- ‹ previous
- 5330 of 8827
- next ›
The Numbers Add Up on U.S. Attorneys Firing Scandal
Let's review the numbers on the U.S. Attorneys scandal.
26 - The number of U.S. Attorneys that the DOJ targeted for dismissal, according to yesterday's reports. (That's roughly one in every four USA nationwide.)
9 - The number of U.S. Attorneys we previously knew had been targeted, and were either fired or resigned under pressure.
8 - The number of USAs Alberto Gonzales claimed in testimony to Congress composed the whole of the scandal.
6 - The number of Senate Republicans who have called for Gonzo's resignation.
And today you can add a new number to the list:
4 - The number of additional USAs the Washington Post reports this morning were also on the DOJ's hit list, bringing the total number of USAs targeted for firing to 30, roughly one-third of the entire U.S. Attorney team across the country.
Oh, and might as well add these, too:
1 - The number of no-confidence votes Senate Democrats will offer against Gonzales as early as next week.
0 - The amount of shame/credibility/integrity/respectability Alberto Gonzales has left.
Following my reading of the AP article last night (10-23-07) on the Union Leader's Web site of John Edwards' recent visit to Merrimack High School, I did all I could to keep my supper down and I could only form but one conclusion: Edwards is an abject panderer!
His visit and patronizing comments to a high school gathering of 'women's studies' and other impressionable students is an unabashed, unapologetic case of if 'He said it, and it made the news, it must be true!' propaganda. His political grandstanding here, there and everywhere is quite likely meant to grab and hold the attention and (vote?) of gullible, mis- and uninformed, special interest voters; and most likely those voters leaning toward electing his panderer-in-crime, Billary Clinton. I'll never understand how this gender biased tripe is allowed to make and permeate the political landscape and news wires. Never. It's pure political theatre. His pandering knows no limits, no shame and knows so little about the truth.
We all know, John, that only women are discriminated against in this and other countries; no men are ever discriminated against here, are they?: There's certainly no discrimination against men in pursuit of equal job and education opportunities in spite of Affirmative Action; a program which has to be the largest, longest running, form of government sanctioned discrimination (i.e. preferential treatment) against whites and males in this country's history over last 25-30 years.
Let's talk about healthcare focus and/ or funding: September/ October are ovarian cancer and breast cancer 'awareness' months. It seems these 'months' have been going on without end for at least 10-15 years straight and they're getting longer and stronger, ad nauseum. When is prostate cancer awareness month, John? What, you don't know either? Approximately 10,000 fewer men die of prostate cancer a year than women do of breast cancer and prostate cancer research funding is less than half that allotted by Uncle Sam to breast cancer research. The double funding for breast cancer doesn't even include the tens of millions raised, year after year, in corporate sponsorships dedicated to fighting breast cancer; everywhere I look, I see 'pink' for the cure on endless products for sale and likewise 'Go Red for Women' campaigns in every form of media. I'm all for healthy women but not at the mortal expense of men.
All the while, men lead the mortality rates in heart disease deaths AND in nearly every form of (non-gender specific) cancer case deaths. Men die, on average, 6 years sooner than women and it's women's health and issues that gets by far most of the corporate, government and public health institution (American Cancer Society, National Institute of Health et. al.) attention and funding.
On education: Men are a MINORITY of the American population (48-49%) and make up only 45% or so of college campus populations. There exist millions of married, divorced, separated and single women who make more than their similarly educated, qualified and situated male counterparts. Name one right an American man has that an American woman doesn't, John, just one. Thought so. While we're at it, John, what's your stance on male only registration for the draft, with only men being open to myriad financial, job opportunity and prison penalties for failing to register? Here's your truest opportunity to implement your words "?that the United States has a moral and legal obligation to treat women as equals to men."
I couldn't agree more with Edwards' statement here: "It's about time we actually treat women equally in the United States of America as a moral matter and matter of equality under the law." What a great sound bite, John; it's a bit shop worn but a good sound bite. Equal opportunities demand equal responsibilities. That's the truest form of "Equality Now!" and I'm all for it! At the same time, let's elect to end government patriarchy and especially on the political campaign trail. Give American women and girls some credit and confidence and stop painting them into corners of entitlement and 'victim hood.'
Please, John Edwards, go back from whence you came and take your propaganda and soaking wet, pandering, hogwash with you!
The AP article:
Edwards promotes women's rights during high school visit (most influential audience, especially the girls?)
By HOLLY RAMER
Associated Press Writer
MERRIMACK, N.H. (AP) -- Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards told high school students Tuesday that the United States has a moral and legal obligation to treat women as equals to men.
During a brief appearance at Merrimack High School, several members of a Women's Studies class stood to ask the former North Carolina senator to identify and propose solutions to the most prominent issues surrounding women's rights. Edwards said the issues he has focused on such as ending poverty and creating universal health care coverage are women's issues because they affect women in greater numbers than men.
"I want to be the president who is the most aggressive about enforcing our laws against discrimination against women," he said. "It's about time we actually treat women equally in the United States of America as a moral matter and matter of equality under the law."
Edwards cited pay equity as another major issue and criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision to limit the time workers have to sue their employers for pay discrimination. In May, the court threw out a Goodyear employee's complaint that she earned thousands of dollars less than her male counterparts, ruling that she filed it too late.
"How is it the woman is supposed to know? They've put the responsibility on her to figure out what the people around her are being paid. This is an example of a distorted view of the law," Edwards said. "When women are being discriminated against, they need to have an effective right to enforce the laws that prevent that discrimination."
The House voted in July to reverse the court's decision but the Senate has yet to take up the measure and the Bush administration has threatened to veto it. Three of Edwards' rivals - Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd - were among the sponsors of a Senate version of the bill.
Opponents of the bill argued that it would allow workers to bring claims decades after the alleged discrimination occurred and that the measure was designed to benefit trial lawyers - Edwards' former profession.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Following my reading of the AP article last night (10-23-07) on the Union Leader's Web site of John Edwards' recent visit to Merrimack High School, I did all I could to keep my supper down and I could only form but one conclusion: Edwards is an abject panderer!
His visit and patronizing comments to a high school gathering of 'women's studies' and other impressionable students is an unabashed, unapologetic case of if 'He said it, and it made the news, it must be true!' propaganda. His political grandstanding here, there and everywhere is quite likely meant to grab and hold the attention and (vote?) of gullible, mis- and uninformed, special interest voters; and most likely those voters leaning toward electing his panderer-in-crime, Billary Clinton. I'll never understand how this gender biased tripe is allowed to make and permeate the political landscape and news wires. Never. It's pure political theatre. His pandering knows no limits, no shame and knows so little about the truth.
We all know, John, that only women are discriminated against in this and other countries; no men are ever discriminated against here, are they?: There's certainly no discrimination against men in pursuit of equal job and education opportunities in spite of Affirmative Action; a program which has to be the largest, longest running, form of government sanctioned discrimination (i.e. preferential treatment) against whites and males in this country's history over last 25-30 years.
Let's talk about healthcare focus and/ or funding: September/ October are ovarian cancer and breast cancer 'awareness' months. It seems these 'months' have been going on without end for at least 10-15 years straight and they're getting longer and stronger, ad nauseum. When is prostate cancer awareness month, John? What, you don't know either? Approximately 10,000 fewer men die of prostate cancer a year than women do of breast cancer and prostate cancer research funding is less than half that allotted by Uncle Sam to breast cancer research. The double funding for breast cancer doesn't even include the tens of millions raised, year after year, in corporate sponsorships dedicated to fighting breast cancer; everywhere I look, I see 'pink' for the cure on endless products for sale and likewise 'Go Red for Women' campaigns in every form of media. I'm all for healthy women but not at the mortal expense of men.
All the while, men lead the mortality rates in heart disease deaths AND in nearly every form of (non-gender specific) cancer case deaths. Men die, on average, 6 years sooner than women and it's women's health and issues that gets by far most of the corporate, government and public health institution (American Cancer Society, National Institute of Health et. al.) attention and funding.
On education: Men are a MINORITY of the American population (48-49%) and make up only 45% or so of college campus populations. There exist millions of married, divorced, separated and single women who make more than their similarly educated, qualified and situated male counterparts. Name one right an American man has that an American woman doesn't, John, just one. Thought so. While we're at it, John, what's your stance on male only registration for the draft, with only men being open to myriad financial, job opportunity and prison penalties for failing to register? Here's your truest opportunity to implement your words "?that the United States has a moral and legal obligation to treat women as equals to men."
I couldn't agree more with Edwards' statement here: "It's about time we actually treat women equally in the United States of America as a moral matter and matter of equality under the law." What a great sound bite, John; it's a bit shop worn but a good sound bite. Equal opportunities demand equal responsibilities. That's the truest form of "Equality Now!" and I'm all for it! At the same time, let's elect to end government patriarchy and especially on the political campaign trail. Give American women and girls some credit and confidence and stop painting them into corners of entitlement and 'victim hood.'
Please, John Edwards, go back from whence you came and take your propaganda and soaking wet, pandering, hogwash with you!
The AP article:
Edwards promotes women's rights during high school visit (most influential audience, especially the girls?)
By HOLLY RAMER
Associated Press Writer
MERRIMACK, N.H. (AP) -- Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards told high school students Tuesday that the United States has a moral and legal obligation to treat women as equals to men.
During a brief appearance at Merrimack High School, several members of a Women's Studies class stood to ask the former North Carolina senator to identify and propose solutions to the most prominent issues surrounding women's rights. Edwards said the issues he has focused on such as ending poverty and creating universal health care coverage are women's issues because they affect women in greater numbers than men.
"I want to be the president who is the most aggressive about enforcing our laws against discrimination against women," he said. "It's about time we actually treat women equally in the United States of America as a moral matter and matter of equality under the law."
Edwards cited pay equity as another major issue and criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision to limit the time workers have to sue their employers for pay discrimination. In May, the court threw out a Goodyear employee's complaint that she earned thousands of dollars less than her male counterparts, ruling that she filed it too late.
"How is it the woman is supposed to know? They've put the responsibility on her to figure out what the people around her are being paid. This is an example of a distorted view of the law," Edwards said. "When women are being discriminated against, they need to have an effective right to enforce the laws that prevent that discrimination."
The House voted in July to reverse the court's decision but the Senate has yet to take up the measure and the Bush administration has threatened to veto it. Three of Edwards' rivals - Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd - were among the sponsors of a Senate version of the bill.
Opponents of the bill argued that it would allow workers to bring claims decades after the alleged discrimination occurred and that the measure was designed to benefit trial lawyers - Edwards' former profession.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Let's not forget the Federal AG in the Northern Marianas, fired at the behest of Abramoff.
Following my reading of the AP article last night (10-23-07) on the Union Leader's Web site of John Edwards' recent visit to Merrimack High School, I did all I could to keep my supper down and I could only form but one conclusion: Edwards is an abject panderer!
His visit and patronizing comments to a high school gathering of 'women's studies' and other impressionable students is an unabashed, unapologetic case of if 'He said it, and it made the news, it must be true!' propaganda. His political grandstanding here, there and everywhere is quite likely meant to grab and hold the attention and (vote?) of gullible, mis- and uninformed, special interest voters; and most likely those voters leaning toward electing his panderer-in-crime, Billary Clinton. I'll never understand how this gender biased tripe is allowed to make and permeate the political landscape and news wires. Never. It's pure political theatre. His pandering knows no limits, no shame and knows so little about the truth.
We all know, John, that only women are discriminated against in this and other countries; no men are ever discriminated against here, are they?: There's certainly no discrimination against men in pursuit of equal job and education opportunities in spite of Affirmative Action; a program which has to be the largest, longest running, form of government sanctioned discrimination (i.e. preferential treatment) against whites and males in this country's history over last 25-30 years.
Let's talk about healthcare focus and/ or funding: September/ October are ovarian cancer and breast cancer 'awareness' months. It seems these 'months' have been going on without end for at least 10-15 years straight and they're getting longer and stronger, ad nauseum. When is prostate cancer awareness month, John? What, you don't know either? Approximately 10,000 fewer men die of prostate cancer a year than women do of breast cancer and prostate cancer research funding is less than half that allotted by Uncle Sam to breast cancer research. The double funding for breast cancer doesn't even include the tens of millions raised, year after year, in corporate sponsorships dedicated to fighting breast cancer; everywhere I look, I see 'pink' for the cure on endless products for sale and likewise 'Go Red for Women' campaigns in every form of media. I'm all for healthy women but not at the mortal expense of men.
All the while, men lead the mortality rates in heart disease deaths AND in nearly every form of (non-gender specific) cancer case deaths. Men die, on average, 6 years sooner than women and it's women's health and issues that gets by far most of the corporate, government and public health institution (American Cancer Society, National Institute of Health et. al.) attention and funding.
On education: Men are a MINORITY of the American population (48-49%) and make up only 45% or so of college campus populations. There exist millions of married, divorced, separated and single women who make more than their similarly educated, qualified and situated male counterparts. Name one right an American man has that an American woman doesn't, John, just one. Thought so. While we're at it, John, what's your stance on male only registration for the draft, with only men being open to myriad financial, job opportunity and prison penalties for failing to register? Here's your truest opportunity to implement your words " that the United States has a moral and legal obligation to treat women as equals to men."
I couldn't agree more with Edwards' statement here: "It's about time we actually treat women equally in the United States of America as a moral matter and matter of equality under the law." What a great sound bite, John; it's a bit shop worn but a good sound bite. Equal opportunities demand equal responsibilities. That's the truest form of "Equality Now!" and I'm all for it! At the same time, let's elect to end government patriarchy and especially on the political campaign trail. Give American women and girls some credit and confidence and stop painting them into corners of entitlement and 'victim hood.'
Please, John Edwards, go back from whence you came and take your propaganda and soaking wet, pandering, hogwash with you!
The AP article:
Edwards promotes women's rights during high school visit (most influential audience, especially the girls?)
By HOLLY RAMER
Associated Press Writer
MERRIMACK, N.H. (AP) -- Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards told high school students Tuesday that the United States has a moral and legal obligation to treat women as equals to men.
During a brief appearance at Merrimack High School, several members of a Women's Studies class stood to ask the former North Carolina senator to identify and propose solutions to the most prominent issues surrounding women's rights. Edwards said the issues he has focused on such as ending poverty and creating universal health care coverage are women's issues because they affect women in greater numbers than men.
"I want to be the president who is the most aggressive about enforcing our laws against discrimination against women," he said. "It's about time we actually treat women equally in the United States of America as a moral matter and matter of equality under the law."
Edwards cited pay equity as another major issue and criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision to limit the time workers have to sue their employers for pay discrimination. In May, the court threw out a Goodyear employee's complaint that she earned thousands of dollars less than her male counterparts, ruling that she filed it too late.
"How is it the woman is supposed to know? They've put the responsibility on her to figure out what the people around her are being paid. This is an example of a distorted view of the law," Edwards said. "When women are being discriminated against, they need to have an effective right to enforce the laws that prevent that discrimination."
The House voted in July to reverse the court's decision but the Senate has yet to take up the measure and the Bush administration has threatened to veto it. Three of Edwards' rivals - Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd - were among the sponsors of a Senate version of the bill.
Opponents of the bill argued that it would allow workers to bring claims decades after the alleged discrimination occurred and that the measure was designed to benefit trial lawyers - Edwards' former profession.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.