CLOSED!!Political Discussion - A Place to &quot;duke it out&quot; (7400+)

http://www.argusleader.com/janklowaccide...

Top 1084. Aug 20, 2003 5:36 PM

» SteveT - Janklow has a history of accidents while driving

Janklow has a history of accidents while driving

David Kranz
dkranz@argusleader.com

published: 8/20/2003

Only one previous inicident resulted in injuries; no one died

U.S. Rep. Bill Janklow has been involved in seven accidents, only one resulting in minor injuries, since 1992, state records show.

He was cited only once.

The injury accident occurred Jan. 23, 1993 on County Road 146 near Sioux Falls.

According to the accident report, Janklow's 1992 Chevrolet moved into the left driving lane to avoid hitting a small animal and collided with a vehicle. Janklow reported soreness and stiffness and the other driver, James Vander Karr, was taken to the hospital for treatment to cuts to his head. Damage to Janklow's vehicle was $3,330 and $5,595 to Vender Karr's.

In 1992, Janklow was ticketed for following too close after his Chevrolet Suburban hit a vehicle driven by Amy Ann Howell at 10th Street and Blauvelt Avenue in Sioux Falls.

Janklow's Suburban sustained $1,000 damage. Howell's 1981 Mercury had $1,000 damage.

Some of the other reports on file in the State Department of Transportation show:

• On Nov. 24, 1993, Janklow's vehicle and one driven by Betty A. Stoner collided at the intersection of First Avenue and 10th Street in Sioux Falls. Janklow said he was trying to avoid what the investigating officer referred to as a "phantom vehicle" when the collision occurred. Janklow's1984 car sustained $4,200 damage; Stoner's had $1,500 damage.

Stoner said Tuesday that she remembers the incident.

"It was a fender bender. It wasn't a big deal," she said.

• On Dec. 27, 1993, vehicles driven by Janklow and Clark Fairchild collided in the 1000 block of South Minnesota Avenue in Sioux Falls. Janklow said he was attempting to avoid a blue Bronco when he struck Fairchild's vehicle. Damage to Janklow's 1994 Cadillac was $2,000; Fairchild's 1979 Dodge had $50 damage.

• On April 6, 1997, Janklow was driving a 2002 GMC truck in Watertown looking over damage from major flooding in the city. He attempted to stop behind the State Highway Patrol's command post and due to wet brakes and a slippery street, he slid into the rear end of the command post. Damage to Janklow's vehicle was $1,500.

• On Oct. 6, 2002, Janklow's vehicle was travelling on Highway 26 when he swerved to miss a herd of deer. He struck one of the animals with his 2002 Cadillac DeVille on the Spink/Hand County line. The car had $1,399 damage.

Reach reporter David Kranz at 331-2302.

-- posted by SteveT

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/...

Top 1085. Aug 21, 2003 6:31 AM

» Lawhawk - Rev. Al Being Sued For Failure to Pay

Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton stiffed a Manhattan travel agency out of almost $200,000 after giving them "fraudulent credit-card information," the agency says in a lawsuit.
Alpha International Travel Agency claims they took care of travel for Sharpton and his National Action Network between May 1, 2001, and Aug. 3, 2002 - before his presidential campaign officially launched - and set them up with "airline tickets and hotel services."
In that time, Sharpton and the NAN ran up a $193,131.97 bill. They've refused to pay it, and so far the only thing they have given Alpha is the bogus card information, the suit says.
(snip)
Sharpton's lawyer, Sanford Rubenstein, said it's Alpha that's trying to pull a fast one on his client - and he plans to lodge a criminal complaint against them.
Rubenstein claims the only credit wrongdoing came from the agency, when they tried to put the National Action Network's charges on Sharpton's personal card.

-- posted by Lawhawk

http://www.tacobell.com/2003recall/

Top 1086. Aug 21, 2003 7:58 AM

» litab16 - Taco Bell and California Recall

Now this is what I call creative advertising:

-- posted by litab16

.
Guardian (UK) - The spectre of Operation Ajax

Top 1087. Aug 21, 2003 8:19 AM

» Laughman - A Notable Anniversary

Dan De Luce, Tehran
Wednesday August 20, 2003
The Guardian

Ignoring international law, Britain and the US opted for the high-risk strategy of regime change in order to pre-empt a volatile enemy in the Middle East. It was not Iraq, however, that was in the firing line but Iran, and the aftershocks are still being felt.

Fifty years ago this week, the CIA and the British SIS orchestrated a coup d'etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The prime minister and his nationalist supporters in parliament roused Britain's ire when they nationalised the oil industry in 1951, which had previously been exclusively controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Mossadegh argued that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves.

Britain accused him of violating the company's legal rights and orchestrated a worldwide boycott of Iran's oil that plunged the country into financial crisis. The British government tried to enlist the Americans in planning a coup, an idea originally rebuffed by President Truman. But when Dwight Eisenhower took over the White House, cold war ideologues - determined to prevent the possibility of a Soviet takeover - ordered the CIA to embark on its first covert operation against a foreign government.

A new book about the coup, All the Shah's Men, which is based on recently released CIA documents, describes how the CIA - with British assistance - undermined Mossadegh's government by bribing influential figures, planting false reports in newspapers and provoking street violence. Led by an agent named Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, the CIA leaned on a young, insecure Shah to issue a decree dismissing Mossadegh as prime minister. By the end of Operation Ajax, some 300 people had died in firefights in the streets of Tehran.

The crushing of Iran's first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah, who relied heavily on US aid and arms. The anti-American backlash that toppled the Shah in 1979 shook the whole region and helped spread Islamic militancy, with Iran's new hardline theocracy declaring undying hostility to the US.

The author of All the Shah's Men, New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer, argues that the coup planted the seeds of resentment against the US in the Middle East, ultimately leading to the events of September 11.

While it may be reaching too far to link Mossadegh's overthrow with al-Qaida's terrorism, it certainly helped unleash a wave of Islamic extremism and assisted to power the anti-American clerical leadership that still rules Iran. It is difficult to imagine a worse outcome to an expedient action.

The coup and the culture of covert interference it created forever changed how the world viewed the US, especially in poor, oppressive countries. For many Iranians, the coup was a tragedy from which their country has never recovered. Perhaps because Mossadegh represents a future denied, his memory has approached myth.

On yesterday's anniversary, there was no official government ceremony honouring Mossadegh's legacy. Deemed too secular for the Islamic Republic, the conservative clergy never mention him. But at a time when the Bush administration expresses impatience with diplomacy and promotes "regime change" as a means of reshaping the Middle East, the anniversary recalls some unwelcome parallels.

The mindset that produced the coup is not so different from the premises that underpin the current doctrine of "pre-emption" or the belief that the war on terror can justify ignoring the Geneva convention, diplomacy and the sentiments of a country's population.

Veterans of the cold war in President Bush's administration are cultivating relations with Iranian monarchists in exile while Congressmen are calling for a campaign to undermine Iran's clerical leadership. Washington's tough rhetoric and flirtation with the Shah's son are a kind of nightmarish deja vu for the embattled reformists and students struggling to push for democratic change in Iran.

"Now it seems that the Americans are pushing towards the same direction again," says Ibrahim Yazdi, who served briefly as foreign minister after the Shah fell. "That shows they have not learned anything from history."

The reformists allied with President Khatami believe their country now faces another choice between despotism and democracy, and they worry that the combination of outside interference and internal squabbling within their own ranks could once again defer their dream. The more neo-conservatives attempt to pile pressure on Iran, the more ammunition they provide for the most hardline elements of the regime.

Beyond Iran, America remains deeply resented for siding with authoritarian rule in the region. It would be comforting to think "reshaping the Middle East" means promoting democratic rule. But if it merely allows for the ends to justify the means, then the spectre of Operation Ajax will continue to haunt the region.

-- posted by Laughman

Top 1088. Aug 21, 2003 10:01 AM

» Kirk - People's Republica of California - Free health Care!

.
Front page of the SJ Mercury news today talks about how the Dem's want to force through a bill and get Davis to sign in return for supporting him in the recall. They want to force companies to give full health care, even the small ones... or pay money to another government program. More government jobs and votes for higher taxes!!!!

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/b...
Racing the clock on the legislative session -- and perhaps Gov. Gray Davis' tenure -- powerful California lawmakers are scrambling to pass a landmark bill that would force companies to provide health insurance to hundreds of thousands of workers.

About the only folks left in CA when the Demospenders are finished will be people like me who are making a killing investing in companies like LRCX and Agilent that outsource jobs to Asia to lower costs and those administering all the government programs taxing the few workers left who keep track of what the outsourced workers build and talk to investors.

It sounds like they want those with jobs to pay for everyone else: Lawmakers have pushed a variety of ideas over the years to extend health insurance to more of the 6.7 million Californians who lack such a safety net. Some want to expand current public programs like Medi-Cal. Others envision a ``single-payer'' system that would create a state agency that would administer health insurance.

They just don't get it...

-- posted by Kirk

Top 1089. Aug 21, 2003 12:41 PM

» F111Star - Re: People's Republica of California - Free health Care!

In response to message posted by Kirk:

Kirk,

Hang on to your wallet; CA is the DemocRAT's nirvana state. Rather than accept termination of failed social programs, CA lefties will next turn to the French for economic policy guidance. In addition to taxes on real estate, sales, value-added activities, and current income, the French government imposes an annual tax on privately held wealth. Their annual rate of wealth confiscation (in addition to the above taxes) is something like 1% to 1.5%. We should expect a DemocRAT proposal to tax the wealth of CA residents (only the legal ones of course) in order to preserve the one-party patronage system that Gray Davis now advertises as "good government."

-- posted by F111Star

Top 1090. Aug 21, 2003 1:59 PM

» Fred2000 - Power outage.....

.
Power outage traced to dim bulb in Whitehouse.

-- posted by Fred2000

Top 1091. Aug 21, 2003 2:04 PM

» Kirk - Re: Re: People's Republica of California - Free health Care!

In response to message posted by F111Star:

They are already trying to tax wealth... They cause inflation by over spending. This makes the value of our homes go up. Now they want to repeal Prop 13 and get their hands on the value of our homes. Most don't own many assets other than the value of their home.

IF they drive the wealthy out of CA (Incline Villiage in North Lake Tahoe on the Nevada side might be a nice place to live....) then they will also lose out on getting the income tax back from our 401Ks when we start to cash those in...

-- posted by Kirk

Top 1092. Aug 21, 2003 2:05 PM

» DellaO - The Truth May Hurt, But Here It Is...

.
It Depends What The Meaning Of The Word 'Deficit' Is
August 20, 2003

Ann Coulter.org

Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War

SPEAKING AT the University of California in Los Angeles this week, California Gov. Gray Davis admitted he had made some mistakes and called the recall effort a "right-wing power grab." I guess Bill Clinton really is advising him. Proving Davis' "right-wing power grab" theory, the two men who are currently most likely to replace him are a tax-and-spend liberal who supports abortion and a tax-and-spend liberal who supports abortion.

One is Cruz Bustamante, Davis' lieutenant governor, who has displayed the Democrats' renowned tolerance and commitment to civil rights the Bob Byrd way – by using the n-word at a dinner celebrating Black History month. (You'd think the California Democrats could come up with a standard bearer to replace Davis who manages to avoid using racial slurs at a public gathering to celebrate black achievements.)

The other is Arnold Schwarzenegger, who quickly brought billionaire investor Warren Buffett on board as an adviser. Moments later, Buffett announced his enthusiasm for repealing Proposition 13 and raising taxes. In addition to high taxes, Buffett's other passion is abortion, proving once again that no one understands the little guy like a multi-billionaire.

Conservatives were wary of Schwarzenegger even before Tax 'em and Kill 'em Buffett joined the campaign. Schwarzenegger claims to be a fiscal conservative and a liberal on social issues. Historically, that means: "liberal." All politicians claim to be tax-cutting, fiscal conservatives when they are running for office. Bill Clinton did, promising a "middle-class tax cut." Then he raised taxes. George Herbert Walker Bush did, famously pledging that no matter how many times Congress came to him with a tax hike, he would say, "Read my lips, no new taxes." And then he raised taxes. So it's not a good sign when a politician isn't holding ticker-tape parades before the election showcasing his love of tax cuts.

Still, there are many arguments to be made in Schwarzenegger's favor. First of all, he's not Gray Davis. Thanks to Davis' fiscal wizardry, California is fast becoming a Third World country. Taxpayers are leaving the state in droves, sick of paying for government workers' Riviera retirement plans. In California, the fabulously rich support the poor with government jobs, paid for by the middle class – which is now living in Arizona.

It is puzzling why anyone would want to assume control of this fiasco. It's like vying to become Roseanne Barr's next husband. Sure you'd get your name in the paper, but look at the mess you'd be getting yourself into. And yet there are hundreds of Californians lining up to replace Gray Davis. There are even a few serious candidates like Tom McClintock and Bill Simon who do have plans that actually would save the Golden State.

At this stage, Schwarzenegger's main selling point is that he seems to have excellent name recognition with an electorate that already knowingly elected Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamante. Former child actor Gary Coleman would be a major improvement over Gray Davis. Indeed, among the nut candidates, probably only Arianna Huffington could drive the middle class from California faster than Gray Davis has, with this latter-day Norma Desmond gleefully spray-painting their SUVs on the way out.

Within days of his announcement, the media leapt on Schwarzenegger, demanding that he produce a detailed outline of his plan to save California from sinking into the ocean. Davis has been governor for five years and the watchdog media have yet to ask him what his plan is. In deciding to run, Arnold has already proven himself to be more decisive than Davis. In announcing that he didn't need anyone's money but his own, Arnold has proven himself to be of a different species than Gray Davis.

This leads to another positive about Schwarzenegger, which is that he's not Gray Davis. Literally millions of low-income immigrants are pouring into California without job skills or even language skills. If we were able to trick Mexico into taking California back, Los Angeles would have the second largest population of Mexicans in Mexico – only Mexico City would have more. While illegal immigrants generally work, they don't contribute to the income or property tax base. Their birth rates are far higher than other groups, so they consume a large portion of the state's health-care and welfare systems. As the tax base floods out legally, the taxpayer-dependents flood in illegally.

Davis responded to this crisis by virtually dismantling immigration enforcement in California. Law enforcement officials are prohibited from even asking people about their national origin. Davis fought Propositions 187 and 209 after the voters overwhelmingly approved them. Meanwhile, Arnold is the Republicans' kind of immigrant: legal. But the press is crucifying Arnold for voting "yes" on Proposition 187 back in 1994 – along with 60 percent of his fellow Californians. Apparently, this makes him "out of the mainstream."

In addition, it's important to note that Schwarzenegger is not Gray Davis. We're all reading tea leaves, but it must mean something that Schwarzenegger goes around calling himself a Republican. Jesse Ventura never called himself a Republican. Michael Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat who became a Republican only to run for mayor of New York. Northeastern liberal Republicans like John Lindsay called themselves Republicans because they associated the Democrats with the dirty working class.

Schwarzenegger is part of the Hollywood elite and is married to a Kennedy, and yet he calls himself a Republican. (In his defense, Schwarzenegger has no connection to Justice Anthony Kennedy.) You don't go around calling yourself a Republican in Hollywood to win admiring glances from studio executives. To take a page from the gays' handbook: "Who would choose this lifestyle? Who would choose to be persecuted, censored and ostracized?"

Schwarzenegger was the moving force behind Proposition 49 last year, a taxpayer-funded after-school program for students. Admittedly, that doesn't sound like the mark of a Milton Friedman conservative. But, curiously, Proposition 49 was opposed by all the right people, including the California Federation of Teachers, the League of Women Voters of California and the American Association of University Women. Supporting the proposition were the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Business Roundtable and various taxpayer groups.

It turns out that Schwarzenegger's after-school programs would be paid for out of the state's general fund – unless the fund dried up. The Parasite Lobby opposed the after-school programs on the grounds that it would reduce flexibility in government spending and divert money away from other needed programs – such as even bigger pensions for the parasites. Schwarzenegger's initiative basically required that some taxpayer money be spent on taxpayers. It's not as good as a tax cut, but at least Schwarzenegger is not Gray Davis.

EC: IMO, Tom McClintock is California's last hope. www.helptom.com

-- posted by DellaO