Showing posts with label Outside The Beltway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Outside The Beltway. Show all posts

Saturday, July 28, 2012

In Reply: Breasts Come in Pairs, Busts, Not So Much, Part 2

In reply to the following comment at the post: White House clarifies on Churchill bust - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room:
Count the Ways, 7/28/12, 01:22 AM in reply to repsac3:

"Nope you got it completely wrong as liberals do. What happened was Romney said:

""I'm looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again," the presumptive GOP nominee told people at a fundraiser Thursday night."

NOTE Romney said OVAL OFFICE

The Obama administration and this author then CHANGED Romney's words to:
"While on his overseas trip in London, Romney vowed to return the bust to the White House"

Note THEY changed the words to WHITE HOUSE. Why did they do this? So they could then ridicule Romney when they said:

"Pfeiffer knocked reports the bust had been removed and added a photo of President Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron, taken during the British leader's 2010 visit, looking at the bust to prove it's in the White House. "This is 100 percent false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room," Pfeiffer wrote.."

So the reality is that the Obama Administration was caught in a lie, with the assistance of this author."

---
If you believe the whole of thise meme concerns Romney and what he said, I'm glad you're satisfied... You are correct that this article misquotes Romney. He did say "Oval Office" rather than "White House." [...And yes, Pfeiffer either lied, or was just as uninformed about the second bust as everyone else seemingly was, and really believed that the one in the residence was the same one that used to be in the Oval Office. (Keeping in mind that he more'n'likely wasn't the one who packed up the loaner Churchill, or got the gift Churchill out of storage, either. If you you believe there's only one, and you've seen it there outside the Treaty Room with your own eyes, then the people saying it had been sent back to England are obviously mistaken... right?)]

But if you look, though, I didn't mention Romney once in my earlier comment. I'm looking at the whole story, which has been floating around since Feb, 2009, and that seems to be based on a simple sit-com twist--not one Churchill bust, but two--and a whole lotta misplaced animosity toward the current president. YMMV...

(Besides, even though you're right about what Romney said, I suspect that the secret service protecting President Obama in January, 2013 will frown on former Governer Mitt Romney sneaking into the Oval Office with a bust of Churchill that he stole from England back when he was there for the 2012 Olympics under his jacket, even if his intent is to just place it on a shelf somewhere and tiptoe back out.) ((With a h/t to a commenter at Outside The Beltway, who said it first.))

--
Edited for clarity (mostly, though I did add that bit about what Pfeiffer said, as well) at 7:00am (I was having issues with my iPad at 2:00am, but saved intended edit for when I got back home to my desktop)

---
Posted 7/28/12, 1:57 AM (though like I said, there were some edits made at 7:00 AM)

Friday, July 27, 2012

In Reply: Two Heads Are NOT Always Better (For one thing, they confuse folks...)

Two comments in reply to Guess What? The Churchill Bust Is Still In The White House (Or At Least One Of Them Is):

“And I’m looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again,” Romney said, evoking applause from the group that helped the candidate raise more than $2 million for his campaign."
If R-money is elected, he won’t have to add anything. He’ll be a bust in the Oval Office all on his own.

Glad to see the great mystery was solved, however. Churchill never left, AND he was returned to England, as well. Imagine what the rumormongers could’ve done with a third Churchill bust. (WinChurch#3 would most likely be stuck in a closet somewhere with whole bunch of circa 2001 keyboards with missing “W” keys.)
---
Posted Friday, July 27, 2012 at 18:37

Y’know… This revelation about there being two Churchill busts elicits more questions than it answers… Where was the Nixon-era bust while the Bush-era bust was in the Oval Office? Were both on display in different places in the White House, or is the truth that, rather than Obama removing a Churchill bust and thereby showing his distain for the man, the Brits, , etc, he (or the staff, obviously) actually went to the trouble of getting the older bust out of storage and putting it on display, showing his admiration for the man and his country?

Enquiring mind want to know… (OK, not really… except in the sense that this silly Churchill meme that was being packaged and sold by these folks may turn out to show the exact opposite of what they hoped to show… I do loves me that kinda irony…)
---
Posted Friday, July 27, 2012 at 19:05

Sunday, November 27, 2011

In reply to: Kimberly Webb Joyner, 1970 to 2011

In reply to Kimberly Webb Joyner, 1970 to 2011

My wife, Kimberly Webb Joyner, died this morning in her sleep from unknown causes.

She was 41.

She leaves behind two little girls she loved more than anything, Katie, who turns 3 on New Year’s Eve, and Ellie, who was born June 21.


continued...
---
I cannot imagine what you and your family are going through...

May God grant you all the peace and strength you'll need in times ahead...

My family will add yours to our prayers...

...and after reading this sad news, I think I'll spend the rest of the day with my bride of 10 years, and try to keep in mind that few regret spending more time with the people they love and less in front of a computer monitor and keyboard...
---

I barely know James Joyner, and don't believe I ever heard him mention his wife or family... Still, a story like this hits you hard, especially if you're sharing your life with someone you love...

Like I said, I'm done for the day... For me, I hope, there's always tomorrow to blog some more... My advice; Get offline, and hug everyone you love....
---
Links:
Kimberly Webb Joyner, 1970 to 2011
Site Note
Kim Update
Status Update
---
The Human Side | The Moderate Voice
Sense of Events: What to say to the grieving
Prayers for James Joyner Following the Loss of His Wife | All American Blogger

Saturday, August 07, 2010

In Reply: Legal civil unions for consenting adults from the state, and marriage from one's church

In reply to Should Government Get Out Of Marriage Business?

Harsanyi's idea about taking the state completely out of the unions between people is unworkable, but I've long supported a divorce of the religious rite of marriage and the legal right for people to form couples and families. When the definition of marriage is held by one's faith--as it was meant to be, IMHO--the state can better define the legalities involved in property rights, protection of children, privacy, and all the rest that comes with legal couplehood. While I agree that such a change wouldn't end objection to "gay marriage," I think it would clarify where the objections are coming from, calm the fears of those who believe the gays will attack churches with discrimination suits and loss of tax breaks, should they be granted their right to legally "marry," as well as clarify the equal protection arguments of same sex marriage supporters.

To PD Shaw's point, I recently read somewhere (perhaps among the comments at the Harsanyi piece, in fact) the idea of attaching benefits (and responsibilities) to children and to legal guardianship, rather than to marital status. There is no reason that a childless married couple should receive benefits meant to encourage child-rearing, and a committed gay couple actually raising children should not. (Of course I also support lower school taxes for those who don't have children in school, as well. We all benefit from having a new generation of educated Americans following us up, but those with kids attending benefit more, short term.)

So yeah... Legal civil unions for consenting adults who want that, and marriage--including gay marriage, if that be a part of the belief system (Unitarian Universalists like me, for one)--from one's church. State recognition of church rites (and vice versa, I suppose) optional, as long as married couples are recognized/not recognized equally.
---

Posted Saturday, August 7, 2010 at 10:30

Friday, August 06, 2010

In Reply: Yep, Birtherism Lives, alright...

In reply to the post Birtherism Lives, and in particular, the comments of my nutty buddy Donald Douglas, who claims not to be a birther, himself, but goes on to express and espouse many of the birther's most vociferous arguments, to whit:
"Barack Obama has not released his full medical birth report, with doctors’ signatures, etc. Newspaper announcements can be forged. And Obama has a history of secrecy — no one has seen his academic transcripts. You don’t have to be a ‘birther’ to have doubts about the president’s honesty. All you’ve posted is the ‘certif’cation of live birth’, who knows if that’s authentic, and Markos Moulitsas was the first to claim he published a copy of it a Daily Kos, so that tells you something." -- Americaneocon, Wednesday, August 4, 2010 at 23:50
and
"@ Steven: I’m not invested in this and have written about Obama’s birth perhaps once on my blog. I just don’t like soft thinking.
You write:
“Again: this is the exact document that any other American would use as proof of birth and is colloquially known as a “birth certificate” (the rearranging of the words does not change the nature of the document). By your logic, I cannot prove that my own children were born in the US (as the only official documents issued to me by two states, 1 from Texas and 2 from Alabama) look exactly like the “certificate of live birth” issued by the state of Hawaii for Obama.”
Even accepting the possibility that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, which is the document you have provided above, is authentic, questions remain as to whether that is sufficient to demonstrate eligibility. So to be clear: A “Certification of Live Birth” is not the same thing as a long-form birth certificate. At the time of Obama’s birth, the state of Hawaii made long-form birth certificates available. These included the name of the hospital and the attending physician, name and address of the parents, the race of the parents and the race of the baby, etc. The long form includes signatures of the doctors attending. The state of Hawaii’s long form certificates in 1961 were numbered in order with serial numbers. This is what people refer to when they talk about their “birth certificate.” I have mine (from Landstuhl military hospital). I have my children’s (from county records in California). Since Hawaii records show that these long-form documents were available at the time, why hasn’t Obama released his, and why has the hospital refused to release it? (And this says nothing about your children, or mine. No one is proving the eligibility of your children, or mine, for president of the United States.) The short form you have provided is a computer generated certification. No hospital or doctor is listed.
Even if that is sufficient for you, there were multiple ways to obtain a Hawaiian COLB that would leave open the possibility that the person in question was born outside of the state. No doctor or midwife, or any medical professional, in 1961, was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth. One parent was required to provide proof of residency and a pre-natal and post-natal certificate by a physician. A pre-natal report would show the mother was pregnant. The post-natal report would certify a newborn was seen by a doctor. Thus, it’s possible that a child born outside Hawaii could still receive a state COLB. As of today, it is still possible for a child born outside of Hawaii to obtain a short-form COLB using official state form s338-17.8. Go ahead and search it on Google.
Also, newspaper announcements are not legal proof of official birth.

This discussion, therefore, places doubt on your claim at the post above that Obama’s birth is a matter of ”a simple, empirically knowable fact …”

Empiricism requires evidence. And in the case of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, that evidence is virtually entirely absent. Hence, it’s entirely reasonable for 6 of 10 at the CNN poll to have doubts about Obama’s U.S. birth story. You, sir, are in the minority."
-- Americaneocon, Thursday, August 5, 2010 at 22:31
And, as if this wasn't enough, the good doctor professor makes reference to the whole thing on his own blog, so that more folks can share in the conspiracy: American Power: Birtherism Lives? Only 42 Percent of Americans Believe Obama Is a Citizen
---
I reply, as follows (revised and extended from my original posted comment):

Even accepting the possibility that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, which is the document you have provided above, is authentic, questions remain as to whether that is sufficient to demonstrate eligibility.
According to who? The COLB is sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for all manner of legal and government licenses and other official documents, employment, and security clearances. What official or legal entity is claiming the COLB as issued by the state of Hawaii is not sufficient for demonstrating eligibility for President Obama’s current position?
The state of Hawaii’s long form certificates in 1961 were numbered in order with serial numbers. This is what people refer to when they talk about their “birth certificate.”
In California, perhaps, but in Hawaii, the document citizens receive when they make a request to the Department of Health is the COLB. (And if I'm not mistaken, these documents carry the very same serial numbers as the long form documents--in that familiar fixed order, like serial numbers tend to be, being, y'know, serial numbers.)
Since Hawaii records show that these long-form documents were available at the time, why hasn’t Obama released his, and why has the hospital refused to release it?
At the time, Obama himself was probably too young to keep hold of the thing, being just born’n'all… His mother may’ve received one, but those things have a way of getting misplaced, especially in cases where mom has since passed on.

When you apply to the state of Hawaii for proof of birth, you receive a certified COLB, which is what’s pictured above. According to factcheck.org, “The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department.”

If I had to guess as to why President Obama hasn’t found a way to get a copy of his long form certificate out there to appease every crank and asshole who remains unconvinced by the standard short-form COLB that Hawaii uses, I’d say that 1) the short form COLB actually IS sufficient proof of his eligibility for everyone who isn't a crank or an asshole, and 2) speculation by birfers like Dr Douglas has been a net positive, politically (yeah, even now, when apparently 6 out of 10 Americans fall into the crank / asshole / birther category).
there were multiple ways to obtain a Hawaiian COLB that would leave open the possibility that the person in question was born outside of the state.
Even assuming this is true, (which I obviously doubt) wouldn’t it be incumbent on the person making the charge to prove that President Obama’s Hawaiian COLB actually was obtained in a way that left that possibility open, or is it enough to simply speculate that it might've been, in some mysterious, unspecified way?
Thus, it’s possible that a child born outside Hawaii could still receive a state COLB.
And it’s your assertion that not only might Obama or someone in around him, either back in 1961 or in 2007 have received one like this, but that the COLB in question would falsely report that the child was born in a particular part of Hawaii, too? Based on what? Is anyone credibly making the claim that this did happen, or is this just more of that "well... it coulda happened, somehow..." speculation?
As of today, it is still possible for a child born outside of Hawaii to obtain a short-form COLB using official state form s338-17.8. Go ahead and search it on Google.
The danger of suggesting a dare like that is that someone will actually do it.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

So yes, within one year of a child’s birth, a parent who can establish proof of legal residency in Hawaii for at least one year immediately prior to the child’s birth can obtain a COLB for a child born elsewhere. But nothing suggests that the place of birth for a child born outside of Hawaii would falsely be listed on the COLB as being in a particular city in Hawaii, so I fail to see the significance of this document. (It is also possible to get such a COLB after one year, but it is marked and certified as being a late filing, making it more suspect.)
"Also, newspaper announcements are not legal proof of official birth."
No, the COLB is legal proof of official birth, including specifying place of birth. A pair of contemporaneous 1961 birth announcements in local papers, however, are evidence (even suitable for use in a court of law) that the birth took place in the time and at the place named on the COLB.
Empiricism requires evidence. And in the case of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, that evidence is virtually entirely absent.
I can appreciate that this is difficult for you Dr Douglas, but the COLB issued and certified by the Hawaii Department of Health, and vouched for by both the head of records and the Republican governor, as well as two contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements offering information consistent with the information found on the COLB, is the evidence you insist does not exist. According to snopes.com and the documents and reports they in turn cite, there is at least one person--a friend of the daughter of the doctor who delivered President Obama--who reports knowing about the birth at the time it happened.

Individuals certainly can deny and dismiss this evidence and otherwise claim it is insufficient to convince them--preferring it seems, wild claims of incompetent or unscrupulous record-keepers in cahoots with equally unscrupulous family members who knew that this young foreign, altogether alien child would one day run for US President, faking either the documents themselves or the portions that would otherwise prove persuasive (with even less evidence than is presented by the non-birther crowd, I hasten to add)--but that doesn't mean that the evidence ceases to exist. The truth is out there, Dr Douglas... in Hawaii, and on the internets...

As I said to back in December, if you talk like a birther and make birther arguments, you’re a birther. No need to be embarrassed about it (well, there is, but…) Embrace it, Donald Douglas. You’re a Worldnet Daily reading, Corso-conspiracy-minded birther, and if this is who you're gonna be, you should stop denying it and instead be proud of it. (Now, how long will it be until my friend Mick, the birther, shows up in the comments, to tell me the REAL PURPOSE of my post and go on about the original interpretation of the Constitution and how Vattel's "Law of Nations" informed all who had a hand in creating the document, and thus what they really meant by their words.)
---

Posted (in original unrevised and unextended form) on Friday, August 6, 2010 at 03:23 (Outside The Beltway blog time)
---

The relevant links:
Birtherism Lives
American Power: Birtherism Lives? Only 42 Percent of Americans Believe Obama Is a Citizen
Birth Certificates: Exploring Hawaiian Law | Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored
snopes.com: Barack Obama Birth Certificate
American Nihilist: Donald Douglas: "I'm no birther... (I just post like one.)
American Nihilist: Donald Douglas: Still not a Birther (And, is Sarah Palin calling him "conspiracy-minded?")
FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.
PolitiFact | Obama's birth certificate: Final chapter

Thursday, August 05, 2010

In Reply: "Let one's religion define marriage. Let the state define legal unions."

In reply to: Federal Judge Declares California’s Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

I've long thought the government should get out of the marriage business, though being more of a liberal than a libertarian, my thought was to replace the word "marriage" with "civil union" in all local, state, federal laws that mention the word. (And yeah, I'd be ok with allowing any two people to "unite" for the legal benefits, including parent/child, a pair of friends, ???. I also wouldn't object to removing some of the financial benefits, because I'm not so sure that couples need a government incentive to marry, in the first place.)

Religious institutions govern the sacrament of marriage however they see fit, and the government has no role, either in telling any denomination who must be allowed to marry, or who cannot marry. (aside consent laws, of course.) But religious institutions have no role in deciding who the government can/cannot legally unite, either.

Let one's religion define marriage.
Let the state enforce legal unions, and the contracts between the individual parties and between the "united" and the state that they create.

While I'd prefer that the state continue to recognize sacred marriage as one way to enter a civil union, I wouldn't be opposed to divorcing one from the other, making them completely separate entities, either... (Religious institutions are under no obligation to recognize civil unions, of course... though of course, they may, if they wish.)

Comment posted Thursday, August 5, 2010 at 02:36 AM, Outside The Beltway blog time

Previous discussions on the subject: Wingnuts & Moonbats: marriage

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)