Now this, I think is funny, when you consider all the time that what seems to be the majority of Californians, at least the younger set, spend babbling on their cell phones.

SAN FRANCISCO – In this city known for producing laws both path-breaking and contentious, legislators have forcefully stepped into another debate — this time over the potential danger of cell phone use.

With the 10-1 vote in favor of an ordinance Mayor Gavin Newsom has indicated he will sign, San Francisco has waded into the as-yet unresolved debate over the relationship between long-term use of cell phones and health problems such as brain tumors.

The law requires cell phone retailers to disclose the phones’ specific absorption rate, or SAR, to customers.

SAR measures the maximum amount of radiation absorbed by a person using a handset. The Federal Communications Commission limits SAR to an average of 1.6 watts per kilogram of body tissue, but information about radiation levels is not usually readily available when people purchase phones at stores.

“From our perspective, this is a very reasonable and quite modest measure that will provide greater transparency and information to consumers for whom this is an area of interest or concern,” said Newsom spokesman Tony Winnicker, who noted that the mayor is an iPhone user. “We’re playing a role that we’ve often played, which is to be at the forefront of a debate.”

I took the liberty of putting in a link to the FCC’s SAR page in the text above.

Here in California, one of the hallmarks of “progressive” government is the heavy volume of “warning” signs.

For instance:

“This property uses chemicals known to the State of California to…”

They vary with the nature of the subject of the warning, but they’re all over, especially in hotel lobbies.

There are warning, rules and regs signs everywhere, which serve mainly to insult the intelligence of the smarter among us, but the lefties eat ‘em up — “Government, working for the people” or something.

Having said that, it should be interesting to see how the legions of cell phone addicts, not to mention Muslim cab drivers, react to the passing of this bill.

Then again, this is California, and brain damage already seems to have afflicted most of the population already, though the source of said brain damage is still a bit unclear.

So they pass the SAR bill, and even if a few of these wireless wonders manage to look up from their incessant conversations long enough to notice and find the time to respond in some way or other, the entire SAR debacle will remain the tip of a much larger iceberg, if these folks are correct.

Nancy Pelosi.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says she believes she must pursue public policies “in keeping with the values” of Jesus Christ, “The Word made Flesh.”

I was reminded of her reference to The Word while visiting over here.

At the time I heard about it in early June, I just laughed at the very hypocrisy of a commie witch who supports a political doctrine steeped in atheism, so obviously unenlightened in the scripture she pretends to embrace, referring to the Word in the contexts she does.

At a May 6 Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill, the speaker said: “They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.”

“And that Word,” Pelosi said, “is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.

“Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.”

John 1:14 states, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw His glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.”

In the religious hypocrisy arena, it seems, the speaker of the House and the president make a perfect team.

That Obama guy is really a card, I’ll tellya’!

It seems he just loves implying that he’s got all sorts of support and agreement from lots of folks who, once he’s reported their agreement with his policies, are just so surprised that he was able to read that support into things they never said or otherwise indicated.

8 of 15 Experts Consulted by Obama Administration on Offshore Drilling Were Not Informed of Moratorium–And Now Oppose It

Well, I’ll be!

Eight of the 15 experts consulted by the Interior Department for a report about oil drilling safety on the Outer Continental Shelf that was commissioned by President Barack Obama said they disagreed with the report’s call for a six-month halt on current deepwater offshore drilling operations–that was added to the text of the report without their knowledge only after they had reviewed the text. The eight experts outlined their objections in a June 8 letter to Louisiana Sens. Mary Landrieu (D) and David Vitter (R) and Gov. Bobby Jindal (R).

“A group of those named in the Secretary of Interior’s Report, ‘Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf,’ dated May 27, 2010 are concerned that our names are connected with the moratorium as proposed in the executive summary of that report,” the experts said in their letter.

“There is an implication that we have somehow agreed to or ‘peer reviewed’ the main recommendation of that report,” the eight experts wrote. “This is not the case.”

That Obama’s one guy you really have to keep an eye on, or he’ll lie your socks right out from inside your shoes.

And just think… knowing this, all kinds of “Progressives” support him to this day. I guess that means we’ve got to keep an eye on them, as well. Anyone who supports a liar…

And the rest of the article.

As we know, it’s always been important to socialists like the ramrods of today’s Democrats for the United States to be as much like Europe as possible. In our current president’s case, he probably preens in front of a mirror with a gilt European frame. GOd knows, he’s always trying to emulate Europe.

That, of course, is what gives hope (yeah, HOPE, for a CHANGE) that he will heed the words of those Germans who are advising him to knock off the deficit spending “stimulus” approach to the bad economy.

The congressional battle over adding more government stimulus spending versus deficit reduction spilled overseas Monday as the German government publicly rebuked the Obama administration over its red ink and said countries now must focus on controlling debt.

It’s the same sort of pushback President Obama has been getting from critics at home as he calls for a second round of stimulus spending, which he argues is needed to spur private job creation at a time when unemployment hovers near 10 percent nationwide.
But he’s increasingly being opposed by Republicans and some Democrats at home, and German officials’ comments signal a looming fight over deficits as the world’s leaders gather in Toronto next week for a summit of the leaders of the world’s biggest economies, with the Group of Eight summit of industrial powers kicking off Friday in Canada.

A larger gathering of the world’s 20 leading economies, known as the Group of 20, follows immediately afterward.

“It’s urgently necessary for monetary stability that public budgets return to balance,” German Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle said at a press conference Monday, according to Bloomberg News. “This is something we should also tell our American friends.”

Read the rest.

That Obama’s a real leader of the Free World, isn’t he?

Yeah, leading the free world into massive debt.

In this morning’s Jewish World Review, I found a column on Afghanistan that grabbed my attention and should grab yours…

Private security contractors protecting the convoys that supply U.S. military bases in Afghanistan are paying millions of dollars a week in “passage bribes” to the Taliban and other insurgent groups to travel along Afghan roads, a congressional investigation released Monday has found.

The payments, which are reimbursed by the U.S. government, help fund the very enemy the U.S. is attempting to defeat and renew questions about the U.S. dependence on private contractors, who outnumber American troops in Afghanistan, 130,000 to 93,000.

The report’s author called the findings of the six-month investigation “sobering and shocking.”

“This arrangement has fueled a vast protection racket run by shadowy network of warlords, strongmen, commanders, corrupt Afghan officials, and perhaps others,” wrote Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., the chairman of the House subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs. “Not only does the system run afoul of the (Defense) Department’s own rules and regulations mandated by Congress, it also appears to risk undermining the U.S. strategy for achieving its goals in Afghanistan.”

The entire column is here.

The more I read, see and hear about the way things are going in our society, the greater my belief that the worst blight on the face of America, I mean, the most puss-filled, festering sore, is our politicians.

Worse than the slimy, ever-hungry union bosses, worse than liberal trial lawyers, worse than crack heads who mug eighty year old ladies for their egg money, worse than the smelliest substance at the bottom of a septic tank.

These parasites, who, if they had any consciences at all, would serve one term in office and then call it a day, going back to the private sector and earning honest livings.

Instead, they choose politics as a career path — and most of these, what was that phrase Seth likes to use — toilet cakes are no more qualified to decide on what’s best for the country or to lead the nation than the above mentioned crack addict or, for that matter, the smelly substance at the bottom of said septic tank.

They virtually steal, as in embezzle, rob, pickpocket, whatever, our hard earned tax dollars and throw them at whatever earmark has arisen that will help one of their colleagues get reelected, basically using the lucre they take from us to campaign for their friends.

When they’ve exhausted our money, they raise taxes on luxury and other items, raise property taxes, increase fines and other penalties and borrow money via bonds and other instruments upon which we, the taxpayers, will eventually have to pay not only the principal, but interest as well.

AND… they “borrow” money from escrow accounts whose purpose is to pay pensions and other obligated monies.

And they break us. That’s right, US. That tax money is still OUR money, even though it is in what is supposed to be the politicians’ “safekeeping”, until such times as some needs to be spent “prudently” in the interests of ALL the taxpayers.

But that’s not happening, because these slugs we continue to reelect continue to leech away at our tax dollars.

Meanwhile, they also vote themselves first class benefits, perks and retirement pensions.

Having vented, let me proceed.

From the Daily Worker Oops. Pravda Waitaminnit, I mean The New York Times:

Many states are acknowledging this year that they have promised pensions they cannot afford and are cutting once-sacrosanct benefits, to appease taxpayers and attack budget deficits.

Illinois raised its retirement age to 67, the highest of any state, and capped public pensions at $106,800 a year. Arizona, New York, Missouri and Mississippi will make people work more years to earn pensions. Virginia is requiring employees to pay into the state pension fund for the first time. New Jersey will not give anyone pension credit unless they work at least 32 hours a week.

“We can’t afford to deny reality or delay action any longer,” said Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois, adding that his state’s pension cuts, enacted in March, will save some $300 million in the first year alone.

But there is a catch: Nearly all of the cuts so far apply only to workers not yet hired. Though heralded as breakthrough reforms by state officials, the cuts phase in so slowly they are unlikely to save the weakest funds and keep them from running out of money.

Some new rules may even hasten the demise of the funds they were meant to protect.

Lawmakers wanted to avoid legal battles or fights with unions, whose members can be influential voters. So they are allowing most public workers across the country to keep building up their pensions at the same rate as ever. The tens of thousands of workers now on Illinois’s payrolls, for instance, will still get to retire at 60 — and some will as young as 55.

When the politicians start cutting like that, even though they’re mostly cutting the pensions of future employees, it means they’ve already overspent to the point that they don’t really have what they need to keep their current obligations.

It means they’re getting ready to begin spending money they don’t have, writing checks based on zero equity. The kind of thing these same politicians would put you and I in jail for.

One striking exception is Colorado, which has imposed cuts on its current workers, not just future hires, and even on people who have already retired. The retirees have sued to block the reduction.

Other states with shrinking funds and deep fiscal distress may be pushed in this direction and tempted to follow Colorado’s example in the coming years. Though most state officials believe they are legally bound to shield current workers from pension cuts, a Colorado victory could embolden them to be more aggressive.

Colorado pruned a 3.5 percent annual pension increase to 2 percent, concluding that was the fastest way to revive its pension fund, which was projected to run out of money by 2029. The cut may sound small, but it produces big results because it goes into effect immediately. State plans vary widely, but many have other costly features, like subsidized early-retirement benefits, which could likewise be trimmed for existing workers.

Despite its pension reform, Illinois is still in deep trouble. That vaunted $300 million in immediate savings? The state produced it by giving itself credit now for the much smaller checks it will send retirees many years in the future — people who must first be hired and then, for full benefits, work until age 67.

By recognizing those far-off savings right away, Illinois is letting itself put less money into its pension fund now, starting with $300 million this year.

That saves the state money, but it also weakens the pension fund, actually a family of funds, raising the risk of a collapse long before the real savings start to materialize.

“We’re within a few years of having some of the pension funds run out of money,” said R. Eden Martin, president of the Commercial Club of Chicago, a business group that has been warning of a “financial implosion” for several years. “Funding for the schools is going to be cut radically. Funding for Medicaid. As these things all mount up, there’s going to be a lot of outrage.”

The rest is here.

But you see, while these politicians, and here I’m not singling out either party, stick it up the collective kazoo of all of us, they don’t concern themselves with what’s happening on the next guy’s watch or what’s going to happen in the course of the next two, three or ten generations. Oh, no, they’ll sweep whatever “inconveniences” come along under a rug for their successors to “deal with”.

These politicians are, to be blunt, criminals. They are guilty of grand larceny, among other things, and they are only there because a few million irresponsible, ignorant people elect them without first bothering to actually scrutinize them.

People will spend more time analyzing the Past Performances of a horse they’re considering wagering on to bet a few bucks than they will the Past Performances of a politician who may just screw up our entire society, economically and in every other way conceivable, as they now have.

How often do we see a body of politicians who have screwed the pooch vote to lower their own pay, health care or pensions accordingly?

“Crickets chirping”

No matter what arguments one gives, the “progressive” media cannot say, without committing to a bald-faced lie, that Barack Obama is motivated by anything other than politics.

He could care less about the economy, the oil spill, the wars…

He is all politics, all the time.

SEN. JON KYL: I met with the president in the Oval Office, just the two of us… Here’s what the president said. “The problem is,” he said, “If we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”

[gasps from the audience]

KYL: In other words they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform. I explained, “You and I have an obligation to secure the border. That’s an obligation. It also has some potentially positive benefits. You don’t have to have comprehensive immigration to secure the border, but you have to have a secure border to get comprehensive immigration reform. You may be surprised, maybe you don’t think that there’d be any more incentive, but I’m not so sure that that’s true. In any event, it doesn’t matter we’re supposed to secure the border.”

That’s why this is being done. They want to get something in return for doing their duty. And that’s—

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Chicago politics.

KYL: Yeah.

All left wing politics, all the time.

In Mark Steyn’s column today:

I believe it was Jean Giraudoux who first said, “Only the mediocre are always at their best.”

Barack Obama was supposed to be the best, the very best, and yet he is always, reliably, consistently mediocre. His speech on oil was no better or worse than his speech on race. Yet the Obammyboppers who once squealed with delight are weary of last year’s boy band. At the end of the big Oval Office address, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and the rest of the MSNBC gang jeered the president. For a bewildered Obama, it must have felt like his Ceausescu balcony moment. Had they caught up with him in the White House parking lot, they’d have put him up against the wall and clubbed him to a pulp with Matthews’ no-longer-tingling leg.

For the first time I felt a wee bit sorry for the poor fellow. What had he done to so enrage his full supporting chorus? In The Washington Post, the reaction of longtime Obammysoxer Eugene Robinson was headlined “Obama Disappoints From The Beginning Of His Speech.”

So what? He always “disappoints.” What would have been startling would have been if he hadn’t “disappointed.” His eve-of-election rally for Martha Coakley “disappointed” the Massachusetts electorate so much they gave Ted Kennedy’s seat to a Republican. His speech for Chicago’s Olympic bid “disappointed” the Oslo committee so much they gave the games to Pyongyang, or Ouagadougou, or any city offering to build a stadium with electrical outlets incompatible with Obama’s prompter. Be honest, guys, his inaugural address “disappointed,” too, didn’t it?

– Truncating –

…. the Technocratic Mastermind offered: “Just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge – a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.

“As a result of these efforts, we’ve directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology.”

Excellent. The president directed his Nobel Prize-winning Head of Meetings to assemble a meeting to tackle the challenge of mobilizing the assembling of the tackling of the challenge mobilization, at the end of which they directed BP to order up some new tackle and connect it to the thingummy next to the whachamacallit. Thank you, Mr. President. That and $4.95 will get you a venti oleaginato at Starbucks.

The doubletalk of Barack Obama.

Chris Matthews and the other leg-tinglers invented an Obama that doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, they’re stuck with the one that does, and it will be interesting to see whether he’s capable of plugging the leak in his own support. If not, who knows what the tide might wash up?

Memo to Secretary Rodham Clinton: Do you find yourself of a quiet evening with a strange craving for chicken dinners and county fairs in Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe next summer? Need one of those relaunch books to explain why you’re getting back in the game in your country’s hour of need?

“It Takes A Spillage.”

Read it all.

According to One Jerusalem, Obama has badly miscalculated the support Benjamin Netanyahu enjoys from the Israeli public, but that is pretty understandable since lefties tend to base their perceptions on what they’d like them to be rather than what they are.

The Obama Administration has invested a great deal in trying to create the impression that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s policies do not represent the will of the Israeli public. When Obama insulted Netanyahu in the White House he probably thought that a majority of Israelis would approve of his actions. In one respect, it is understandable that Obama reached this conclusion. After all, his “Jewish Advisers”, Emanuel, Axelrod, and J Street continuously tell him that Netanyahu represents an extreme right-wing constituency among Israelis.

Well, this has been a mis-reading of the will of the Jewish people, especially those living in Israel.

A respected poll, conducted after the boarding of the flotilla ship, quantifies overwhelming Israeli support for Netanyahu’s policies. On a personal level, Netanyahu’s positives rating have climbed to 53% while dissatisfaction with President Obama has soared to 71%. In addition, 63% are dissatisfied with the Obama administration’s response to the flotilla.

And if anyone doubts that Israelis are determined to defend their country check out the response to a question about how Israel should react to an aid ship that the Iranians are threatening to sponsor: 84% would stop them at any cost. Just 7% would let them go quietly.

On related issues, like lifting the Gaza blockade and submitting to an international inquiry there is majority sentiment against these and other compromising proposals.

The pollster also noted that he had never seen such intensity among Israeli citizens. These positions are not lightly held.

Yes, a key phrase here might be, intensity among Israeli citizens.

This one came in as a tip of sorts, a suggestion that I look up Maywood, Ca P.D., which I did, and Lo & Behold…

Barely a year after promising to reform its chronically troubled police force, the city of Maywood announced Wednesday that it would disband the 60-member department effective June 30.

City officials said the closure was caused by the city’s loss of insurance. Earlier this month, the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority notified Maywood that it was terminating general liability and workers’ compensation coverage because the city posed too high a risk. An excessive number of claims filed against the Police Department, and the city’s failure to hire a permanent city manager, were among the highest risk factors, according to the agency.

“We don’t have an alternative,” Councilman Felipe Aguirre said “Nobody will insure us, not as long as we have the Police Department, even though we haven’t had any claims filed against us recently.”

The City Council will meet Monday to discuss what happens next — whether the city will contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department or the city of Bell for police services.

The Maywood-Cudahy Police Department patrolled a gritty, two-square-mile area that includes Maywood and Cudahy, which has a population of about 70,000 — almost half of their residents undocumented — just south of Los Angeles. Until recently, the force appeared to function as a virtual refuge for misfit police officers. Although the city instituted numerous reforms under a year-old consent decree, officials said it was still too early to say whether the department had successfully turned itself around.

I’d like to say, “Only in California…” but the minute I did that, some other town someplace else in a far-left governed sanctuary state would probably leap up and claim solidarity or something.

Still, a population of about 70,000 — almost half of their residents undocumented — just south of Los Angeles does sound very California.

But here’s the fun part, keeping in mind that this is a police department we’re talking about.

In April 2007, the California attorney general’s office launched an investigation into the department after the Los Angeles Times reported that roughly a third of the department’s officers had been forced out of previous police jobs or had brushes with the law.

The attorney general’s report concluded that the department was “permeated with sexual innuendo, harassment, vulgarity, discourtesy to members of the public as well as among officers, and a lack of cultural, racial and ethnic sensitivity and respect.” The probe also found that officers routinely used excessive force, made arrests without probable cause and failed to investigate complaints.

As a result of that probe, the city approved a stipulated court order to reform the department. Among other requirements, the department was directed to install video cameras in the police station and in police vehicles. Officers also were required to carry digital recorders on patrol.

This sounds more like a penal unit for criminals and thugs, or maybe a long term public service penalty venue, than it does like a law enforcement agency, which is what a police department is.

Ah, Southern California…