Boston Globe
If the Bush administration succeeds in its latest request for funding for the war in Iraq, the total cost would rise to $611.5 billion, according to the National Priorities Project, a nonprofit research group.
The amount got us wondering: What would $611 billion buy?
Question the priorities here ...
Learn more about the National Priorities Project here ...
Monday, November 12, 2007
Food for thought
Modern Chemicals Brought Cancer Epidemic
First tobacco. Then asbestos. Now we're awash in a sea of new poisons.
by Pamela Weintraub / Discover
For those involved in the ongoing drama of cancer research, a pressing mystery remains: While treatments are better and survival times longer, there are far more newly diagnosed cancers than ever before. One reason for the upsurge, say experts, is a revolution in imaging. From MRI scans to digital mammograms, our high-tech wizardry makes tumors visible at ever smaller stages, so that we’re catching some that previously would not have come to light at all. Now comes Devra Davis, a preeminent cancer epidemiologist and environmentalist, to challenge that notion. The increase in cancer is real, she says, caused in large part by the daily allotment of poison that is the price of admission to our 21st-century world.
More following the click ...
First tobacco. Then asbestos. Now we're awash in a sea of new poisons.
by Pamela Weintraub / Discover
For those involved in the ongoing drama of cancer research, a pressing mystery remains: While treatments are better and survival times longer, there are far more newly diagnosed cancers than ever before. One reason for the upsurge, say experts, is a revolution in imaging. From MRI scans to digital mammograms, our high-tech wizardry makes tumors visible at ever smaller stages, so that we’re catching some that previously would not have come to light at all. Now comes Devra Davis, a preeminent cancer epidemiologist and environmentalist, to challenge that notion. The increase in cancer is real, she says, caused in large part by the daily allotment of poison that is the price of admission to our 21st-century world.
More following the click ...
So, who are we fighting, anyway?
Richard Dreyfuss on AntiWar
Who is the enemy? Who, exactly, are we fighting in Iraq? Why are we there? And what's our objective?
Nearly five years into the war, the answers to basic questions like these ought to be obvious. In the Alice in Wonderland-like wilderness of mirrors that is Iraq, though, they're anything but.
We aren't fighting the Sunnis. Not any more, anyway. Virtually the entire Sunni establishment, from the moderate Muslim Brotherhood-linked Iraqi Islamic Party (which has been part of every Iraqi government since 2003) to the Anbar tribal alliance (which has been begging for U.S. support since 2004 and only recently got it) is either actively cooperating with the American military or sullenly tolerating what it hopes will be a receding occupation. Across Sunni-dominated parts of Iraq, the United States is helping to build army and police units as well as neighborhood patrols – the Pentagon calls them "concerned citizens" – out of former resistance fighters, with the blessing of tribal leaders in Anbar, Diyala, and Salahuddin provinces, parts of Baghdad, and areas to the south of the capital. We have met the enemy, and – surprise! – they are friends or, if not that, at least not active enemies. Attacks on U.S. forces in Sunni-dominated areas, including the once-violent hotbed city of Ramadi, Anbar's capital, have fallen dramatically.
Among the hard-core Sunni resistance, there is also significant movement toward a political accord – if the United States were willing to accept it. Twenty-two Iraqi insurgent groups announced the creation of a united front, under the leadership of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a former top Ba'ath Party official of the Saddam era, and they have opened talks with Iyad Allawi, a secular Shia who was Iraq's first post-Saddam prime minister.
We aren't fighting the Shia. The Shia merchant class and elite, organized into the mostly pro-Iranian Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council and the Islamic Dawa Party, are part of the Iraqi government that the United States created and supports – and whose army and police are armed and trained by the United States. The far more popular forces of Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army aren't the enemy either. In late August, Sadr declared a cease-fire, ordering his militia to stand down; and, since then, attacks on U.S. forces in Shia-dominated areas of Iraq have fallen off very sharply, too. Though recent, provocative attacks by U.S. troops, in conjunction with Iraqi forces, on Sadr strongholds in Baghdad, Diwaniya, and Karbala have caused Sadr to threaten to cancel the cease-fire order, and though intra-Shia fighting is still occurring in many parts of southern Iraq, there is no Shia enemy that justifies a continued American presence in Iraq, either.
And we certainly aren't fighting the Kurds. For decades, the Kurds have been America's (and Israel's) closest allies in Iraq. Since 2003, the three Kurdish-dominated provinces have been relatively peaceful.
We're not exactly fighting al-Qaeda any more either. Despite President Bush's near-frantic efforts to portray the war in Iraq as a last-ditch, Alamo-like stand against Osama bin Laden's army, U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq are having a hard time finding pockets of al-Qaeda to attack these days, though the group still has the power to conduct deadly attacks now and then. In recent weeks, Gen. David Petraeus, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and other authorities have pretty much declared al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) dead and buried. That happy funeral is the result not of brilliant U.S. counterinsurgency efforts, but of the determination of our newfound Sunni allies to exterminate the group. No lesser authority than Gen. Petraeus himself now admits that al-Qaeda has been expelled from every single one of its strongholds in Baghdad. In Anbar province, according to Crocker, "People do feel the weight's off. Al-Qaeda is simply gone."
More after the click ...
Who is the enemy? Who, exactly, are we fighting in Iraq? Why are we there? And what's our objective?
Nearly five years into the war, the answers to basic questions like these ought to be obvious. In the Alice in Wonderland-like wilderness of mirrors that is Iraq, though, they're anything but.
We aren't fighting the Sunnis. Not any more, anyway. Virtually the entire Sunni establishment, from the moderate Muslim Brotherhood-linked Iraqi Islamic Party (which has been part of every Iraqi government since 2003) to the Anbar tribal alliance (which has been begging for U.S. support since 2004 and only recently got it) is either actively cooperating with the American military or sullenly tolerating what it hopes will be a receding occupation. Across Sunni-dominated parts of Iraq, the United States is helping to build army and police units as well as neighborhood patrols – the Pentagon calls them "concerned citizens" – out of former resistance fighters, with the blessing of tribal leaders in Anbar, Diyala, and Salahuddin provinces, parts of Baghdad, and areas to the south of the capital. We have met the enemy, and – surprise! – they are friends or, if not that, at least not active enemies. Attacks on U.S. forces in Sunni-dominated areas, including the once-violent hotbed city of Ramadi, Anbar's capital, have fallen dramatically.
Among the hard-core Sunni resistance, there is also significant movement toward a political accord – if the United States were willing to accept it. Twenty-two Iraqi insurgent groups announced the creation of a united front, under the leadership of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a former top Ba'ath Party official of the Saddam era, and they have opened talks with Iyad Allawi, a secular Shia who was Iraq's first post-Saddam prime minister.
We aren't fighting the Shia. The Shia merchant class and elite, organized into the mostly pro-Iranian Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council and the Islamic Dawa Party, are part of the Iraqi government that the United States created and supports – and whose army and police are armed and trained by the United States. The far more popular forces of Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army aren't the enemy either. In late August, Sadr declared a cease-fire, ordering his militia to stand down; and, since then, attacks on U.S. forces in Shia-dominated areas of Iraq have fallen off very sharply, too. Though recent, provocative attacks by U.S. troops, in conjunction with Iraqi forces, on Sadr strongholds in Baghdad, Diwaniya, and Karbala have caused Sadr to threaten to cancel the cease-fire order, and though intra-Shia fighting is still occurring in many parts of southern Iraq, there is no Shia enemy that justifies a continued American presence in Iraq, either.
And we certainly aren't fighting the Kurds. For decades, the Kurds have been America's (and Israel's) closest allies in Iraq. Since 2003, the three Kurdish-dominated provinces have been relatively peaceful.
We're not exactly fighting al-Qaeda any more either. Despite President Bush's near-frantic efforts to portray the war in Iraq as a last-ditch, Alamo-like stand against Osama bin Laden's army, U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq are having a hard time finding pockets of al-Qaeda to attack these days, though the group still has the power to conduct deadly attacks now and then. In recent weeks, Gen. David Petraeus, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and other authorities have pretty much declared al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) dead and buried. That happy funeral is the result not of brilliant U.S. counterinsurgency efforts, but of the determination of our newfound Sunni allies to exterminate the group. No lesser authority than Gen. Petraeus himself now admits that al-Qaeda has been expelled from every single one of its strongholds in Baghdad. In Anbar province, according to Crocker, "People do feel the weight's off. Al-Qaeda is simply gone."
More after the click ...
Sunday, November 11, 2007
The Psychology Behind Cults/Religion
from Hypnosis Control.com
Cults maintain their following by putting members through a cycle of ups and downs. There is a psychology behind these tactics and it is to exploit the the members and keep them dependent on the cult. This brainwashing is very effective and it is important for people to understand how it works.
To follow up from my last post let me reiterate:
From Wikipedia, “Cult roughly refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream.”
Thus all religions are cults. Whether or not a particular cult is considered a religion depends on the local customs and traditions of the area.
Read the rest after the click ...
Saturday, November 10, 2007
On Keeping One's Place
Catholic Bishops Say No to Women Priests, Yes to Hookers
by Angela Bonavoglia
My Google "Catholic" Alert today listed two articles in this order: "Women Warned Against Catholic Ordination," followed by "Catholic Bishop Backs Brothel Regulation."
That about sums it up. In yet another empty defense of the Catholic Church's blatant discrimination against women who it refuses to ordain, St. Louis, Missouri Archbishop Raymond Burke promised to excommunicate two Roman Catholic women who will be ordained priests in St. Louis on Sunday, November 11. The women are part of an energetic international movement called Roman Catholic Womenpriests, which has organized the ordination of Catholic women around the world, with the first U.S. ordinations, which I described in Salon, last year.
Burke also threatened to impose "additional disciplinary measures." To which one of the ordinands, Rose Marie Dunn Hudson, reportedly replied: "What is he going to do, burn us at the stake?"
Meanwhile, another Roman Catholic bishop in the City of Portsmouth, England, the Right Reverend Crispian Hollis, came out in support of legalized prostitution. He based his position on matters of health and safety and the fact that hooking has been with us "from time immemorial."
Yes, but so have women like the apostle Junia, the deacon Phoebe, and bishop Theodora who have been with us since time immemorial--or at least since the dawn of Christianity. Yet they remain conveniently invisible to the whole lot of this dysfunctional boys' club--Biblical and archaeological evidence be damned.
Sourced: Catholic Bishops Say No to Women Priests, Yes to Hookers
My comment: It's a matter of keeping one's priorities straight. Of course, using the word "straight" when referring to the church's hierarchy seems a little ironic.
by Angela Bonavoglia
My Google "Catholic" Alert today listed two articles in this order: "Women Warned Against Catholic Ordination," followed by "Catholic Bishop Backs Brothel Regulation."
That about sums it up. In yet another empty defense of the Catholic Church's blatant discrimination against women who it refuses to ordain, St. Louis, Missouri Archbishop Raymond Burke promised to excommunicate two Roman Catholic women who will be ordained priests in St. Louis on Sunday, November 11. The women are part of an energetic international movement called Roman Catholic Womenpriests, which has organized the ordination of Catholic women around the world, with the first U.S. ordinations, which I described in Salon, last year.
Burke also threatened to impose "additional disciplinary measures." To which one of the ordinands, Rose Marie Dunn Hudson, reportedly replied: "What is he going to do, burn us at the stake?"
Meanwhile, another Roman Catholic bishop in the City of Portsmouth, England, the Right Reverend Crispian Hollis, came out in support of legalized prostitution. He based his position on matters of health and safety and the fact that hooking has been with us "from time immemorial."
Yes, but so have women like the apostle Junia, the deacon Phoebe, and bishop Theodora who have been with us since time immemorial--or at least since the dawn of Christianity. Yet they remain conveniently invisible to the whole lot of this dysfunctional boys' club--Biblical and archaeological evidence be damned.
Sourced: Catholic Bishops Say No to Women Priests, Yes to Hookers
My comment: It's a matter of keeping one's priorities straight. Of course, using the word "straight" when referring to the church's hierarchy seems a little ironic.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Did you know? The media loves controversy ...
... and they're happy to make it up on slow news days.
It’s hard to say for sure when the “silly season” started in the media’s coverage of the presidential campaign. If there was a “serious season,” it was exceedingly short. I’m afraid I missed it.
But yesterday was unusually inane. A waitress at an Iowa diner noted that Hillary Clinton and her campaign aides had recently stopped by, but didn’t leave a tip. NPR picked up on the “story,” the New York Times called it a “potentially embarrassing mini-scandal,” and Drudge blared it above the fold. Soon after, NBC News and ABC News were trumpeting the story.
Clinton didn’t leave a tip? Does she hate working people? Is she out of touch? What does this say about her economic plan? What do her rivals think about this? Why won’t Barack Obama attack her over the issue? Is it too soon to put a poll in the field gauging the public’s reaction?
All of this breathless fascination was for naught. It turned out Clinton’s campaign did leave a tip with the manager for the entire serving staff. Clinton’s individual waitress didn’t know that, so there was a simple misunderstanding.
Check out the non-news ... and you believe everything you get in the newspapers and on TV ... right? This is right up there with the "Obama-hand-over-heart-NOT" trivia.
How about we focus on actual issues?
It’s hard to say for sure when the “silly season” started in the media’s coverage of the presidential campaign. If there was a “serious season,” it was exceedingly short. I’m afraid I missed it.
But yesterday was unusually inane. A waitress at an Iowa diner noted that Hillary Clinton and her campaign aides had recently stopped by, but didn’t leave a tip. NPR picked up on the “story,” the New York Times called it a “potentially embarrassing mini-scandal,” and Drudge blared it above the fold. Soon after, NBC News and ABC News were trumpeting the story.
Clinton didn’t leave a tip? Does she hate working people? Is she out of touch? What does this say about her economic plan? What do her rivals think about this? Why won’t Barack Obama attack her over the issue? Is it too soon to put a poll in the field gauging the public’s reaction?
All of this breathless fascination was for naught. It turned out Clinton’s campaign did leave a tip with the manager for the entire serving staff. Clinton’s individual waitress didn’t know that, so there was a simple misunderstanding.
Check out the non-news ... and you believe everything you get in the newspapers and on TV ... right? This is right up there with the "Obama-hand-over-heart-NOT" trivia.
How about we focus on actual issues?
Is a Vote for Rudy a Vote for War?
by Patrick J. Buchanan on AntiWar
Rudy Giuliani has made a "promise" not to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear capability, even if it requires U.S. military action. Though the U.S. Army is scrimping to meet recruitment goals, Rudy has pledged to add at least 10 new combat brigades.
Speaking to an Atlantic Bridge conference in London, Rudy called for NATO expansion to include Japan, India, Australia, Singapore and Israel. Has Rudy thought this through?
Why would Japan and Australia, each of which already has a U.S. commitment to come to its defense, commit to go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia if it invaded Estonia? For joining NATO would require them to treat an attack on Estonia, or any other NATO nation in Europe, as an attack upon themselves.
Why should the United States commit to war for India, which has territorial conflicts and has fought wars with China and Pakistan? What vital interest is it of ours who holds Kashmir? As for Israel, are American boys now to fight Hezbollah and Hamas?
While FDR talked to Stalin, Ike and JFK to Khrushchev, and Nixon to Mao, Rudy would not talk to any "enemies bent on our destruction or those who cannot deliver on their agreements." Would he be even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute? Answers Rudy, "America shouldn't be even-handed in dealing with ... an elected democracy ... and a group of terrorists."
If Rudy rivals McCain as the hawk's hawk in the Republican race, the foreign policy advisers he has signed up make the Vulcans of Bush look like Howard Zinn and Ramsey Clark.
Read the rest of the piece after the click ...
Rudy Giuliani has made a "promise" not to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear capability, even if it requires U.S. military action. Though the U.S. Army is scrimping to meet recruitment goals, Rudy has pledged to add at least 10 new combat brigades.
Speaking to an Atlantic Bridge conference in London, Rudy called for NATO expansion to include Japan, India, Australia, Singapore and Israel. Has Rudy thought this through?
Why would Japan and Australia, each of which already has a U.S. commitment to come to its defense, commit to go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia if it invaded Estonia? For joining NATO would require them to treat an attack on Estonia, or any other NATO nation in Europe, as an attack upon themselves.
Why should the United States commit to war for India, which has territorial conflicts and has fought wars with China and Pakistan? What vital interest is it of ours who holds Kashmir? As for Israel, are American boys now to fight Hezbollah and Hamas?
While FDR talked to Stalin, Ike and JFK to Khrushchev, and Nixon to Mao, Rudy would not talk to any "enemies bent on our destruction or those who cannot deliver on their agreements." Would he be even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute? Answers Rudy, "America shouldn't be even-handed in dealing with ... an elected democracy ... and a group of terrorists."
If Rudy rivals McCain as the hawk's hawk in the Republican race, the foreign policy advisers he has signed up make the Vulcans of Bush look like Howard Zinn and Ramsey Clark.
Read the rest of the piece after the click ...
Right Wing "Swiftboaters" are Alive and Well
Obama "refused to not only put his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, but refused to say the pledge."
Chain e-mail on Thursday, November 8th, 2007 in an e-mail circulated by many people.
Photo was taken during anthem, not pledge
A chain e-mail says a photograph shows Barack Obama is unpatriotic because he "refused" to say the Pledge of Allegiance and did not put his hand over his heart.
In the photograph, Barack Obama is standing in front of an American flag with his hands clasped just below his waist. Beside him are Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton, with their hands on their hearts.
The e-mail notes that Obama’s middle name is “Hussein” and says he “REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE.....how in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief????”
But the Time magazine photograph wasn’t taken during the Pledge of Allegiance; it was taken during the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
My comment: I guess outright lies are part of Family Values.
A dyed-in-the-wool Republican friend of mine forwarded the e-mail to me on 11/1 with an indignant note. That puts him pretty close to the beginning of the chain. I suggested there were far more significant issues at stake. Now that the truth is out, maybe the "hand-over-the-heart" thing is a significant issue. Lacking rational arguments to support their positions, the Right is at it again given the national disgrace we experienced in the "Swiftboating" of John Kerry in the run-up to the 2004 election. That strikes me as pretty significant. But, my god, don't these people ever learn. They fall for the same brand of hooie and horse-pucky every time. (Can you spell "g-u-l-l-i-b-l-e"?) You'd think they'd catch on eventually. Rather than checking the facts, it seems they'd rather embrace their negative fantasies. Rather than debate real issues, they'd rather hop on a bandwagon of lies and personal attacks. They get suckered every time.
I e-mailed my friend the link (above) to the St. Petersburg Times / Congressional Quarterly "PolitiFact" piece. I wonder if he forwarded it to the same list of people he sent the original piece to? What do you think?
Wither you're a Conservative Republican or a Liberal Democrat, I would hope that the truth and honesty are important values in your world.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Highway to Hell
Lets see if I've got this straight. Earlier in the campaign Rudy tore Ron Paul a new a$$h0^# for suggesting US foreign policy might have been a contributing factor in our nation being attacked on 9/11. Now he embraces Pat Robertson who said: "We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And, then we say 'why does this happen?' Well, why its happening is that God Almighty is lifting His protection from us"
Following reported by Andy Borowitz
One day after endorsing former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani for president, televangelist Pat Robertson explained his decision, saying that a Giuliani presidency features prominently in the Book of Revelation.
In his endorsement announcement the day before, Rev. Robertson had made reference to Mr. Giuliani's tenure as "America's Mayor," but did not indicate that the Republican frontrunner was a key player in the Bible's most apocalyptic book.
In his statement today, however, the televangelist made it clear that "in order for the Second Coming to occur, the world needs to end, and Rudy Giuliani is just the man for that job."
Rev. Robertson said that he was "confident" that within weeks of his inauguration, Mr. Giuliani would usher in the "end days" that are a staple of Bible prophecy.
In praising Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Robertson had critical words for the current resident of the White House, President George W. Bush: "President Bush got us on the road to Armageddon, but it's taking too darn long -- Rudy Giuliani will put us in the express lane."
While the Giuliani camp initially welcomed the endorsement of the influential evangelist, the former New York mayor seemed less enthusiastic today about being identified as one of the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse.
When asked by a reporter in Iowa about Mr. Robertson's comments today, Mr. Giuliani replied, "9/11."
Elsewhere, former Beatle Paul McCartney confirmed that he is dating a Metropolitan Transportation Authority board member, explaining, "Since my divorce from Heather, I've had to start taking the subway."
Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com. He hosts an all-new edition of "Next Week's News" starring Amy Sedaris. John Oliver (The Daily Show) and Christian Finnegan (VH1's Best Week Ever) at Comix on Thursday January 17 at 8 PM. Comix is located at 353 West 14th Street, just east of Ninth Avenue. For tickets, call 212-524-2500 or go to comixny.com. For a $5 discount, use the promotional code ANDY.
The Worst Economy in Our Lifetime
Yo - my "supply side" friends! I hope you're deliriously happy ...
"Republicans stand for "fiscal conservatism", meaning they believe in smaller government and balancing the books. At least, that's what they say. The underlying reality is far different. Bush has yet to balance a budget. In fact, he has yet to come close to balancing a budget. In fact, Bush has yet to even get moderately close to maybe possibly balancing the books one day."
"First, Bush has cut taxes twice -- once in 2001 and once in 2003. Working off the standard "supply-side" economic theory he thought this would create a huge wave of tax revenues. The problem is it didn't."
from Hal Stewart.
Check the charts while you're at it. One picture is worth 1,000 words.
Stewart: The Republicans are spending social security money now, hoping no one will notice. And so far they're getting away with it. But intra-governmental debt is still debt. It has a legal priority claim on government revenue and must eventually be paid."
Got a problem with that? Write your "borrow-'til-you're-blue" Republican congressman. It seems Republicans have never seen a buck they didn't want to borrow!
"Republicans stand for "fiscal conservatism", meaning they believe in smaller government and balancing the books. At least, that's what they say. The underlying reality is far different. Bush has yet to balance a budget. In fact, he has yet to come close to balancing a budget. In fact, Bush has yet to even get moderately close to maybe possibly balancing the books one day."
"First, Bush has cut taxes twice -- once in 2001 and once in 2003. Working off the standard "supply-side" economic theory he thought this would create a huge wave of tax revenues. The problem is it didn't."
from Hal Stewart.
Check the charts while you're at it. One picture is worth 1,000 words.
Stewart: The Republicans are spending social security money now, hoping no one will notice. And so far they're getting away with it. But intra-governmental debt is still debt. It has a legal priority claim on government revenue and must eventually be paid."
Got a problem with that? Write your "borrow-'til-you're-blue" Republican congressman. It seems Republicans have never seen a buck they didn't want to borrow!
The Machine is Us/ing Us
or get the video here.
Just under 5 minutes but an interesting introduction to HTML, XML, the Web and how it effects communication and us.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Former State Lawmaker?
Guess which political party* ... no ... really ... take a guess. Green? Socialist? How about Progressive? No .. really, take a guess!!!
PIERRE, S.D. - A former state lawmaker was convicted of raping two former foster daughters during physical examinations that he claimed would help them sell their reproductive eggs.
The jury on Tuesday found Ted Klaudt guilty of all four counts of second-degree rape after deliberating for three hours. Klaudt, 49, could get as many as 25 years in prison for each count when he is sentenced in January.
Circuit Judge James W. Anderson ordered Klaudt to undergo a psychosexual evaluation before sentencing, as required by state law.
Klaudt also is scheduled to stand trial next week for rape and other offenses in Corson County, where he lives.
Klaudt's attorney Tim Rensch didn't deny during the trial that his client gave the girls physical examinations or that they were part of a scheme by which the girls were told they could make thousands of dollars for selling their reproductive eggs.
Read the sordid rest here.
* Answer? You're right!!! You guessed it!!! Klaudt, a Republican served eight years in the state House from 1999 to 2006 and left because of term limits. He ran for a state Senate seat last year but lost to a Democrat.
PIERRE, S.D. - A former state lawmaker was convicted of raping two former foster daughters during physical examinations that he claimed would help them sell their reproductive eggs.
The jury on Tuesday found Ted Klaudt guilty of all four counts of second-degree rape after deliberating for three hours. Klaudt, 49, could get as many as 25 years in prison for each count when he is sentenced in January.
Circuit Judge James W. Anderson ordered Klaudt to undergo a psychosexual evaluation before sentencing, as required by state law.
Klaudt also is scheduled to stand trial next week for rape and other offenses in Corson County, where he lives.
Klaudt's attorney Tim Rensch didn't deny during the trial that his client gave the girls physical examinations or that they were part of a scheme by which the girls were told they could make thousands of dollars for selling their reproductive eggs.
Read the sordid rest here.
* Answer? You're right!!! You guessed it!!! Klaudt, a Republican served eight years in the state House from 1999 to 2006 and left because of term limits. He ran for a state Senate seat last year but lost to a Democrat.
Giuliani: Guts, Experience, Vision and His Own Facts. too!
Katie Levinson
Communications Director
Rudy Giuliani 2008
Dear Miss Levinson,
Rudy's been very good about reminding people every few minutes about how he heroically held press conferences on 9/11. And by now, most people know about how Rudy: single handedly protected New York from terrorist attack (most of the time anyway), waded into the smoke and debris at the World Trade Center to work on the clean-up; brought down the mob by torturing confessions out of suspects. But few people know about his other great accomplishments. I've created the following campaign posters to help you change that.
More Giuliani posters on Jesus' General.
Communications Director
Rudy Giuliani 2008
Dear Miss Levinson,
Rudy's been very good about reminding people every few minutes about how he heroically held press conferences on 9/11. And by now, most people know about how Rudy: single handedly protected New York from terrorist attack (most of the time anyway), waded into the smoke and debris at the World Trade Center to work on the clean-up; brought down the mob by torturing confessions out of suspects. But few people know about his other great accomplishments. I've created the following campaign posters to help you change that.
More Giuliani posters on Jesus' General.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)