You are looking at posts that were written on January 18th, 2008.
Posted on January 18th, 2008 by Mark.
Categories: Editorials, News, Politics.
I don’t know. I have to shake my head when I consider that Barack actually had the nerve to mention Ronald Reagan in a way that was able to be construed as favorable. I mean it just baffles. For many on the left, the name alone is akin to the antichrist.  Do I have to go through the short list of Reagan’s offenses against the left? Here was a union buster, engaged in shenanigans with Iran Contra, who subscribed to the economic disaster (at least from the left’s perspective) or “trickle down” economics. Did Barack not get the memo? What did he think his rivals would do?Â
Was taking a swipe at Bill Clinton such a priority that Barack just had to say, the hell with it, and make the comparison? All I can chalk this up to is the fact that Obama is supremely confident. I don’t care how he tries to explain it, some Dems will not forgive this offense. He must really like his chances, or maybe he’s savvy and is looking to make some points with Reagan loving independents. Whatever the reason, I have to tip the hat to Obama, the man has guts.
I happen to have loved Ronald Reagan. After Carter, it seemed as if the country needed someone like him to make things right. Sure the guy cut corners, made deals with Iran in exchange for the hostages and diminished organized labor by dispatching the air traffic controllers. Still, you had to love his charisma, his ability to communicate and the way in which he dealt with Russia during the last gasps of the Cold War. Unfortunately, liberals don’t reflect on Reagan with the kind of fondness that I do… which is bad for Obama.
Posted on January 18th, 2008 by Mark.
Categories: Editorials, News.
We all knew that the three youths that were attacked by the tiger in the San Francisco Zoo were likely taunting the animal. The lack of cooperation on the part of the surviving brothers more than hinted that something was amiss. Now comes additional information that one of the kids was drunk and all three had marijuana in their systems.Â
One of the three victims of San Francisco Zoo tiger attack was intoxicated and admitted to yelling and waving at the animal while standing atop the railing of the big cat enclosure, police said in court documents filed Thursday.
Toxicology results for Dhaliwal showed that his blood alcohol level was 0.16—twice the legal limit for driving, according to the affidavit. His 24-year-old brother, Kulbir, and Sousa also had alcohol in their blood but within the legal limit, Matthews wrote.
All three also had marijuana in their systems, Matthews said. Kulbir Dhaliwal told police that the three had smoked pot and each had “a couple shots of vodka” before leaving San Jose for the zoo on Christmas Day, the affidavit said.
Yes it’s all very tragic, both the loss of the young man and the killing of the tiger, but the tiger only took out what it perceived as threats. I’m sure that even in light of this information a hefty lawsuit will be filed by the “injured” parties. It’s a real shame that people are not held accountable for their stupidity.  While the enclosure was likely inadequate, if not for the actions of these individuals none of this would have happened. These weren’t innocent patrons minding their own business.
Zoo spokesman Sam Singer said he had not seen the documents but believed the victims did taunt the animal, even though they claim they hadn’t.
“Those brothers painted a completely different picture to the public and the press,” Singer said. “Now it’s starting to come out that what they said is not true.”
I hope that if the kids involved are awarded settlements, others in attendance in the park that day will in turn sue them for recklessly endangering their lives. That would be honest to goodness justice.  Â
Posted on January 18th, 2008 by Mark.
Categories: Editorials, Entertainment, News.
The sanctimonious, preachy, Dr. Phil has been under fire as of late for his involvement in the Britney Spears drama. Between investigations into whether or not he is practicing without a license in California and the whoring of information to the media, Dr. Phil has been under intense scrutiny. The fact that Dr. Phil McGraw is an opportunist and that his behavior is unsavory at best, is no surprise to most. What is surprising is that Dr. Phil isn’t licensed to practice in Texas either. Apparently, Dr. Phil was sanctioned by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists in 1989 after a client filed a complaint which claimed that their relationship was inappropriate. Dr. Phil of course denies any wrongdoing but it surely has to make you wonder. Is Dr. Phil licensed to practice anywhere?Â
Memo to Dr. Phil, you’re going to go and run your career into a ditch *snickers* if you keep bringing scrutiny upon yourself. It’s likely best that you keep your interventions to low profile housewives from middle america. It doesn’t bring the press, but it keeps the bills paid.
Now, I know that most won’t think this far, but what does all of this say about Oprah? Isn’t she the one that got this guy out there? Between the James Frey debacle, the allegations of sexual abuse at her school in South Africa and this news about past allegations against Dr. Phil, it seems her vetting process is lax. Does this woman research anything? She’s out there preaching, endorsing, what have you… and then stuff like this comes up. I’m just waiting for some skeleton to drop out of Obama’s closet so that the circle can be completed.
If you feel that you have a responsibility to people Oprah, then you ought to take it seriously!Â