Mood:
irritatedTopic: Lib Loser Stories
The bureaucrats in Tigard Oregon stopped giant construction project this week. Citing the lack of a building permit city officials stopped construction on a treehouse being built for a 5 year old cancer patient.
On Sunday, 5-year-old cancer patient Josh Brenneman took a first look at the mostly constructed dream treehouse that neighbors and friends built for him.
Late Tuesday, the city of Tigard ordered builders to stop construction of the three-story, 518-square-foot structure, saying that it lacked necessary permits.
And who is this going to affect?
Josh has been fighting cancer since October, when doctors found a tumor in one of his vertebrae. He has undergone 14 rounds of chemotherapy in Oregon and traveled to California for 31 radiation treatments.
People from across the southwest metro area have helped, including a group of inmates in an addiction recovery program at Oregon State Penitentiary, who raised about $2,250 to help with costs.
Don't you love government. They can't keep track of level three sex offenders but they can sure as hell dash the dreams of a little boy.
I sure love the way government protects us.
Tigard stops construction on treehouse for 5-year-old with cancer
Building department officials says they are processing permits quickly
TIGARD - On Sunday, 5-year-old cancer patient Josh Brenneman took a first look at the mostly constructed dream treehouse that neighbors and friends built for him.
Late Tuesday, the city of Tigard ordered builders to stop construction of the three-story, 518-square-foot structure, saying that it lacked necessary permits.
The city learned just how big the treehouse is this week, when a neighbor called with concerns about the safety of the tall, narrow structure, said Hap Watkins, inspection supervisor for the city's building department.
The city doesn't usually regulate treehouses -- most are made with nails and a few planks of wood -- but a free-standing structure such as Josh's requires a permit.
"We want it to be successful, too. We just want to make sure that the end result is safe" for Josh, said Gary Lampella, a Tigard building official.
The architect of the structure, Gregg Creighton of Lake Oswego, said a misunderstanding with a city building official two months ago was to blame for the stop-order. Creighton said he was glad that the city planned to move swiftly through the permit process.
"I told (the city) this treehouse was not going to be like other treehouses," he said, "but they said, 'If it's a play structure, we don't want to see it.' "
However, Creighton was "happy with how (the city is) handling it. Once I got down there with the pictures and the picture of little Josh standing there in front of it, they wanted to help."
Josh has been fighting cancer since October, when doctors found a tumor in one of his vertebrae. He has undergone 14 rounds of chemotherapy in Oregon and traveled to California for 31 radiation treatments.
People from across the southwest metro area have helped, including a group of inmates in an addiction recovery program at Oregon State Penitentiary, who raised about $2,250 to help with costs.
"We won't put it in line with the regular building permits," Lampella said. The city has asked for more information about the plans, but building could start up again in a few days, he said.
Joshua's father, Don Brenneman, said he was relieved to learn that the city was trying to be cooperative.
"There may be some hoops to jump through, but we'll make it through them," he said Wednesday. "We're doing all right, and Josh's house is going to be A-OK."
To read about Josh's treehouse, click here and scroll to "A dream under construction"
The Oregonian ~ Kate Taylor and Luciana Lopez ** Tigard stops construction on treehouse for 5-year-old with cancer
Posted by uhyw
at 4:30 PM EDT
Updated: Saturday, September 3, 2005 4:34 PM EDT
chatty
Mandatory evacuation ordered for New Orleans
NEW ORLEANS - In the face of a catastrophic Hurricane Katrina, a mandatory evacuation was ordered Sunday for New Orleans by Mayor Ray Nagin.
Acknowledging that large numbers of people, many of them stranded tourists, would be unable to leave, the city set up 10 places of last resort for people to go, including the Superdome.
The mayor called the order unprecedented and said anyone who could leave the city should. He exempted hotels from the evacuation order because airlines had already cancelled all flights.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.
"There doesn't seem to be any relief in sight," Blanco said.
She said Interstate 10, which was converted Saturday so that all lanes headed one-way out of town, was total gridlock.
"We are facing a storm that most of us have long feared," Nagin said.
The storm surge most likely could topple the city's levee system, which protect it from surrounding waters of Lake Pontchartrain, the Mississippi River and marshes, the mayor said. The bowl-shaped city must pump water out during normal times, and the hurricane threatened pump power.
Previous hurricanes evacuations in New Orleans were always voluntary, because so many people don't have the means of getting out. Some are too poor and there is always a French Quarter full of tourists who get caught.
"This is a once in a lifetime event," the mayor said. "The city of New Orleans has never seen a hurricane of this magnitude hit it directly," the mayor said.
He told those who had to move to the Superdome to come with enough food for several days and with blankets. He said it will be a very uncomfortable place and encouraged everybody who could to get out.
Nagin said police and firefighters would spread out throughout the city sounding sirens and using bullhorns to tell residents to get out. He also said police would have the authority to comandeer any vehicle or building that could be used for evacuation or shelter.
The Superdome was already taking in people with special problems. It opened about 8 a.m. and people on walkers, some with oxygen tanks, began checking in.
In a neighborhood in central city, a group of residents sat on a porch. It was almost a party atmosphere.
"We're not evacuating," said Julie Paul, 57. "None of us have any place to go. We're counting on the Superdome. That's our lifesaver."
She said they'd spent the last couple of hurricanes there. They would wait for a friend who has a van to take them, because none has cars.
At a nearby gas station, Linda Young, 37, was tanking up her car.
"I'm really scared. I've been through hurricanes, but this one scares me. I think everybody needs to get out," she said.
She said they planned to leave Saturday but couldn't get gas, and didn't want to go without it, so got up early and got in a gas line.
In the suburbs, evacuations were under way.
"That sun is shining too bright for this to be happening," said Joyce Tillis, manager of the Holiday Inn Select at the airport in the suburbs as she called the more than 140 guests to tell them the hotel was under a mandatory evacuation. "It's too nice a day."
Tillis lives inside the flood zone in the community of Avondale. She said she called her three daughters and told them to get out. "If I'm stuck, I'm stuck," Tillis said. "I'd rather save my second generation if I can."
cheeky
Payrolls grew 169,000 in August, jobless rate 4.9%
WASHINGTON - The nation's unemployment rate dipped to a four-year low of 4.9% in August as companies added 169,000 jobs, a sign that the labor market continued to gain traction before Hurricane Katrina struck.
The latest snapshot of the United States' jobs climate, released by the Labor Department on Friday, buttressed observations by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and his colleagues that the hiring situation was gradually improving — a bit of good news for workers as they headed into the Labor Day weekend.
But the future of the nation's employment picture is murky — clouded by fallout from the devastating hurricane.
Friday's figures don't reflect the impact of Katrina, which slammed into New Orleans and a swath of Gulf Coast communities, because the employment information was collected before the storm hit.
The 4.9% unemployment rate reported for August was down a notch from July's 5% rate and was the lowest since August 2001.
"The economy is motoring along and we are indeed creating more than a decent amount of jobs. But there are a number of hurdles that lie in our path of prosperity — record energy prices and the economic consequences of Hurricane Katrina," said Richard Yamarone, economist at Argus Research.
On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrials lost 12.26 points to close at 10,447.37. The Standard & Poor's 500 index lost 3.57, or 0.3%, to 1218.02. The Nasdaq composite index dropped 6.83, or 0.3%, to 2141.07.
For the week, the Dow rose 0.5; the S&P gained 1.1%; and the Nasdaq rose 1.0%.
President Bush, whose job approval ratings have been sinking in recent polls, has been confronted by new economic challenges from Hurricane Katrina, which has catapulted lofty gasoline and other energy prices even higher.
Many economists believe the hurricane's fallout will slow overall economic growth in the months ahead as higher energy prices crimp consumers' and businesses' appetite to spend. Some believe growth in the final quarter of this year could come in at an anemic pace of around 2%.
Businesses around the country are expected to become more cautious in their hiring. Some economists predict that September's employment report will show the nation's payrolls shrinking and the unemployment rate rising. The government releases September's report early next month.
Hundreds of thousands of people have been thrust out of work in parts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama because of Katrina. The situation probably will propel area unemployment rates now in the single digits to the double digits in coming months — even when one accounts for employment gains from rebuilding efforts, economists said.
Against the backdrop of economic uncertainty created by the hurricane and skyrocketing energy prices, a growing number of economists believe the Federal Reserve may decide to hold interest rates steady at its next meeting on Sept. 20. Others, however, continue to predict another quarter-point rate increase.
In Friday's report, U.S. employers added 169,000 jobs in August, reflecting increased employment in industries, including construction, professional and business services, health care and education, and financial activities. But manufacturers shed jobs for the third straight month, reflecting the industry's sometimes bumpy road to recovery from the 2001 recession.
Also encouraging was that payroll gains were revised up for both June and July. Employers in July added 242,000 jobs, an improvement from the government's initial estimate of 207,000 net job gains. For June, 175,000 jobs were added, up from a previous estimate of a 166,000 jobs gain.
The payroll gain of 169,000 reported for August was less than the 190,000 new jobs some economists were forecasting before the release of the report. Economists were predicting the unemployment would hold steady at July's 5% rate.
Professional and business services added 29,000 jobs in August. Financial companies added 15,000. Education and health services expanded employment by 43,000. Leisure and hospitality added 34,000 jobs. Retailers added close to 12,000 during the month. Construction companies boosted payrolls by 25,000.
But factories cut another 14,000 jobs in August. Auto makers accounted for the biggest chunk of those job losses.
The labor market is the one part of the economy that has had difficulty getting back to full throttle after the 2001 recession.
Jobseekers still face challenges. The report showed that the average time that the 7.4 million unemployed spent searching for work in August was 18.9 weeks, up from 17.6 weeks in July.
Those who do have jobs are seeing wages rising. Average weekly earnings climbed to $544.59 in August, up from $543.92 in July. The figures aren't adjusted for inflation.
loud
In an unusually somber and long debate, 18 Democrats took the floor. They portrayed opening marriage to gays as the natural evolution of an institution that once was based on property and prohibited interracial unions. They noted that California's marriage law was neutral on gender from 1850 until 1977.
"Those of us who are heterosexual need to say this very clearly: It is not fair that we have given ourselves a privilege that we've denied to others," said Sen. Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont).
Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) spoke of her 20-year lesbian relationship, and Kuehl recalled the joy she saw in gay couples she married last spring during the period when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom authorized gay unions.
Sen. Edward Vincent (D-Inglewood), who is black, recalled the struggles he faced when he married a white woman. "When we were slaves, we couldn't marry nobody," Vincent said.
Only two Republicans spoke, and both said that gay marriage would distort the best arrangement for raising children: by a woman and man.
Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) said he believed that homosexuals should be allowed to enter into civil contracts. "But can't you see that marriage is a fundamentally different institution?" he asked. "Marriage institutionally exists in nature by which we propagate our species and inculcate our young with values and standards and sociological guidance that produces human society.
"If we repealed all the laws of the world," McClintock said, "marriage would still exist."
Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Murrieta) said: "I don't believe there's a member in this chamber who doesn't somewhere, either readily on the surface or down inside, know that this is not the right thing to do. I believe that comes from a higher power that put that knowledge in you. That higher power is also the higher power that created the institution of marriage."
The comments brought retorts from Democrats who said gays had already shown themselves capable of raising children. They also quoted passages of tolerance from the Bible.
"I respect the choices you make. I struggle every day to understand them," said Sen. Carole Migden (D-San Francisco), a lesbian. "But I don't presume to judge you, to think it's my right to interfere with your interpretation of your love."
Advocates have been heartened by the July decisions by Spain and Canada to legalize gay marriage, following the Netherlands and Belgium. Seth Kilbourn, director of the marriage project at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group based in Washington, D.C., said the Senate's action was "another teachable moment for the rest of the country" that demonstrated "after a considered, rational and reasonable debate that people will come down on the side of treating all families equally under the law."
Leno said he hopes the Assembly will take up his measure, AB 849, on Tuesday. Supporters will need 41 votes for passage but were able to muster only 37 in June.
Leno said one assemblyman absent that day, Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton), supports the bill.
Leno said he and Alice Huffman, California president of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, and Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America, are lobbying for passage in the Assembly.
"We're making history," he said. "It doesn't happen easily."
d'oh
Hillary Clinton Lead Drops
Hillary Clinton's lead over her possible Republican Senate challengers in New York is dwindling.
A survey by Siena College found that Sen. Clinton's lead over Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro had shrunk from 26 percentage points a month ago to 21 points by late August.
Her lead over Manhattan attorney Edward Cox is down from 30 percentage points to 23, NY1 News reports.
Jon Corzine (left), Carla Katz (center), and Bill Michaelcheck (right) at the Pierre Hotel, Annual Paradise Ball 2002 >>>>>
WASHINGTON - An ethics complaint alleging that Sen. Jon Corzine failed to disclose a $470,000 mortgage loan made in 2002 to a powerful state union boss, who was his girlfriend at the time, was filed yesterday with the Senate Ethics Committee by a public-interest lawyer. Corzine, a New Jersey Democrat, forgave the loan in 2004, just days before he announced that he was running for governor of New Jersey. Corzine, who made millions when he was the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, later received the union's endorsement.
The last time that the committee took action against a senator after an investigation was in 2002, when Robert Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat, was accused of violating ethics rules by accepting gifts without disclosing them.
The panel ultimately admonished Torricelli, and he dropped his re-election bid.
"Robert Torricelli was caught taking bribes and not disclosing them and Jon Corzine has been caught giving bribes and not disclosing them," said Carl Mayer, the public-interest lawyer in New Jersey who filed the complaint.
Corzine said yesterday that he will cooperate fully with the committee.
He sent a letter to Sens. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and Tim Johnson, D-S.D., the panel's chairman and vice chairman, asking for "a fair and professional review of the matter as quickly as possible."
"The loan was of a personal nature, and there was no requirement for it to be listed on his annual Senate disclosure forms," Corzine's office said in a statement.
"The loan, which he subsequently forgave, was never an asset held for income or investment, but a loan to a personal friend," the statement said.
The loan was given to Carla Katz, the president of Communications Workers of America Local 1034, when the two were dating.
The union represents 9,000 New Jersey state employees.
silly
Huh? Since when did proving one is a U.S. citizen, in order to vote, become the subject of 'disenfranchisement'? I'm guessing it was when Jesse Jackson began to speak. I'm also presuming the "d" word may have been his first, followed immediately by the "r" word. If nothing else, Jackson and the other New Democrat leftists are predictable. Note: At a bare minimum, I wish they'd get some new script writers.
The original 'disenfranchisement argument' apparently didn't work. So now, firebrand Julian Bond and his greater-than-ever leftist lunatic leadership of the NAACP have decided to use another ploy in order to block the elimination of voter fraud.
Bond and his boys are now saying that the small fee charged for a picture ID should be compared to Jim Crow laws. Hmmm. That doesn't make any sense. The long-ago overturned and disreputable "Jim Crow" laws were legislations passed during the Reconstruction period after the American Civil War. They established segregation between whites and blacks.
However, everyone would be required to present picture IDs before voting, and as all races in the U.S. vote with one another, what this has to do with segregation remains a mystery. This has nothing to do with Jim Crow. Rather, it is just another Democrat vehicle employed to stir up additional racial hatred of others; or the loathing of those who are not New Democrats. When in doubt, always use the racist card-'eh Mr. Bond?
Bond further stated: "Minority voters bear the brunt of every form of disenfranchisement, including pernicious efforts to keep them away from the polls." Then Bond lackey, NAACP President and CEO Bruce S. Gordon, issued the statement: "If left unchallenged, many African-Americans and other minorities in Georgia will find it difficult to cast their ballots. I will call on a coalition of civil rights groups to join us in challenging the Georgia law." Translation: In Dem-speak, what this really means is "If we can't continue to commit fraud, we won't have an ice cube's chance in Hell of winning!"
Mr. Bond has also said that the NAACP lawsuits against Georgia requiring proof that voters are legally able to vote will be filed under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Again, how dare the State of Georgia (or any other U.S. State for that matter) compel voters to prove they are U.S. citizens? Why, to listen to the Democrats, everyone from every country should be able to come to the U.S. to vote, or to have registrars send out absentee ballots to all non-citizens around the world. That's the Democrat's way.
Good grief! The disingenuousness of the NAACP's actions is that, if Bond and his Boys really wanted to stop fraud, they would welcome picture identification. But they don't want it to stop. In fact, they'll fight any and all attempts to stop it. For decades, voter fraud had kept Democrats in political office and power. Let's face it folks, they want it to continue. Now, however, their power is on the wane, and from the mouths of the Democrat-run NAACP leadership, they will say and do anything to get it back.
Democrat's Religion Gap Grows
A new poll shows a widening "religion gap" for Democrats. The percentage of Americans who think the Democrats are friendly toward religion is plummeting even though their leaders are saying things like "religious and moral values are an antidote to teenage sex," as Hillary Clinton did at a New York gathering in January. Carroll Doherty of Pew Research has the findings.
"The percentage who says that Democrats are friendly to religion has gone from 40 percent last August to 29 percent in the current survey, which has to be worrisome to a lot of Democrats."
The Democratic National Committee hired a full time consultant to help them speak to people of faith but seem to be genuinely puzzled that their message of care for the poor is not resonating with religious Americans. Luis Miranda of the DNC seems to suggest that they are hoping you already share their beliefs but just not know it yet.
"You talk to some of these folks and they say, "Look, I'm pro-life. But if my neighbor gets herself in a fix, I don't know that I'd have anything to say about it if she felt that abortion was the right decision for her. Well you know, we would consider her pro-choice but she considers herself pro-life."
When Democrats talk of their religion they tend to refer to social issues like caring for the poor and providing adequate health care. But Gary Bauer of American Values contends the public generally "does not think that one party cares about the poor and the other party doesn't."
"That issue, I think, ends up then for voters of faith not being the kind of cutting edge issue that leads them to choose one party over the other."
He says if the Democrats really want to speak to people of faith, they need to stop being shills for radical pro-abortion and homosexual rights groups. Meanwhile, Miranda says the effort to reach out to people of faith will continue but the message will not change. Democrats lost the faith vote by almost 30 points in 2004.
Are boys better off without fathers?
Peggy Drexler's new book, "Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men," contends that father-absent homes -- particularly "single mother by choice" and lesbian homes -- are the best environments for boys. While "Raising Boys" may seem like a harmless, feel-good affirmation for "maverick moms," it could have a damaging impact on children by affecting both the choices women make and family law.
Drexler, who is in San Francisco this week for book signings and related events, contends that sons from fatherless families "grow up emotionally stronger," "have a wider range of interests and friendships" and "appear more at ease in situations of conflict" than boys from "traditional" (i.e., father- present) households. Her research, however, is flawed.
For one, the families she studied were those who volunteered to have their lives intimately scrutinized over a multiyear period -- a self- selected sample not representative of the average fatherless family. Also, Drexler's research suffers from confirmatory bias. Drexler is a passionate advocate for single and lesbian mothers. She personally conducted interviews of several dozen single and lesbian mothers and their sons in order to examine their family lives and -- no surprise -- found them to her liking. But while "Raising Boys" praises father-absent households for instilling in boys many intangible, difficult-to-measure qualities, an examination of objective measures of child well-being belies Drexler's rose-colored image of fatherless families.
Numerous studies show that the rates of the four major youth pathologies -- juvenile crime, teen pregnancy, teen drug abuse and school dropouts -- are tightly correlated with fatherlessness. For example, a 1998 study published in the Journal of Marriage and the Family showed that even after controlling for all major socioeconomic factors, including income, teens not living with their fathers were twice as likely to abuse drugs as those living in intact, two-parent married families. Likewise, according to findings presented to the American Sociological Association in 1998, after eliminating all socioeconomic differences, boys who grew up outside of intact marriages were still more than twice as likely to end up in jail as those in intact homes.
While Drexler waxes poetic about fatherless parenting, she makes little attempt to explain why it results in bad outcomes for so many kids. Counterposed to the fathers she says boys don't need, Drexler holds up a wide collection of males -- "grandfathers, godfathers, uncles, family friends, coaches" -- who, she assures us, can "provide figures for horsing around, mentoring," etc. for the boys of female-headed households. She enthuses that these boys enjoy "more male figures in their lives than boys from traditional families."
But more does not mean better, and a group of men with little stake in a boy's life are a poor substitute for a father's love and devotion to his children. Certainly many fatherless boys grow up to become fine men, but the best way for a boy to learn how to become a good husband and father is to watch his father do it. (It is telling that the first benefit Drexler cites that male figures can provide for boys is someone for "horsing around.")
Drexler is correct that many single and lesbian mothers can and do effectively raise boys, just as there are many traditional couples who can't. But as a 2002 study by the Heritage Foundation along with many others demonstrate, children raised by a mother and a father fare much better, on average, than children raised by single mothers. Drexler encourages women to choose to have fatherless children, a choice that is not usually in children's best interests.
"Raising Boys" also has serious implications for family law. The most damaging part of divorce for children is the way some custodial parents -- usually the mother -- cut the noncustodial parent out of their children's lives. While this is at times done out of legitimate concern for the children's well-being, too often it is brought about by anger or shortsightedness. Visitation is often interfered with, kept to a minimum or denied altogether, and some divorcing mothers relocate not out of necessity but instead to remove fathers from their children's lives.
As evidenced by last year's California Supreme Court ruling in the LaMusga relocation case, family law is moving toward a greater respect for and protection of the loving bonds children of divorce share with their fathers. Drexler cites the potential impact of "Raising Boys" on child-custody cases, yet her flawed research could become the underpinnings of a new trend toward pushing fathers away from their children. That's the last thing our boys (and girls) need.
Origional column from the libtard fruitcake herself...