Define Irony, John Edwards Charges UC Davis $55K for Speech on Poverty

Define irony … we believe John Edwards may just have. You know you just cant make this stuff up. Mr. Two Americas, Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards, charged the tax payer funded UC Davis $55,000 to make a speech on poverty. How do the rich get richer? They do so by getting paid to talk about poverty, at the expense of tax payers. Absolutely incredible and the WTF segment of the day. Then again, what should we expect from an attorney, wannabe Democratic candidate politician.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who as a Democratic presidential candidate recently proposed an educational policy that urged “every financial barrier” be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself — as a high paid speaker, his financial records show.

The candidate charged a whopping $55,000 to speak at to a crowd of 1,787 the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006 last year, Joe Martin, the public relations officer for the campus’ Mondavi Center confirmed Monday. (SF Chronicle)

I guess we know what America that John Edwards is a part of. The hypocrisy and lack of shame is simply incredible. One really has to question the judgement and greediness of a Presidential wannabe who would actually charge an institution a fee for the very thing that one discusses in their message. If it did not actually occur it would actually be a bad joke.

(Speeches on poverty at tax payers expense needed to pay for the mortgage of the John Edwards estate)

That could cause both parents and students to note some irony here: UC Davis — like the rest of the public University of California system — will get hit this year by a 7 percent tuition increase that likely hits many of the kids his speeches are aimed at helping.

Edwards spoke to at least two other California universities and colleges, both private.

He appeared at Stanford University, where he spoke on April 26, 2006; the Palo Alto institution paid him $40,000 to deliver his talks, according to financial records. And Edwards also headlined at the former University of Judaism — today the American Jewish University — in Los Angeles on Jan. 30, 2006, where he debated former Speaker Newt Gingrich before about 5,000 people. According to financial documents, the candidate received a fee of $40,000 at that appearance.

And the college and university gigs apparently added up on the bottom line for Edwards.

Hypocrisy of Politicians Continues … State Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, Rear Ends Driver While Talking on Cell Phone

The do as we say, not as we do hypocrisy if politicians in this country continues. What a shame that politicians do do uphold the same standards that they vote for and inflict upon us, “We the People”. On Friday, California State Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, while driving her new state-issued 2007 Toyota Highlander Hybrid SUV rear-ended Ellen Butawan, 31, of Vallejo. The cause of the accident was that Migden was talking on her cell phone. The hypocrisy … Midgen voted for cell phone ban while driving.    

Migden last year voted for a new law that takes effect in July 2008 that will impose a minimum fine of $20 for anyone caught using a cell phone while driving without a headset, ear bud or other technology that frees both hands. (Times-Herald)

An Inconvenient Truth Propaganda in the Classroom?

The problem with education today is not what is being taught, it is how it is being taught.

If you are molding the minds of young students and are an honest person, you need to take the information, make sure that you are not only instilling your own beliefs, and do your best to provide accurate and unbiased information. If you think this is going on in schools today, you have another thing coming.

An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gores film on environmental cataclysm, is being shown to students across the country as the definitive work on Global Warming and climate change. I do not care where you fall on the Global Warming debate, the film was created as a propaganda tool and even the most pro global warming scientists are uncomfortable with the presentation by Gore, a politician not a scientist.

But students across the world will take the film and believe it as fact. No explanation that this is theory, no explanation that the movie was made by politicians trying to paint the broadest and most dangerous picture they can, just the film and an explanation that it is the best source on global warming. If you are not going to provide balance to propaganda as a teacher you are even more guilty than the propagandists themselves.

And that is just wrong.

“I really don’t understand why they keep showing it,” says McKenzie (his parents asked that his last name not be used). “I’ve spoken to the principal about it, and he said that teachers are instructed to present it as a debate. But every time we’ve seen it, well, one teacher said this is basically a two-sided debate, but this movie really gives you the best idea of what’s going on.”
McKenzie says he has educated himself enough about both sides of the climate- change controversy to know that the Al Gore movie is too one-sided to be taught as fact. Even scientists who back Mr. Gore’s message admit they’re uncomfortable with liberties the politician takes with “science” in the film. But, McKenzie says most of his classmates are credulous. His teachers are not much more discerning. “They don’t know there’s another side to the argument,” he says. McKenzie’s mother was outraged to find out that Mr. Gore’s film was being presented as fact in her son’s classroom. “This is just being poured into kids’ brains instead of letting them know there’s a debate going on,” she says. “An educational system falls down when they start taking one side.” via the National Post

Jossy Mansur, Fox News … 5/19/07 … Fishermans Huts May be Investigated Next

 Jossy Mansur … Dutch investigators may search Fishermans Huts next

We had discussed this same issue earlier last week, “Are the Searches Over Yet in Aruba? Sources Say No … Is The Fisherman’s Huts Next”?

Tainted Chinese Imported Foods Aimed At Humans Too

We have covered the Menu Foods problem of tainted dog food that killed many of our pets, but the problem does not stop at pet food entering the country from China. The concept of a safe food supply differs greatly in China compared to the United States. Some example of foods that were detained by customs and the Food and Drug Administration at the border in the past month coming from China.

• Dried apples preserved with a cancer-causing chemical.
• Frozen catfish laden with banned antibiotics.
• Scallops and sardines coated with putrefying bacteria.
• Mushrooms laced with illegal pesticides.

If we are going to trade food products with China we need to make sure that the supply is safe for consumption.

… along with more than 1,000 shipments of tainted Chinese dietary supplements, toxic Chinese cosmetics and counterfeit Chinese medicines.
For years, U.S. inspection records show, China has flooded the United States with foods unfit for human consumption. And for years, FDA inspectors have simply returned to Chinese importers the small portion of those products they caught — many of which turned up at U.S. borders again, making a second or third attempt at entry.
Now the confluence of two events — the highly publicized contamination of U.S. chicken, pork and fish with tainted Chinese pet food ingredients and this week’s resumption of high-level economic and trade talks with China — has activists and members of Congress demanding that the United States tell China it is fed up. via the washingtonpost.com.