Monday, 29 April 2013

NEON KEN

Ken Berwitz

My wife just told me about a piece of luggage she was looking at that has some kind of indicator which tells you if what you packed into it goes over a certain amount of weight.

I told her "I wish I had that on me".

She said "If you did, you'd be a human neon light".

You gotta love this woman.......


JASON COLLINS COMES OUT

Ken Berwitz

Well, we finally have a major-sport athlete coming out and acknowledging he is gay, while still in uniform.

Jason Collins, an NBA free agent who played for the Washington Wizards this past year, has broken the barrier.

I'm guessing that Mr. Collins' biggest surprise may be how many other NBA players tell him they knew already. 

Good for him.  This won't change a thing about who Jason Collins is, only how much more he thinks of himself for coming out of the shadows and being himself.

I wish him every success...except when he plays against the Brooklyn Nets


KERMIT GOSNELL (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

Closing arguments today, followed by jury deliberations.  Gosnell did not take the stand in his own defense, nor did his lawyer call any witnesses --- which, it has been speculated, is a set-up designed for an "inadequate defense" claim to be used to get a new trial.

Still waiting for mainstream media to do any serious reporting on the trial of this mass murdering butcher?  Enjoy the wait.


KERMIT GOSNELL (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

Closing arguments today, followed by jury deliberations.  Gosnell did not take the stand in his own defense, nor did his lawyer call any witnesses --- which, it has been speculated, is a set-up designed for an "inadequate defense" claim to be used to get a new trial.

Still waiting for mainstream media to do any serious reporting on the trial of this mass murdering butcher?  Enjoy the wait.


6 MONTHS AFTER HURRICANE SANDY: A QUESTION

Ken Berwitz

This morning, NBC News (among others) has treated the 6 month anniversary of Hurricane Sandy as a major news story. 

Fair enough, given that, even after all this time, so much of the devastation is still there for everyone to see, and so many people are still homeless.

But I have a question:  How much of the reporting involved discussing the failure of FEMA to get things back to normal and help out these people?  Any at all?

Ok, a couple more questions:  How does NBC's (and the other networks') coverage of FEMA's performance after Hurricane Sandy compare to the way they covered the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?  How does coverage of the President's involvement, and his level of success or failure, compare?

Heckuva a job, guys.


TIM TEBOW'S ESCAPE FROM PURGATORY

Ken Berwitz

purgatory (noun):  a place or state of temporary suffering or misery:  Merriam-Webster Dictionary 

New York Jet Quarterba....er, excuse me, now-former New York Jet Quarterback Tim Tebow, a devout Christian, is not Catholic.  But he has every reason to believe in the concept of purgatory.

After being signed to a big-money contract, with great fanfare, Tebow just spent a year riding the bench and doing virtually nothing.  In total he threw 8 passes - that's one every two games.  And even when starting quarterback Mark Sanchez was benched, Jet coach Rex Ryan passed him over and started his third-stringer instead.

Finally, this morning, the Jets released Tebow and he is free to sign with any other team who wants him.  Escape from purgatory.

Why did this happen?  Is it Tebow's abilities as a quarterback or something else?

Truth be told, Tebow's career statistics are not especially good.  In 2011, as Denver's starter for 11 of 16 games, he had a completion rate under 50%, just 12 touchdowns versus 6 interceptions, and fumbled the ball 14 times. 

On the other hand, despite those statistics, he did have a penchant for late-in-the-game theatrics which won games - as indicated by the fact that Denver's record with him starting was 7 - 4.  Plus, in all fairness, Tebow had only been in the league two years.  Very often, quarterbacks, including some really excellent ones, sometimes need a few seasons to develop.  So it may well be that Tebow has years and years of quality play ahead of him.

This brings us back to the question of why Ryan inflicted a year's worth of purgatory on Tebow.

Maybe it was because he just plain thought Tebow wasn't very good.  But if that were the case, maybe Ryan should have resigned when Jet management signed him.  He didn't.  Or maybe Jet management, who were made to look like fools Ryan's behavior, should have fired him.  But that did not happen either.

Personally, though I have no proof, I can't help thinking part of the equation was that Ryan resented all the press Tebow got, and the fact that it was because he is so deeply, outwardly, religious.  So Ryan "taught him a lesson" and effectively sat him out for the season. 

Well, now Tebow is available.  And do not doubt for a minute that there will be teams calling. 

It will be very interesting to see how Tim Tebow fares with his yet-to-be-determined new team; especially if they play the Jets this year.

Oh, did I mention that, in extremely limited playing time Ryan gave him last year, Tebow threw 8 passes, and completed 6 of them.  He was neither intercepted nor did he fumble the ball.  

And, without utilizing Tebow's services, Rex Ryan's Jet team went from a mediocre 8 - 8 in 2011, all the way to.........6 - 10 in 2012. 

Yep, sitting Tebow really did wonders for the team.....


TIM TEBOW'S ESCAPE FROM PURGATORY

Ken Berwitz

purgatory (noun):  a place or state of temporary suffering or misery:  Merriam-Webster Dictionary 

New York Jet Quarterba....er, excuse me, now-former New York Jet Quarterback Tim Tebow, a devout Christian, is not Catholic.  But he has every reason to believe in the concept of purgatory.

After being signed to a big-money contract, with great fanfare, Tebow just spent a year riding the bench and doing virtually nothing.  In total he threw 8 passes - that's one every two games.  And even when starting quarterback Mark Sanchez was benched, Jet coach Rex Ryan passed him over and started his third-stringer instead.

Finally, this morning, the Jets released Tebow and he is free to sign with any other team who wants him.  Escape from purgatory.

Why did this happen?  Is it Tebow's abilities as a quarterback or something else?

Truth be told, Tebow's career statistics are not especially good.  In 2011, as Denver's starter for 11 of 16 games, he had a completion rate under 50%, just 12 touchdowns versus 6 interceptions, and fumbled the ball 14 times. 

On the other hand, despite those statistics, he did have a penchant for late-in-the-game theatrics which won games - as indicated by the fact that Denver's record with him starting was 7 - 4.  Plus, in all fairness, Tebow had only been in the league two years.  Very often, quarterbacks, including some really excellent ones, sometimes need a few seasons to develop.  So it may well be that Tebow has years and years of quality play ahead of him.

This brings us back to the question of why Ryan inflicted a year's worth of purgatory on Tebow.

Maybe it was because he just plain thought Tebow wasn't very good.  But if that were the case, maybe Ryan should have resigned when Jet management signed him.  He didn't.  Or maybe Jet management, who were made to look like fools Ryan's behavior, should have fired him.  But that did not happen either.

Personally, though I have no proof, I can't help thinking part of the equation was that Ryan resented all the press Tebow got, and the fact that it was because he is so deeply, outwardly, religious.  So Ryan "taught him a lesson" and effectively sat him out for the season. 

Well, now Tebow is available.  And do not doubt for a minute that there will be teams calling. 

It will be very interesting to see how Tim Tebow fares with his yet-to-be-determined new team; especially if they play the Jets this year.

Oh, did I mention that, in extremely limited playing time Ryan gave him last year, Tebow threw 8 passes, and completed 6 of them.  He was neither intercepted nor did he fumble the ball.  

And, without utilizing Tebow's services, Rex Ryan's Jet team went from a mediocre 8 - 8 in 2011, all the way to.........6 - 10 in 2012. 

Yep, sitting Tebow really did wonders for the team.....


THE LATE TERM MURDER INDUSTRY

Ken Berwitz

As the kermit gosnell jury goes into delibrations, and mainstream media continue to bury the story, I thought you might want to know whether the gosnell house of horrors is a one-shot deal or similarly ugly things happen to live babies at other abortion clinics.

With this in mind, you might want to read the following verbatim quote from a doctor (or so he says) who performs late term abortions in the Washington DC area.

Here is how he answers a "patient" (in reality, is a pregnant woman, working undercover, who fully intends to have her child) who asks what would happen if the baby should come out alive:

"Technically - you know, legally we would be obligated to help it, you know, to survive.  But, you know, it probably wouldn't.  It's all in how vigorously you do things to help a fetus survive at this point.  Let's say you went into labor, the membranes ruptured, and you delivered before we got to the termination part of the procedure here, you know?  Then we would do things - we would - we would not help it.  We wouldn't intubate.  It would be, you know, uh, a person, a terminal person in the hospital, let's say, that had cancer, you know?  You wouldn't do any extra procedures to help that person survive.  Like 'do not resuscitate' orders.  We would do the same things here."

Simply stated, if it (not "him" or "her", but "it") lives, we'll let it die.  We'll ignore the federal law that says we have to do everything in our power to maintain the child's life.

Just in case you think this is in any way an exaggeration, please watch the following video, created by liveaction.org, and see/hear the interview for yourself.  You'll find that quote, and others just as bad if not worse.

And if that isn't enough for you, watch this second liveaction.org video, shot by the same pro-life group, of a Bronx late term abortionist talking about putting live birth babies into a jar of toxic material so they will "stop twitching" - i.e. they will stop being alive and be dead.) 

Then, the worker (who has been at the facility for 11 years and should know), tells the undercover pregnant womwn they "termnate" the baby inside the mother for legal reasons (i.e. we know it's alive in there, so we kill it and then take it out.  That's much better) 

But if the child should happen to be born before the "laminaria" (sea weed treatments, intended to kill the child in the womb) does its job?  Just "flush it".

That sick enough for you?

And if it happens in these two legally-operating clinics (at least until the authorities see the video tapes you just did), do you have any doubt things like this happen at the Planned Parenthood facilities -- where more abortions are done than anywhere else, by a mile?

You may be in favor of legal abortions and you may not be.  But, regardless of which side you are on, it is very important that you know what happens at some of the places - who knows how many - where abortions are performed.  

Now you do.

================================================

UPDATE:  The Washington Post is running a story - a very fair, straight news story - about the liveaction.org video tapes.  This, by itself, is a victory of sorts, given the dearth of coverage given kermit gosnell's trial.

You can read the article by clicking here.  And I urge you to do so, if for no other reason to read the blatant lies this so-called doctor tells about what he is doing in his "abortion" (murder?) facility.

Just one sample: 

-The doctor, whose name is cesare santangelo, told the Post, "What I said is, basically I wouldn't do anything extraordinary.  We would call EMS. We would call 9-1-1. But I wouldn't do intubation or anything. . .. You let nature take its course."  But that is a lie.  What he actually did say was

"Let's say you went into labor, the membranes ruptured, and you delivered before we got to the termination part of the procedure here, you know?  Then we would do things - we would - we would not help it." 

Not one word about 911 or EMS. 

But just in case you think this leaves any doubt....santangelo continues (starting at about 4:45 of the video tape shown above): 

"If you were in a hospital in Virginia, let's say, and you went into labor and you went to the hospital, and they saw you deliver, they would do everything possible to help that, that fetus survive.  We wouldn't here."

That not only puts the lie to santangelo's claim that he would do what he could to keep the born baby alive, but is in direct contradiction of BAIPA, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which sailed through congress a decade ago -- and which, as an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama spent years blocking from passage every way he could.

Oh, one other thing:  at the end of the Washington Post article santangelo is asked if he has watched the liveaction.org video.  His response?:

"I don't like to feed into these people. I really consider them terrorists."

Lovely.  A "man" who looks a pregnant woman in the eye and tells her he would not do a thing to save her baby if the child were born alive, and the people recording the video are "terrorists".    

If you're asking me, this sack of manure's "facility" should be closed tomorrow.  And he should be posting bail - a lot of it - to sleep in his own, no-doubt luxurious, bed tonight.


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from a rich source of quotable material:  Newt Gingrich.

On yesterday morning's "This Week" show, hosted by George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Gingrich participated in a discussion about the sequester's effect on government services.  - specifically, the furloughing, then. via quick congressional legislation, the "unfurloughing" of airline personnel.

Gingrich expressed approval of the legislation, on the grounds that it showed the issue was not how much money was available, but how it was reallocated.

Stephanopoulos countered by asking "Doesn't that mean the politically weakest (i.e. the parts of government least able to fight for limited funds) are going to bear the biggest burden?"

Here is Newt Gingrich's answer - and our quote of the day:

"Not necessarily.  It may mean the most corrupt are going to bear the biggest burden. It may mean the dumbest are going to bear the biggest burden. When you look at a $4 trillion government, you can find lots of really stupid things to quit paying for."

Yes!  Exactly right!  In an impossibly bloated budget - like for example the current one - there is plenty of non-essential garbage to reduce or eliminate.

President Obama first put on a political show, by issuing dire warnings that if the sequester took hold there would be a major catastrophe and the country would fall apart.  When that did not happen, it made him look ridiculous.

Now, stung by that embarrassment, his new strategy is trying to win by cutting back on areas of highest visibility and maximum frustration - such as White House tours and airport operations.

But let's be truthful here: if congress could have moved around money to unfurlough the airport personnel this past week, it also could have done so before the furloughs took place.

As this legislation should make 100% clear to anyone but the hardest-line Democrats and Obamabots, there was never any reason for those furloughs other than politics. Nor is there any need for the most necessary governmental services to be affected in other areas as well.  Because - in Gingrich's words - "When you look at a $4 trillion government, you can find lots of really stupid things to quit paying for."

Memo to President Obama and his congressional sycophants:  instead of playing dirty political games, how about let's cut some of those "really stupid things" ($50 milion for new TSA uniforms this year might be a good start), and stop pretending an $85 billion dollar sequester, only half of which kicks in this year, is going to bring a $3.8 trillion dollar budget to its knees.  Nobody believes you.

And let me close by thanking Newt Gingrich, for providing our quote of the day.  His comment could not be more accurate, or more timely.


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from a rich source of quotable material:  Newt Gingrich.

On yesterday morning's "This Week" show, hosted by George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Gingrich participated in a discussion about the sequester's effect on government services.  - specifically, the furloughing, then. via quick congressional legislation, the "unfurloughing" of airline personnel.

Gingrich expressed approval of the legislation, on the grounds that it showed the issue was not how much money was available, but how it was reallocated.

Stephanopoulos countered by asking "Doesn't that mean the politically weakest (i.e. the parts of government least able to fight for limited funds) are going to bear the biggest burden?"

Here is Newt Gingrich's answer - and our quote of the day:

"Not necessarily.  It may mean the most corrupt are going to bear the biggest burden. It may mean the dumbest are going to bear the biggest burden. When you look at a $4 trillion government, you can find lots of really stupid things to quit paying for."

Yes!  Exactly right!  In an impossibly bloated budget - like for example the current one - there is plenty of non-essential garbage to reduce or eliminate.

President Obama first put on a political show, by issuing dire warnings that if the sequester took hold there would be a major catastrophe and the country would fall apart.  When that did not happen, it made him look ridiculous.

Now, stung by that embarrassment, his new strategy is trying to win by cutting back on areas of highest visibility and maximum frustration - such as White House tours and airport operations.

But let's be truthful here: if congress could have moved around money to unfurlough the airport personnel this past week, it also could have done so before the furloughs took place.

As this legislation should make 100% clear to anyone but the hardest-line Democrats and Obamabots, there was never any reason for those furloughs other than politics. Nor is there any need for the most necessary governmental services to be affected in other areas as well.  Because - in Gingrich's words - "When you look at a $4 trillion government, you can find lots of really stupid things to quit paying for."

Memo to President Obama and his congressional sycophants:  instead of playing dirty political games, how about let's cut some of those "really stupid things" ($50 milion for new TSA uniforms this year might be a good start), and stop pretending an $85 billion dollar sequester, only half of which kicks in this year, is going to bring a $3.8 trillion dollar budget to its knees.  Nobody believes you.

And let me close by thanking Newt Gingrich, for providing our quote of the day.  His comment could not be more accurate, or more timely.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!