, 6/20/13).

The Justice Department subpoenaed records for more than 30 phone and fax lines used by scores of Associated Press journalists in an attempt to find the source of a story about a thwarted attack by militants in Yemen (NBCNews.com, 5/20/13). AP president Gary Pruitt (Face the Nation, 5/19/13) said the secret subpoenas were carried out "so sweeping[ly], so secretively, so abusively and harassingly and overbroad, that...it is an unconstitutional act."

Barrett BrownBarrett Brown, a freelance journalist who has written for Vanity Fair and the Guardian, is in jail facing charges--stemming from his association with the hacker activist group Anonymous--that carry a potential sentence of more than a century in jail. The allegations mainly revolve around Brown posting a link to data hacked from private intelligence agencies, some of which turned out to be encrypted credit card information. But as Peter Ludlow argued in the Nation (6/18/13), what attracted the government's attention to Brown in the first place was his journalism, which used information derived from hacking to expose private intelligence operations--like

a plan to neutralize Glenn Greenwald's defense of WikiLeaks by undermining them both.... The plan called for "disinformation," exploiting strife within the organization and fomenting external rivalries--"creating messages around actions to sabotage or discredit the opposing organization," as well as a plan to submit fake documents and then call out the error.

Journalists who find out too much about U.S. intelligence operations risk becoming targeted by allied security forces--as can their loved ones, as David Miranda, partner of Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald, found out on August 18 when he was detained and interrogated at London's Heathrow Airport for nine hours under Schedule 7 of Britain's Terrorism Act of 2000. Greenwald (8/18/13) wrote:

The stated purpose of this law, as the name suggests, is to question people about terrorism. The detention power, claims the UK government, is used "to determine whether that person is or has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism."

But they obviously had zero suspicion that David was associated with a terrorist organization or involved in any terrorist plot. Instead, they spent their time interrogating him about the NSA reporting which Laura Poitras, the Guardian and I are doing, as well [as] the content of the electronic products he was carrying. They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists," and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name.

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger (8/19/13) revealed that the GCHQ, the British counterpart of the NSA, destroyed computers at the newspaper's office in a futile attempt to impede Greenwald's NSA reporting:

The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the center of government telling me: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back." There followed further meetings with shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: Hand the Snowden material back or destroy it. I explained that we could not research and report on this subject if we complied with this request. The man from Whitehall looked mystified. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."...

And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred--with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents.

As Rusbridger pointed out, the destruction of the Guardian's property won't stop the newspaper from reporting on the documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, copies of which are cached all over the world. The vandalism did succeed, however, in sending a message: If journalists dare to report information that the U.S. government wants to keep secret, they will be treated as criminals, spies and terrorists.

A troubling number of prominent U.S. journalists seem to have no problem with this. Time senior national correspondent Michael Grunwald wrote on Twitter (8/17/13): "I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange," referring to the WikiLeaks editor-in-chief. Grunwald later deleted the tweet, citing the argument that "it gives Assange supporters a nice safe persecution complex to hide in" (NewYorker.com, 8/19/13).

Jeffrey Toobin (cc photo: UMKC)The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin (8/20/13) compared the release of classified information about government spying to the assassination of political leaders like Martin Luther King: Just as it would be "lunatic" to be grateful for the deaths of King and Robert Kennedy because they led to gun control legislation, Snowden's supporters are crazy to argue that he "may have violated the law, but the outcome has been so worthwhile."

Toobin went on to defend Miranda's detention on CNN (Anderson Cooper 360, 8/20/13), saying, "Our prisons are full of drug mules" and "He wasn't sent to the gulag."

That would be more reassuring if the notion of the U.S. government sending journalists to prison--or even killing them by long-distance--were a preposterous hypothetical that would never happen in real life (FAIR Blog, 6/30/13):

The U.S. military has repeatedly targeted and killed journalists, claiming that reporters are legitimate targets. Washington imprisoned Al-Jazeera camera operator Sami al-Hajj for six years without a trial at Guantanamo; documents released through WikiLeaks later revealed that a primary reason for holding al-Hajj was to try to extract information from him about Al-Jazeera's newsgathering operations. When Yemen was about to release Abdulelah Haider Shaye, a journalist who had reported on the U.S.'s secret drone war in that country, Barack Obama personally intervened to make sure Shaye stayed in prison.


                   



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


Saturday, October 26, 2013

Support Land Deal that Benefits Bison at Badlands National Park!

Support Land Deal that Benefits Bison at Badlands National Park!

Support Land Deal that Benefits Bison at Badlands National Park!

Bison at Badlands NP
Bison at Badlands National Park need room to roam and grow within the park, and a proposed land exchange could soon help make this happen. A private landowner with land inside the park boundary is willing to transfer this land to the National Park Service in exchange for U.S. Forest Service land outside the park. Once the transfer is completed, the park’s bison will be able to access new areas of the park, providing them more space in places where more visitors will see them. 

Tell Nebraska National Forest and Grasslands Project Coordinator Cindy Hockelberg that you support this land exchange! Remember to personalize your message as much as you can.

Team - Lorde -Oct26Driving!



Published on Oct 21, 2013

On October 26th Saudi women will take to the streets and drive their cars in protest of the prohibition on women driving. This video is a salute to any woman brave enough to stand up for her right and follow her dreams despite cultural barriers, and a nudge to all those who are on their way.

On #Oct26, and everyday. I hope we all drive, dream and stand up. We are on each other's team!
-----
Call all the ladies out
They're in their finery
A hundreds jewels on throats
A hundred jewels between teeth
Now bring more girls in
Their skin in craters like the moon
The moon we love like a brother, while he glows through the room

Dancin' around, our rights we yell
Dancin' around, our rights we yell
Even the comatose they'll hear the rights we yell

We live in cities you'll never see on screen
Not very pretty, but we sure know how to drive free
Living in ruins of the palace within our dreams
And you know, we're on each other's team

We are kind of over getting told to throw our hands up in the air, so there

And everyone's competing for the rights we will receive
'Cause what this palace wants is release


We live in cities you'll never see on screen
Not very pretty, but we sure know how to drive free
Living in ruins of the palace within my dreams
And you know, we're on each other's team



We are kind of over getting told to throw our hands up in the air
We are kind of over getting told to throw our hands up in the air


We live in cities you'll never see on screen
Not very pretty, but we sure know how to drive free
Living in ruins of the palace within my dreams
And you know


We live in cities you'll never see on screen
Not very pretty, but we sure know how to drive free
Living in ruins of the palace within my dreams
And you know
We are on each others' time
We are on each others' team
And you know


We are kind of over getting told to throw my hands up in the air,

"Sarah Palin is a Heartless, Callous, Insensitive, Uncaring, Witch!"



From the Desk of:
William D. Harasym



malialitman posted: " Sarah Palin has demonstrated her stupidity and ignorance, so many times that it is hard to list all of them. My favorites include her rendition of the Paul Revere's ride, the suggestion that we should build dikes to contain the Gulf Oil Spill, refere"

Eiler Buck Plays Football. Downing and Shadowridge, Flower Mound, Texas



Town takes Eiler into their hearts and shares his joy of football making it a night to remember for his family. The Buck family is humbled and in awe of the generous spirit of everyone who supported and participated. Thank you so very much.

Friday, October 25, 2013

Legal Schnauzer: Riley and Garrison Lawsuits Against Legal Schnauzer Feature Fraudulent Conduct Right Out Of The Gate

Legal Schnauzer: Riley and Garrison Lawsuits Against Legal Schnauzer Feature Fraudulent Conduct Right Out Of The Gate
By Roger Shuler | Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Jessica Medeiros Garrison
Two prominent Alabama Republicans--Rob Riley and Jessica Medeiros Garrison--have filed lawsuits against me in recent weeks, claiming my reporting on their extramarital affairs is false and defamatory. I know--and I suspect Riley, Garrison, and their respective lawyers know--that the lawsuits are baseless and designed merely for purposes of harassment and intimidation.

Aside from the lawsuits' merits (or lack thereof), we see an alarming trend involving the plaintiffs. They and their associates can't even get the complaints served without engaging in fraudulent conduct. And I don't use the "f word" casually here. The cases hardly are off the ground, and court documents show that individuals acting on the plaintiffs' behalf have engaged in fraud on the court.

We already have reported on the improper service that has been attempted in both cases--via a thuggish private process server in the Garrison case; via a Shelby County deputy and his unconstitutional traffic stop in the Riley matter. I filed documents in both cases late last week, seeking to have service quashed.

(See Motions to Quash at the end of this post. The version of the Riley document seen here is not official. It does not include a time stamp because the Shelby County civil clerk's office was closed on Wednesday, when we filed it. We were instructed to place it with the criminal clerk's office, with assurances it would be properly time stamped.)

Some might view service-related matters as mere technicalities. But that is not how the law views them. It is not uncommon for a lawsuit to be dismissed in its entirety due to improper service of process. And if evidence shows that Riley and Garrison knowingly engaged in, or approved of, fraudulent conduct in the service of process, their lawsuits will deserve that fate.

Why is service so important? The same concepts generally apply in both state and U.S. courts, and they are well stated in a 2011 federal case styled Dunagan v. ABBC Inc., in the Southern District of Alabama:


This court lacks jurisdiction to enter judgment against a party that has not properly been served with process. See, e.g., Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consol. Investments, 553 F.3d 1351, 1360 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Service of process is a jurisdictional requirement: a court lacks jurisdiction over the person of a defendant when that defendant has not been served.”) (citation omitted); In re Worldwide Web Systems, Inc., 328 F.3d 1291, 1299 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Generally, where service of process is insufficient, the court has no power to render judgment and the judgment is void.”).

Translation: A court has no authority over a defendant who has not been lawfully served. Can a plaintiff get around that little problem if a defendant clearly knows about the action? Nope, and that is clear from an Alabama divorce case styled Cain v. Cain, 892 So. 2d 952 (Ala. Civ. App., 2004):


Judging by the language of the trial court's August 2002 order denying of the former husband's motion to dismiss, which was entered after the alias summons and petition had purportedly been served, the trial court apparently concluded that the former husband's acknowledgment that he had actually received the trial court's order to appear, as evidenced by the former husband's July 2002 letter, was sufficient for it to also conclude that proper service of the summons and petition had been perfected. However actual knowledge of an action “does not confer personal jurisdiction without compliance with Rule 4.” Gaudin v. Collateral Agency, Inc., 624 So.2d 631, 632 (Ala.Civ.App.1993).

The Cain case goes on to make a key point: It's up to the plaintiff to ensure that proper service is completed; that burden does not fall on me or any other defendant:


When the service of process on the defendant is contested as being improper or invalid, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that service of process was performed correctly and legally.

My Motions to Quash timely challenge service in the Riley and Garrison lawsuits. Now, it is up to plaintiffs to prove "process was performed correctly and legally." They can't possibly do that because it's a matter of fact that process was not legally performed.


Rob Riley
Even worse, documents in both cases indicate that the individuals who purported to complete process have made false or incomplete statements under oath to the court. Could that constitute perjury that would merit stiff sanctions against those who made the statements--and those who put them up to it?

If the rule of law still means anything in Alabama, the answer should be yes. In the "reality bites" world of Alabama courtrooms, who knows what will happen?

The fundamental question is this: Do Alabama judges have the cojones to hold GOP power brokers Rob Riley and Jessica Garrison accountable for their bogus attempts to serve process on me (and my wife, in the Riley case)?

We will be on hand to make sure you learn the answers.

(A footnote: We are making progress in identifying the process server who claims he "personally served" me by throwing documents down our driveway, toward the garage, while making no contact with anyone living at our house. The service return includes an illegible signature, but the address is 2012 Magnolia Ave., Birmingham, AL, with a phone of (205) 930-9333. That apparently is home to a company called Investigations Inc., which has a Web site at investigationpro.com.  The site's "About Us" page tells us the company is owned by one Charles Hopkins (hopkins@investigationpro.com). Hopkins, or someone who works for him, is anything but a pro; "fraud" would be a more fitting term. More importantly, whoever filed a document stating he personally served me committed a fraud on the court.)


(To be continued)

 http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2013/10/riley-and-garrison-lawsuits-against.html

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

House CR Forks Over $174,000 for Late Multi-Millionaire Senator's Wife but Screw poor on SNAP!

House CR Forks Over $174,000 for Late Senator's Wife!
There are many things House Republicans liked about the government continuing resolution. It defunds Obamacare, locks in the sequester spending cuts and keeps the government running.
But there’s one provision tucked into the CR that may anger constituents back home: Among the various sections of the House-passed CR are 28 words that would pay $174,000 to the widow of the late Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J.
“Sec. 134. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint resolution, there is appropriated for payment to Bonnie Englebardt Lautenberg, widow of Frank R. Lautenberg, late a Senator from New Jersey, $174,000.”
The death gratuity — a long-practiced, little-known, unofficial perk of office — has been a staple of congressional deaths. A Congressional Research Service report on members who die in office says:
“…it has been the typical practice of the House to provide a death gratuity equal to the member’s annual salary, payable to the deceased member’s widow or widower, or children either in the annual legislative branch appropriations act or a measure providing supplemental funds for the legislative branch. By statute, a death gratuity is considered a gift.”
Before Lautenberg’s death, he was No. 8 on Roll Call’s 50 Richest Members of Congress with a net worth of at least $56.8 million.
That raises a question for the government watchdogs at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: ”Why is the government throwing money at a multimillionaire?”
In a post on CREW’s website, Daniel Schuman says the situation is “even more galling” when you think about the choice it represents.
“Congress just voted to cut food stamps for poor children,” Schuman says, referring to the nutrition bill passed in the House on Thursday. “The self-serving attitude that the death gratuity embodies places members of Congress above the public they are elected to serve. The last place this giveaway belongs is in legislation intended to contain only the essential measures to keep the government open.”

And we wonder why some of us think Congress has a warped sense of priorities, especially Wyoming's own Cynthia Lummis, John Barrasso and Mike "The Tea-Party Ass-Kisser" Enzi!

Thursday, October 17, 2013

How the Government Tracks You: NSA Surveillance



Published on Oct 16, 2013
Don't just watch it, DO SOMETHING: http://TheNSAvideo.com

The U.S. Government has turned the Internet into something it was never intended to be: a system for spying on us in our most private moments. Out of control government surveillance is a dangerous form of censorship. Don't be intimidated. Share this video.

Narrated by Evangeline Lilly

Brought to you by Fight for the Future and Demand Progress.

Produced by Mata Wata -- http://matawata.com

Executive Producer: Evangeline Lilly -- http://evangelinelilly.com

Photos and Video from the October 15th Guerrilla Screening Debut in New York City: http://TheNSAVideo.com/#screening

STOP WATCHING US RALLY
AGAINST MASS SURVEILLANCE

Sat, October 26th in Washington, DC

http://Rally.StopWatching.us

The Trouble with the Electoral College!

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Revolutionizing Female Empowerment: Natalie Panek at TEDxYouth@Toronto



"For me my dream would be to inspire more women into challenging themselves and taking risk to enrol themselves in science and engineering fields." Natalie Panek, Systems Engineer at MDA Space Missions talks about female empowerment, especially in science, technology, and engineering. Women are three times less likely to take a risk than men, but risk is a key part of innovation. Also women who do take risks and innovate are not as well recognized as their counterparts in the entertainment and fashion fields. Natalie reflects on her own experiences and encourages women to have curiosity and take risks in order to innovate.

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

Sublette County Demorats sing "Liz Cheney's Lament"



"Liz Cheney's Lament"
©Katharine Collins (Melody: Home on the Range)

1) Oh, give me a home
Where the Tea Party roams,
And the people are all begging me
To throw out Mike Enzi
Who's become far too friendly
With people I don't care to meet.
Let's give a home to Liz Cheney
She's so sick and tired of McLean-y
All she needs is a seat
With the power elite...
And Wyoming will have a new Cheney.

2) When I bought my new home,
I assumed I could roam
And fish in Wyoming's bright streams
But I found out too late
Even Cheneys must wait
To pursue every fisherman's dream
Oh let's give a break to Liz Cheney.
So young, so rich and so brainy
But Chicago's law school
Never taught her the rule
That ignorance is no defense.

3) If you'll give me a home
I will never more roam
Any farther than Capitol Hill.
There's no GOP war
That I will not be for
And I'll privatize Yellowstone Park.
Hip, hip, hooray for Liz Cheney
From Meeteetse to Bill to Big Piney
We know she's no Dick,
But she'll be just as slick
As the older illustrious Cheney.

Sunday, October 13, 2013

"Bears Interrupted" By Wendy

 

Republicans Compromise on Towel Service!

 

Gadget

This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

LEAP