----
You Might Be a Redneck...a different take
We have enjoyed the redneck jokes for years. It's time to take a reflective look at the core � beliefs of a culture that values home, family, country and God. If I had to stand before a dozen terrorists who threaten my life, I'd choose a half dozen or so rednecks to back me up. Tire irons, squirrel guns and grit -- that's what rednecks are made of. I hope I am one of those. If you feel the same, pass this on to your redneck friends. Ya'll know who ya ’ll are.
You might be a redneck if: It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, 'One nation, under God.'
You might be a redneck if: You've never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.
You might be a redneck if: You still say ' Christmas' instead of 'Winter Festival.'
You might be a redneck if: You bow your head when someone prays.
You might be a redneck if: You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.
You might be a redneck if: You treat our armed forces veterans with great respect, and always have.
You might be a redneck if: You've never burned an American flag, nor intend to.
You might be a redneck if: You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.
You might be a redneck if: You respect your elders and raised your kids to do the same.
You might be a redneck if: You'd give your last dollar to a friend.
If you got this email from me, it is because I believe that you, like me, have just enough Red Neck in you to have the same beliefs as those talked about in this email.
God Bless the USA !
�
Keep the fire burning, redneck friend.
IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM .
IN GOD WE TRUST
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Mark Story's LHL article about the "Fencing Posture"
I played my last softball game two years ago. I had just clumsily fell back when going after a fly ball and whip-lashed the back of my head onto the relatively soft grass in the outfield. I had a head injury (concussion and subdural brain hematoma). That was the first inning of a double header for the championship of the Columbus over 70 league. I was momentarily out and I know not if I exhibited the "Fencing Posture", but I continued and our team won the Championship. I think I helped.
After a subsequent few days in the hospital, when the spot was discovered and didn't go away, I thought that maybe it was better to live on doing other things than playing the game I dearly love. I was fortunate in that the hematoma went away on the follow-up brain scan 30 days later. Some are not that fortunate, and the bleeding expands and causes serious problems, even death.
A University of kentucky researcher may have hit upon something to tell coaches and authorities when it is too dangerous for these young players to continue playing immediately when they exhibit the "Fencing Posture" after a head injury.
SamKat
Please read the following story by Mark Story of the Lexington Herald Leader in today's newspaper:
Jobs | Cars | Homes | Apartment | Classifieds | Obituaries | Shopping | Discuss | e-Edition | Subscriber services
Sports - Sports Columnists - Mark Story
Sunday, Aug. 30, 2009
Comments (0) | Recommend (0)
YouTube videos help UK researcher identify concussions
Youtube 'knockout videos' reveal evidence of head injuries
Mark Story - Herald-Leader Sports Columnist
University of Kentucky researcher Jonathan Lifshitz may be about to dispel one of modern society's few ironclad certainties.
It has been a truth rarely debated that nothing productive ever comes from watching videos on YouTube.
Until now.
Charles Bertram | Staff
UK researcher Jonathan Lifshitz displayed a YouTube video of former Wildcat Myron Pryor delivering a crushing hit on Georgia's Mario Raley in a 2006 game, at the University of Kentucky Biomedical/Biological Sciences Research Building,
See an example of the fencing response
Lifshitz and associates may have discovered a way to help ensure the safety of football players and other athletes who suffer head injuries during athletic events.
And it all began from a bit of mindless fun watching clips of crushing tackles from football games on YouTube.
Lifshitz, a Ph.D working as an assistant professor in UK's Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Center, said he caught one of his assistants, Ario Hosseini, on the video-sharing Web site.
"Ario was watching big helmet-to-helmet tackles, some hits from MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) matches, things where guys got knocked out," Lifshitz said recently.
Seeing a teachable moment, Lifshitz encouraged Hosseini and other staffers to see if they could see anything in common from the "knockout hits" they were viewing on YouTube that might help detect symptoms of concussions.
Once they really started looking, they did.
After watching some three dozen "knockout videos" on YouTube, Lifshitz, a 35-year-old father of three, and his team kept noticing that frequently just after the blow to the head there was an involuntary movement of an arm into a position similar to the en garde pose in fencing.
They now call the phenomenon The Fencing Response.
You can see an example of "fencing" in a crushing hit Pittsburgh's Ryan Clark put on Baltimore's Willis McGahee in last season's AFC Championship Game.
"That was a massive helmet-on-helmet hit," Lifshitz said. "You can clearly see McGahee's arms fencing after the collision."
Another example of fencing was apparent when Kentucky defensive tackle Myron Pryor obliterated Georgia wide receiver Mario Raley on an inside screen play in UK's 2006 upset of the Bulldogs.
While on the ground immediately after the hit, you can observe Raley's left arm assuming the en garde posture.
"That wasn't a part of our study because we didn't know about the video at that time," Lifshitz said. "But it is a great example of 'fencing.'"
Of 35 YouTube videos that featured hits that Lifshitz and Co. knew yielded concussions, 66 percent of the people on the receiving end of the blows displayed fencing.
Next, the UK researchers used lab rats to see if the phenomenon also existed with them.
At moderate impact applied to the rats' heads, 39 of 44 showed a fencing response; at mild impact, zero of 19 rats did so.
Helping trainers say no
For a layman's explanation of why the fencing phenomenon occurs, Lifshitz said the impact on the part of the brain that causes a concussion also can affect a nearby area that controls arm movement.
Lifshitz said he hopes his study can help athletics trainers, especially at the high school level, by providing another objective criteria to say no if coaches and/or parents are pressing for a player who suffered a potential concussion to return to a game.
"If the trainer can say, 'No, he fenced and that's usually a sign of a concussion,' then that is one more weapon in the arsenal to make sure athletes aren't put in dangerous situations," Lifshitz said.
The UK researcher cautions that an absence of an arm assuming the fencing position after a blow to the head should not be taken as a certainty that the player has not suffered a concussion.
"If there is no fencing, there can still be a concussion," he said.
Jim Madaleno, UK's director of sports medicine and the head trainer for the Wildcats' football team, said he has notified other Southeastern Conference schools of the fencing posture study.
"I believe they are on to something," Madaleno said. "I do think there needs to be further study in terms of how (a fencing posture occurrence) translates into severity of injury and return-to-play decisions."
Madaleno said he is gathering several years of UK practice and game tape to turn over to Lifshitz for additional study.
In addition to football and other contact sports, Lifshitz believes knowledge of the fencing posture could be helpful to the U.S. military in deciding when to return service people who receive head injuries back to combat.
But in the short term, "I really hope we can get the word out to high school football trainers," Lifshitz said. "I think this could make a big difference for them in return-to-game (decisions)."
And to think: The whole study began with goofing off on YouTube.
Reach Mark Story at (859) 231-3230 or 1-800-950-6397, Ext. 3230, or mstory@herald-leader.com. Your e-mail could appear on the blog Read Mark Story's E-mail at Kentucky.com.
After a subsequent few days in the hospital, when the spot was discovered and didn't go away, I thought that maybe it was better to live on doing other things than playing the game I dearly love. I was fortunate in that the hematoma went away on the follow-up brain scan 30 days later. Some are not that fortunate, and the bleeding expands and causes serious problems, even death.
A University of kentucky researcher may have hit upon something to tell coaches and authorities when it is too dangerous for these young players to continue playing immediately when they exhibit the "Fencing Posture" after a head injury.
SamKat
Please read the following story by Mark Story of the Lexington Herald Leader in today's newspaper:
Jobs | Cars | Homes | Apartment | Classifieds | Obituaries | Shopping | Discuss | e-Edition | Subscriber services
Sports - Sports Columnists - Mark Story
Sunday, Aug. 30, 2009
Comments (0) | Recommend (0)
YouTube videos help UK researcher identify concussions
Youtube 'knockout videos' reveal evidence of head injuries
Mark Story - Herald-Leader Sports Columnist
University of Kentucky researcher Jonathan Lifshitz may be about to dispel one of modern society's few ironclad certainties.
It has been a truth rarely debated that nothing productive ever comes from watching videos on YouTube.
Until now.
Charles Bertram | Staff
UK researcher Jonathan Lifshitz displayed a YouTube video of former Wildcat Myron Pryor delivering a crushing hit on Georgia's Mario Raley in a 2006 game, at the University of Kentucky Biomedical/Biological Sciences Research Building,
See an example of the fencing response
Lifshitz and associates may have discovered a way to help ensure the safety of football players and other athletes who suffer head injuries during athletic events.
And it all began from a bit of mindless fun watching clips of crushing tackles from football games on YouTube.
Lifshitz, a Ph.D working as an assistant professor in UK's Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Center, said he caught one of his assistants, Ario Hosseini, on the video-sharing Web site.
"Ario was watching big helmet-to-helmet tackles, some hits from MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) matches, things where guys got knocked out," Lifshitz said recently.
Seeing a teachable moment, Lifshitz encouraged Hosseini and other staffers to see if they could see anything in common from the "knockout hits" they were viewing on YouTube that might help detect symptoms of concussions.
Once they really started looking, they did.
After watching some three dozen "knockout videos" on YouTube, Lifshitz, a 35-year-old father of three, and his team kept noticing that frequently just after the blow to the head there was an involuntary movement of an arm into a position similar to the en garde pose in fencing.
They now call the phenomenon The Fencing Response.
You can see an example of "fencing" in a crushing hit Pittsburgh's Ryan Clark put on Baltimore's Willis McGahee in last season's AFC Championship Game.
"That was a massive helmet-on-helmet hit," Lifshitz said. "You can clearly see McGahee's arms fencing after the collision."
Another example of fencing was apparent when Kentucky defensive tackle Myron Pryor obliterated Georgia wide receiver Mario Raley on an inside screen play in UK's 2006 upset of the Bulldogs.
While on the ground immediately after the hit, you can observe Raley's left arm assuming the en garde posture.
"That wasn't a part of our study because we didn't know about the video at that time," Lifshitz said. "But it is a great example of 'fencing.'"
Of 35 YouTube videos that featured hits that Lifshitz and Co. knew yielded concussions, 66 percent of the people on the receiving end of the blows displayed fencing.
Next, the UK researchers used lab rats to see if the phenomenon also existed with them.
At moderate impact applied to the rats' heads, 39 of 44 showed a fencing response; at mild impact, zero of 19 rats did so.
Helping trainers say no
For a layman's explanation of why the fencing phenomenon occurs, Lifshitz said the impact on the part of the brain that causes a concussion also can affect a nearby area that controls arm movement.
Lifshitz said he hopes his study can help athletics trainers, especially at the high school level, by providing another objective criteria to say no if coaches and/or parents are pressing for a player who suffered a potential concussion to return to a game.
"If the trainer can say, 'No, he fenced and that's usually a sign of a concussion,' then that is one more weapon in the arsenal to make sure athletes aren't put in dangerous situations," Lifshitz said.
The UK researcher cautions that an absence of an arm assuming the fencing position after a blow to the head should not be taken as a certainty that the player has not suffered a concussion.
"If there is no fencing, there can still be a concussion," he said.
Jim Madaleno, UK's director of sports medicine and the head trainer for the Wildcats' football team, said he has notified other Southeastern Conference schools of the fencing posture study.
"I believe they are on to something," Madaleno said. "I do think there needs to be further study in terms of how (a fencing posture occurrence) translates into severity of injury and return-to-play decisions."
Madaleno said he is gathering several years of UK practice and game tape to turn over to Lifshitz for additional study.
In addition to football and other contact sports, Lifshitz believes knowledge of the fencing posture could be helpful to the U.S. military in deciding when to return service people who receive head injuries back to combat.
But in the short term, "I really hope we can get the word out to high school football trainers," Lifshitz said. "I think this could make a big difference for them in return-to-game (decisions)."
And to think: The whole study began with goofing off on YouTube.
Reach Mark Story at (859) 231-3230 or 1-800-950-6397, Ext. 3230, or mstory@herald-leader.com. Your e-mail could appear on the blog Read Mark Story's E-mail at Kentucky.com.
Explaining death- Pat Richards Whitehead e-mail
I love the profound things of life, Pat. You bring a lot of them to my table. thanks!
----- Original Message -----
From: Patricia Whitehead
To: Sam Kegley
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 10:42 PM
Subject: What A Wonder Way To Explain Death
I have never heard it quite this way but it is a beautiful way to explain it!
~DEATH~
WHAT A WONDERFUL WAY
TO EXPLAIN IT ..
A sick man turned to his doctor as he was preparing to
Leave the examination room and said,
'Doctor, I am afraid to die.
Tell me what lies on the othe
r side.'
Very quietly, the doctor said, 'I don't know.'
'You don't know? You're a Christian man,
and don't know what's on the other side?'
The doctor was holding the handle of the door;
On the other side came a sound of scratching and whining,
And as he opened the door, a dog sprang into the room
And leaped on him with an eager show of gladness.
Turning to the patient, the doctor said,
'Did you notice my dog?
He's never been in this room before.
He didn't know what was inside.
He knew nothing except that his master was here,
And when the door opened, he sprang in without fear.
I know little of what is on the other side of death,
But I do know one thing...
I know my Master is there and that is enough.'
May today there be peace within you.
May you trust God
that you are exactly
Where you are meant to be.
I believe that friends
are quiet angels
Who lift us to our feet
when our wings
Have trouble remembering
how to fly.
----- Original Message -----
From: Patricia Whitehead
To: Sam Kegley
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 10:42 PM
Subject: What A Wonder Way To Explain Death
I have never heard it quite this way but it is a beautiful way to explain it!
~DEATH~
WHAT A WONDERFUL WAY
TO EXPLAIN IT ..
A sick man turned to his doctor as he was preparing to
Leave the examination room and said,
'Doctor, I am afraid to die.
Tell me what lies on the othe
r side.'
Very quietly, the doctor said, 'I don't know.'
'You don't know? You're a Christian man,
and don't know what's on the other side?'
The doctor was holding the handle of the door;
On the other side came a sound of scratching and whining,
And as he opened the door, a dog sprang into the room
And leaped on him with an eager show of gladness.
Turning to the patient, the doctor said,
'Did you notice my dog?
He's never been in this room before.
He didn't know what was inside.
He knew nothing except that his master was here,
And when the door opened, he sprang in without fear.
I know little of what is on the other side of death,
But I do know one thing...
I know my Master is there and that is enough.'
May today there be peace within you.
May you trust God
that you are exactly
Where you are meant to be.
I believe that friends
are quiet angels
Who lift us to our feet
when our wings
Have trouble remembering
how to fly.
Bill to control the internet- Thanks Marge.
____________________________________
Subj: oh boy......
CNET NEWS
August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were _alarmed_
(http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10200710-38.html) this spring when a U.S. Senate
bill _proposed_ (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:s.00773:)
handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from
the Internet. They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting
behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of
S.773 (_excerpt_
(http://www.politechbot.com/docs/rockefeller.revised.cybersecurity.draft.082709.pdf) ), which still appears to permit the president to
seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called
cybersecurity emergency
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity
emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's
necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a
federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a
requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be
managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its
vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the _Internet Security Alliance_
(http://www.isalliance.org/) , which counts representatives of Verizon,
Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what
authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector.
Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the
bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies
expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's
aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on
Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record
Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A
Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to
take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when
grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary
concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from
a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and
Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they _claimed_
(http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&Pr
essRelease_id=bb7223ef-1d78-4de4-b1d5-4cf54fc38662) it was vital to
protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at
all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights
and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in
Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President
Obama _acknowledged_ (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10252154-38.html)
that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to
disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be
created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains
empty, one top cybersecurity aide _has quit_
(http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/08/white-house-cyber-czar-quits.html) , and some wags have
begun to wonder why a government that _receives failing marks_
(http://news.cnet.com/DHS-scores-F-on-cybersecurity-report-card/2100-1009_3-6050520.html)
on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to
do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal
government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan"
from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of
hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national
cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review
will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal
review is finished worry _Lee Tien_ (http://www.eff.org/about/staff) , a
senior staff attorney with the _Electronic Frontier Foundation_
(http://www.eff.org/) in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal
government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks,
it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which
permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if
necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is
supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be
critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the
federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the
Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional
limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious
language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of
what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell
has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process
or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the
amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of
regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose,
and when the government would exercise control over your computers or
network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is
"supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we
believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be
counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity
perspective."
_http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-773_
(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-773)
Subj: oh boy......
CNET NEWS
August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were _alarmed_
(http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10200710-38.html) this spring when a U.S. Senate
bill _proposed_ (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:s.00773:)
handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from
the Internet. They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting
behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of
S.773 (_excerpt_
(http://www.politechbot.com/docs/rockefeller.revised.cybersecurity.draft.082709.pdf) ), which still appears to permit the president to
seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called
cybersecurity emergency
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity
emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's
necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a
federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a
requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be
managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its
vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the _Internet Security Alliance_
(http://www.isalliance.org/) , which counts representatives of Verizon,
Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what
authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector.
Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the
bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies
expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's
aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on
Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record
Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A
Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to
take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when
grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary
concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from
a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and
Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they _claimed_
(http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&Pr
essRelease_id=bb7223ef-1d78-4de4-b1d5-4cf54fc38662) it was vital to
protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at
all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights
and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in
Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President
Obama _acknowledged_ (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10252154-38.html)
that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to
disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be
created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains
empty, one top cybersecurity aide _has quit_
(http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/08/white-house-cyber-czar-quits.html) , and some wags have
begun to wonder why a government that _receives failing marks_
(http://news.cnet.com/DHS-scores-F-on-cybersecurity-report-card/2100-1009_3-6050520.html)
on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to
do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal
government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan"
from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of
hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national
cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review
will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal
review is finished worry _Lee Tien_ (http://www.eff.org/about/staff) , a
senior staff attorney with the _Electronic Frontier Foundation_
(http://www.eff.org/) in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal
government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks,
it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which
permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if
necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is
supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be
critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the
federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the
Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional
limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious
language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of
what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell
has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process
or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the
amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of
regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose,
and when the government would exercise control over your computers or
network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is
"supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we
believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be
counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity
perspective."
_http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-773_
(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-773)
Article on TK-Politician
*Remembering the Darker Side of Teddy Kennedy *
By Mona Charen
[image: Printer Friendly
Version]
[image:
Email this article]
[image: Share and bookmark this
article]
*http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |* The death of Sen. Edward Kennedy, we
are being told, should strengthen our resolve to act in a bipartisan
fashion. Many of the tributes, from former presidents and Republican
colleagues, have stressed the late senator's willingness to find "common
ground." Well, since ancient Rome we've been exhorted not to speak ill of
the dead. But neither should we completely disfigure the truth.
Before offering some less than hagiographic reflections on the late Sen.
Edward Kennedy (may he rest in peace), one pleasant memory: About a decade
ago, I was late for a party in northwest Washington D.C. — a neighborhood
not known for abundant parking spaces. After circling the block several
times, I spied a cramped space and determined that somehow I was going to
fit my minivan into it. Just then, a large man approached walking two
Portuguese Water Dogs. He stopped, saw my predicament, and proceeded to
guide me into the space with lots of laughter, encouragement, and a little
bit of teasing. I knew (obviously) that my Good Samaritan was the senior
senator from Massachusetts. I have no reason to think he recognized me.
So I have personal experience of Teddy Kennedy's charm and affability. The
many stories of his personal kindnesses to others (including those with whom
he disagreed politically) speak well of him — to a point. But Kennedy was a
politician who too often permitted his own sense of righteousness to
overwhelm the large reservoir of decency that he is reported to have
possessed. He could trample on conservatives with, it seems, hardly a pang
of conscience. He may have been the "great liberal lion" of the U.S. Senate,
but some of us cannot forget that his tactics were often low and
dishonorable.
Former President George W. Bush was characteristically gracious about
Kennedy ("a great man") in his comments since his death, but Kennedy went
after Bush utterly without scruple. Consider Kennedy's shrill attacks on
President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. In 2002, Sen. Kennedy himself had
said, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger,
that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass
destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." But just a year
later, Kennedy was saying, "This was made up in Texas, announced in January
to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going
to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud." In 2004, Kennedy
said, "Before the war, week after week after week we were told lie after lie
after lie after lie … the president's war is revealed as mindless, needless,
senseless, reckless."
Kennedy did not — perhaps could not — accept that the Bush administration
had made a good faith decision to use military force (as his brother did in
the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam). Instead, he contributed to conspiracy theories
about Bush's true motives. Echoing the most inflamed leftist websites,
Kennedy alleged that "the President and his senior aides began the march to
war in Iraq in the earliest days of the administration, long before the
terrorists struck this nation on 9/11."
When the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison came to light, disgust and abhorrence
were expressed pretty universally and certainly bipartisanly. But Kennedy,
unable to resist a cheap political shot, actually compared the U.S. to
Saddam Hussein, saying, "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture
chambers reopened under new management — U.S. management."
Sen. Kennedy's rhetorical ruthlessness was perhaps most famously displayed
within minutes of the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.
The world now knows that Bob Bork is one of the most intelligent, witty,
reasonable, and civilized men in America. But at the time, few knew anything
about him. Kennedy rushed to the Senate floor to introduce a grotesque
bogeyman: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced
into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters,
rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids,
schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists
could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the
Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom
the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual
rights that are the heart of our democracy."
Judge Bork recounted later that when he met privately with the senator,
Kennedy mumbled, "Nothing personal." When you have calumniated a man before
the entire world, you cannot claim that it isn't personal.
One hopes that the Kennedy family will find comfort in the days ahead. But I
cannot join those who uphold Teddy Kennedy as a model public servant, far
less as an exemplar of any sort of bipartisanship.
By Mona Charen
[image: Printer Friendly
Version]
[image:
Email this article]
[image: Share and bookmark this
article]
*http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |* The death of Sen. Edward Kennedy, we
are being told, should strengthen our resolve to act in a bipartisan
fashion. Many of the tributes, from former presidents and Republican
colleagues, have stressed the late senator's willingness to find "common
ground." Well, since ancient Rome we've been exhorted not to speak ill of
the dead. But neither should we completely disfigure the truth.
Before offering some less than hagiographic reflections on the late Sen.
Edward Kennedy (may he rest in peace), one pleasant memory: About a decade
ago, I was late for a party in northwest Washington D.C. — a neighborhood
not known for abundant parking spaces. After circling the block several
times, I spied a cramped space and determined that somehow I was going to
fit my minivan into it. Just then, a large man approached walking two
Portuguese Water Dogs. He stopped, saw my predicament, and proceeded to
guide me into the space with lots of laughter, encouragement, and a little
bit of teasing. I knew (obviously) that my Good Samaritan was the senior
senator from Massachusetts. I have no reason to think he recognized me.
So I have personal experience of Teddy Kennedy's charm and affability. The
many stories of his personal kindnesses to others (including those with whom
he disagreed politically) speak well of him — to a point. But Kennedy was a
politician who too often permitted his own sense of righteousness to
overwhelm the large reservoir of decency that he is reported to have
possessed. He could trample on conservatives with, it seems, hardly a pang
of conscience. He may have been the "great liberal lion" of the U.S. Senate,
but some of us cannot forget that his tactics were often low and
dishonorable.
Former President George W. Bush was characteristically gracious about
Kennedy ("a great man") in his comments since his death, but Kennedy went
after Bush utterly without scruple. Consider Kennedy's shrill attacks on
President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. In 2002, Sen. Kennedy himself had
said, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger,
that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass
destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." But just a year
later, Kennedy was saying, "This was made up in Texas, announced in January
to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going
to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud." In 2004, Kennedy
said, "Before the war, week after week after week we were told lie after lie
after lie after lie … the president's war is revealed as mindless, needless,
senseless, reckless."
Kennedy did not — perhaps could not — accept that the Bush administration
had made a good faith decision to use military force (as his brother did in
the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam). Instead, he contributed to conspiracy theories
about Bush's true motives. Echoing the most inflamed leftist websites,
Kennedy alleged that "the President and his senior aides began the march to
war in Iraq in the earliest days of the administration, long before the
terrorists struck this nation on 9/11."
When the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison came to light, disgust and abhorrence
were expressed pretty universally and certainly bipartisanly. But Kennedy,
unable to resist a cheap political shot, actually compared the U.S. to
Saddam Hussein, saying, "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture
chambers reopened under new management — U.S. management."
Sen. Kennedy's rhetorical ruthlessness was perhaps most famously displayed
within minutes of the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.
The world now knows that Bob Bork is one of the most intelligent, witty,
reasonable, and civilized men in America. But at the time, few knew anything
about him. Kennedy rushed to the Senate floor to introduce a grotesque
bogeyman: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced
into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters,
rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids,
schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists
could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the
Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom
the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual
rights that are the heart of our democracy."
Judge Bork recounted later that when he met privately with the senator,
Kennedy mumbled, "Nothing personal." When you have calumniated a man before
the entire world, you cannot claim that it isn't personal.
One hopes that the Kennedy family will find comfort in the days ahead. But I
cannot join those who uphold Teddy Kennedy as a model public servant, far
less as an exemplar of any sort of bipartisanship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)