Welcome to the Conservasphere to another Pasadenan, The Pasadena Closet Conservative!

He/She chooses to remain anonymous because,

I dare not "out" myself because I would run the risk of being held hostage by liberals at some Ashram while being brainwashed with MultiCultural/PoliticallyCorrect/GroupThink/Socialist "isms" until I hollered "I'm Nancy Pelosi's bitch", begged for mercy and changed my party affiliation using a pen filled with my own blood.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:57 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Damn..I didn't even know about the Bear Flag League. I also just realized you're a lot like me politically. Rock on. There needs to be more of us in the Dena for sure, for sure.

Posted by: Aaron Proctor at June 30, 2008 03:45 PM (jG00K)

2 Hmmm..am I in your blogroll?

Posted by: AP at June 30, 2008 03:47 PM (jG00K)

3 Thanks for the grand welcome! Little by little I'm hearing from others out there who also want to step out of the shadows. Someday we will have our own bloggers picnic, except nobody will show up in the interest of anonymity. I have added your site to my blogroll. Don't forget to add mine to yours.

Posted by: Pasadena Closet Conservative at July 01, 2008 08:23 PM (Q3iRb)

4 There probably ARE more of us than then Dems, but we've been gerrymandered into insignificance while also causing a rise in the intense partisanship by Dem legislators who are unanswerable to their "real" constituents and follow the Socialist Party Mantra instead: a good article about that here.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 02, 2008 01:23 PM (VNM5w)

5 You guys need a secret handshake or something... Yeepers!! But I am glad you're there.

Posted by: Richmond at July 02, 2008 02:39 PM (dMnJ3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Stolen from the lovely and talented Phoenix.

Only ONE word can be used in your answer and it can NOT be used twice.

1. Where is your cell phone? Desk
2. Your significant other? Home
3. Your hair? Messy
4. Your mother? Tired
5. Your father? Gimpy
6. Your favourite time of day? Night
7. Your dream last night? Cops
8. Your favourite drink? Dr.Pepper
9. Your dream goal? Leisure
10. The room you're in? Office
11. Your ex? Goofball
12. Your fear? Snakes
13. Where do you want to be in 6 years? Elsewhere
14. What you are not? Shy
15. Your Favourite meal? Lunch
16. One of your wish list items? Time
17. The last thing you did? Carried
18. Where you grew up? House
19. What are you wearing? Dress
20. Your TV is? Old
21. Your pets? Puppies
22. Your computer? Laptop
23. Your life? Content
24. Your mood? Annoyed
25. Missing someone? Hubby
26. Your car? Filthy
27. Something you're not wearing? Pants
28. Favourite store? Target
29. Your summer? Hot
30. Your favourite colour? Green
31. When is the last time you laughed? Today
32. When is the last time you cried? Yesterday
33. Your health? OK
34. Your children? None
35. Your future? Open
36. Your beliefs? Personal
37. Young or old? Childish
38. Your image? Confident
39. Your appearance? Comfortable
40. Would you live your life over again knowing what you know? Duh

Feel free to jump in and play along, y'all!

Posted by: caltechgirl at 01:02 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

All over town this weekend, on overpasses and chainlink fences along the freeway there were hand-lettered signs "The war is a lie." and "Bush Lied". I've been seeing them for months now, but it seems there was a concerted effort to add new signs this weekend, as there were more signs in the afternoon than in the morning along the same freeways.

These signs are highly amusing to me. Along with their partners "Impeach!" Impeach who? Yo Momma? Seriously. Finish your thought, ADHD child. Of course, some of the signs DO say Impeach Bush, but I have to ask, why? I mean, the man has about 6 months left in his term. How much of that time is actually useful political time? ZERO. And how long would it take to go through an impeachment process? Probably more time than he has left as President. Get off it.

But the "lie" meme perseverates. And congress commissioned a study of the available intelligence to determine whether the President actually lied. Senator John D Rockefeller led the Select Committee on Intelligence in this investigation. In a statement Thursday, the senator announced, "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent[.]"

But is that really what the report says? Not really. Clearly the information at hand was overinterpreted, aka SPUN, into the message that the Bush administration wanted to present. Probably in an effort to convince the American people to get behind the push to war in Iraq.

However, the report finds that in many circumstances, and on a variety of subjects, the President's (and other administration officials') statements on the war "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." These subjects include Iraq's nuclear weapons program, biological and chemical weapons capability, overall WMD capability, and support for AQ terrorists.

Which to me, raises a very important question, namely, How did our intelligence get so far off base? Did our operatives buy into the lies that scientists and supervisors were passing on to the regime? Or did the CIA et al. deliberately mislead both the Clinton and Bush administrations? Where is the actual failure, then? If the President is essentially parroting what the intelligence community tells them is fact?

So then what can we do with this knowledge, that our intelligence is, at best, flawed? How do we use it to plan and implement strategies for dealing with our enemies and their plots to thwart us? Knowing that such critical intelligence may be wrong makes it extremely difficult to build support for military endeavors, regardless of the import to national security.

Which brings me back to lying. Which is the lie then, Sen. Rockefeller's statement that the report finds that "Bush Lied", or the actual text of the report which shows that the intelligence community "lied" and Bush and Co. believed them?

h/t Babalu

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:53 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Very logical train of thought... something I'm not capable of lately. I know what you mean about the intelligence... but I still believe that it was not wrong. Hussein had plenty of time to disperse/bury, etc... they have found huge weapons caches buried in the desert... and large quantities of ricin. How much is enough I guess is what I'm asking...

Posted by: pam at June 09, 2008 01:37 PM (l6NIn)

2 That's a damn good point. How much is enough to count as "enough"?

Posted by: caltechgirl at June 09, 2008 01:38 PM (IfXtw)

3 sorry to go way off topic, but please consider yourself tagged

Posted by: wRitErsbLock at June 10, 2008 05:01 AM (+MvHD)

4 They also found a number (several hundred, as I recall) chemical warheads. And last I checked, that is not equal to zero.

Posted by: Ken S, Fifth String on the Banjo of Life at June 10, 2008 08:32 AM (Yh9SA)

5 Think it could it have anything to do with the lack of human intel that former Pres. Clinton got rid of?

Posted by: NAVY CPO at June 11, 2008 10:29 AM (sGtp+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Rather than the death sentence that could have been imposed, imprisoned journalist Abdul-Karim al-Khaiwani was sentenced to 6 years hard labor. This "lighter" sentence is 100% due to pressure from the US media coverage of the story. Keep talking about it, keep blogging about it.

Jane has all the details here.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:19 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Jane Novak, who some of you know from her own blog, Armies of Liberation, and also from her frequent postings at My Pet Jawa, was on Fox and Friends this morning talking about her efforts to work for regime change in Yemen. Nice Deb beat me to the video editing and posted Jane's interview on YouTube, so check it out (below) and then go sign the petition! Learn more about Yemen and more reformers in the Middle East here. Finally, tell Fox how happy you are that they highlight these issues and talk to bloggers! Leave a comment here for FoxNews' Alisyn Camerota (who Jane tells me is very, very nice!)

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

The former Supreme Court Justice has a new project: She's a video game developer. In an effort to educate American kids about how the justice system works and the role of the courts, she has been working with Georgetown University and Arizona State to create a program for 7th through 9th graders called "Our Courts."

Sandra Day O'Connor, 78, who served as U.S. Supreme Court justice from 1981 until her retirement in 2006, said she never imagined she would be asked to address a conference about digital gaming.

She said she got involved with developing the project called "Our Courts" out of concern over public ignorance about the judiciary and partisan attacks on what should be an independent institution.

"In recent years I've become increasingly concerned about vitriolic attacks by some members of Congress, some members of state legislatures and various private interest groups ... on judges," O'Connor told the Games For Change conference on using gaming technology for social improvement and education.

"We hear a great deal about judges who are activists -- godless, secular, humanists trying to impose their will on the rest of us," she said. "Now I always thought an activist judge was one who got up in the morning and went to work."

She said it was worrying to see members of the Senate requiring nominees to the Supreme Court to state how they would rule on certain cases during the confirmation process, and to see special interests trying to influence the election of state judges in states where such elections are still held.

"With partisan attacks and political pressure mounting, it's much more difficult to achieve fair and impartial judgments from the judges who are serving," O'Connor said.

The second part of the project will be for young people to use in their free time, O'Connor said, noting that studies showed children spend around 40 hours a week using media, including computers, television, videogames or music.

"If we can capture just a little bit of that time to get them thinking about government and civic engagement rather than playing shoot-'em-up video games, that's a huge step in the right direction," she said.

O'Connor said she had seen from her own grandchildren that technology was the best way to inspire children to learn and it was vital to speak to them in their own language.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 432 words, total size 3 kb.

I am amused at you. Amused in that sort of bemused way, but not really smirking. Funny, but not really worth more than a half smile.

A year ago you were all screaming at each other: "Hilllary!" and "Anyone BUT Hillary" and today that's a moot frickin' point. Kind of like all of the articles/ commentaries/ blog posts that posited "Can anyone beat Hillary?" "Why the Republicans don't have a chance", and my personal favorite "Is the US ready for a woman as President?"

Yeah, guess not.

Of course, Senator Clinton brought this one on herself. She's a bitch. I say that in the most positive way possible. She has balls of brass, and an iron will and frankly, she made Evil Overlord mistake #1: (no, not monologuing....) she showed all her cards too soon.

I've disliked Hillary as long as I can remember, something about these type-A balls-out bitches really bothers me. Now, as most of you know, I'm a real bitch, myself. I don't take shit and I play the game as hard as I can. But I have standards. I can take a note from Laura Bush's camp, too. More flies with honey, and all that. There are lines I won't cross.

Those lines don't exist for women like Hillary Clinton. I have known many women like her. They're determined to step on the top rung of the ladder at all costs. It certainly has cost Hillary a lot. Even more than possibly the presidency. Friends, family, self-respect.

And after this loss, I feel sorry for her. She played the game hard. As hard as she could. She simply got outplayed by a force she couldn't counter, an opponent who possessed a power she couldn't touch: Mystique.

Because really, I think that's what this primary season was all about on the Left side of the aisle. Hillary is a known commodity. We've seen every bad hair day and every fake smile for a decade, and we've seen her get twitchier and bitchier as the years have gone on. We saw her fail at Universal Healthcare and flip flop on the War on Terror. We saw her move to New York just to run for office and stand by her Philanderer-In-Chief.

Barry, on the other hand is a mystery. Black, half-muslim, native Hawaiian (born there, not ethnically), grew up in Indonesia, married to a crazy racist lawyer bitch (allegedly)... Now there's a story. He says a lot of "great things", he gets a lot of airplay, but who the hell is he really? I don't think even HE knows.

The fact that he managed to keep that from us, that he allowed the media to build up a "Barry the Great" persona is likely the single biggest factor in his winning the nomination (presumably). You won't hear this on the news or in the commentaries, but I am convinced that "Barry Almighty" is why voters marked his name more often than Hillary's.

Will he choose her as his running mate? Some say he should, to pick up her constituents and prevent a last minute fight at the convention. I am of two minds on this. On the one hand I think he should strike out boldly, bring in a new running mate and effectively tell Hillary to "make like a tree and leave". On the other hand, the Barry and Hill show would appeal to a lot of their party and give Hillary the spotlight she craves. At least until the AQ jackasses decide to blow up the US again and President Barry has to stick her in Dick Cheney's former "secure, undisclosed location."

Of course, if he's really as bright as they say he is, he'll dump her flat. After all, we all know how badly she wants to be President, and well, we all remember Vince Foster.

So, my friends, you have done THIS ONE to yourselves. At least if Hillary was the nominee, we wouldn't have the prospect of race wars when McCain wins in November. On the other hand, if Barry wins y'all can never pull the race card again.

Thanks, folks. I'll be the one in the corner with the popcorn.

Love,
CTG

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:40 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 704 words, total size 4 kb.

When Linda O'Boyle wanted just a few more months with her family and chose to pay out of pocket for a drug that would work against her colon cancer and allow her to do that, she was dropped from Britain's National Health Service coverage:

Mrs O'Boyle was operated on in January last year for colon cancer and the doctors found it had spread to her stomach lining.

The former NHS assistant occupational therapist, who has three sons, twins
Gerald and Anthony, 37, and Mark, 33, as well as grandchildren Luke,
four, Finn, three, Jemima, two and Darcey, two, then had six weeks of
chemotherapy.

She continued with this until September last year when she and her husband were told the devastating news there was little more doctors could do.

However, her consultant recommended Cetuximab, which could extend her life. But it is available on the NHS only in Scotland, not in England and Wales.

It is one of many medicines the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence denies to some patients because of cost.

Mrs. O'Boyle's decision to take it meant she and her husband had to spend £11,000 over two months for care from Southend University Hospital HS Foundation Trust.

Mr O'Boyle, an NHS manager for 30 years, said: 'I think every drug should be available to all of us if there's a need for that drug to be used.

'I offered to pay for it but was told I couldn't continue with the treatmentwe were receiving at the hospital-The consultant was flabbergasted - he was very upset.'

He added: 'I was always very anti private treatment. But everything she had wasn't working and it was a last resort.

'We were lucky we had the money, it's the people who have no recourse to it that struggle. It is wrong that they are denied the chance.'

Mr. O'Boyle, who said he was convinced the drug had extended his wife's life by three months, added: 'If these guidelines were changed it would be a wonderful legacy for my wife.'

Medical experts say the ban on co-payment is one reason why Britain has one of the worst survival rates for cancer in Europe.

Cake Eater Kathy lays it all out.

Nice, huh? A lifetime of taxes to pay for a health care system that actually employed this woman and her husband, only to be betrayed in the end because she was willing to pay out of pocket for a few more months on this Earth. She wasn't looking for a cure. She knew that was beyond her. She was simply looking for a palliative treatment which could extend her life a bit. Just a bit.

She was asked, "How badly do you want to live?" And she replied that she wanted just a few more months with her family. She paid the price for a drug that wasn't available under universal healthcare, and she did it gladly, only to be smacked with a frozen mackerel in the end. Her actions would create a "two tier" health care system, and that, apparently, cannot be allowed, because that would mean she wasn't receiving lowest common denominator health care, like everyone else does with the NHS, and the NHS cannot stand that. She thought she had the right to choose what her healthcare was worth to her, and that she wasn't going to be penalized for her decision. One would suspect, with universal healthcare, that that would be a reasonable assumption. Unfortunately, it wasn't.

And yet this atrocious system is what some people would have us install here in the US. This is what some people want because their health insurance premiums are too high, and they would prefer not to have to pay them, but would rather let the government run things. It's tidier in theory, but absolutely disgusting in practice.

Again, how badly do you want to live?

Governments with nationalized healthcare systems don't want to give their citizens a choice. Patients are blackmailed, ultimately, into going with the lowest common denominator treatment if the the choice is between that or nothing at all because they don't have spare millions on hand to pay for private care.

But Kathy says it better than I ever could. She has lived it. Go read about what Universal healthcare means for Ovarian cancer patients in Europe compared to the treatment she recieved here in the US. It's shocking and frightening. Definitely something to consider as we go to the polls.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:58 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 839 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Oh, my God. That poor woman and her family... and they worked for the system! I know little to nothing about socialized medicine, but I know I don't want it.

Posted by: pam at June 02, 2008 01:52 PM (l6NIn)

2 thankee, darlin'.

Posted by: Kathy at June 02, 2008 06:46 PM (qPNVr)

3 Ban on co-payment? That's sick. No wonder my uncle (second-cousin's husband) in England died - all they did was give him morphine and say, "Go nicey-nice to a Hospice," -they're disgusting.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at June 03, 2008 09:27 AM (VNM5w)

4 THAT is why I have a problem with the idea of universal health care. Because it rapidly morphs from "safety net for people who are badly off" into "Everyone gets the same minimal standard of care because that's the only thing that's FAIR." In other words: why the hell should anyone work hard or save up money, maybe against some kind of medical emergency, if they're going to be told they get kicked out of any future benefits because they want to use THEIR money for a different/better treatment. (This will also KILL any innovation in treatments - there's no incentive to try new things if they're not "approved" by Mama Government.) If they proposed this kind of system, for, say, food - where everyone's issued a pound of kind-of-crappy hamburger, a couple cans of green beans, and a jug of Kool-Aid a week, everyone would be up in arms. Why do people want it with healthcare? (The other thing that scares me about universal healthcare coming here? I have aging parents. I sure as Hell do not want to be told, "Well, there's a treatment that could ease their pain and extend their lives, but we can't use it." Hell no. You want to see me throttle a doctor, and then go and throttle politicians? That would do it.)

Posted by: ricki at June 03, 2008 09:28 AM (O5SYw)

5 Everytime I hear these healthcare horror stories and how bad ours is, and how much worse it is elsewhere I can't help but wonder - Is there ANYPLACE in the world that has a workable healthcare system? Are there ANY solutions out there to improve ours and put the brakes on rising costs? Is is possible to find a solution that'll use the best of both worlds and make most everybody, if not all the people, happy? Just something I think of when I hear about the problems with our healthcare system. I hear a lot of griping, a lot of arguing, but few workable solutions to fix it.

Posted by: diamond dave at June 03, 2008 09:55 AM (EKSJf)

6 How about this scenario., hardworking mom, a receptionist at a strip mall dental office m-f and a museum guard on the weekends. No medical insurance. Where does she go when in pain? Got any ideas? Try county, take a ticket, no chairs so you get to stand. Takes the whole day to do so which puts said woman at risk for loosing her job. Often, by the time she's diagnosed, she's in deep sh@#$t. hell, lets lay it on thick, she's diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer. Are we crying yet? please..my best friend died of ovarian cancer. She was a teacher for the LA Unified school district and although insured, she discovered that at UCLA, reputed to have the best care, (which she paid for out of pocket), those with money were those that received good care. If thats the case what do you think happened to our dental receptionist?

Posted by: royal pine at June 03, 2008 10:45 AM (Bby3r)

7 "...it is available on the NHS only in Scotland, not in England and Wales." Tangentially, this is also one of the many reasons why the UK may be headed for a breakup, and soon. On this subject generally, I always go back to what P.J. O'Rourke said about it: "if you think health care's expensive now, just wait until you see how much it costs when it's free."

Posted by: Dave J at June 03, 2008 07:27 PM (glamO)

8 royal, its a shame many of our government run County hospitals are utter disaster areas, but is the solution really just complaining that rich people get better treatment and should instead get equally sh*tty treatment? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to leave the parts of our medical system that work alone and focus on fixing out government run County hospital disaster zones?

Posted by: the Pirate at June 04, 2008 08:28 AM (73P68)

9 Unbelievable!

Posted by: Lauren at June 04, 2008 12:09 PM (iUfJz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment