This is a photo of the fabulous Brett Somers. She appeared on the match game and was married to Jack Klugman.
This is a photo of the fabulous Sara Lampe. She is my state representative and was married to to the guy who talks about eagles at the zoo.
This is Charles Nelson Reilly. He was very funny and recently died.
Last Sunday, I caught the last 30 laps of the NASCAR race and then ended up on the Speed channel for a recap of the race.
Most of the commercials on the Speed channel show, I think it was Wind Tunnel with Dave Despain, were for mediacom, the local cable tv provider.
One commercial was a young man entertaining his fiancee's parents when the phone rings. He lets the machine pick up the call, it is the video store saying his adult films were past due and please return them quickly. He is, of course, embarassed and his relationship with his future inlaws goes down the tubes quickly.
The commercial cuts to two girls working in the video store and they are giggling and saying let's down it again to someone else......Mediacom comes on and says what you watch on tv is your business and no one elses, and that they now offer adult features.
This commercial, or variations on its theme ran several times during the show. I wasn't paying much attention, but it seemed, in hindsight, that almost all the commercials were for mediacom and the adult movies.
We all can show the world just how aa we are and what we do with our time.
But, when we get behind closed doors, when we get behind closed doors, when we get behind closed doors, we, does anyone else find it humorous that mediacom is now offering adult movies on the cable tv? 
I went to their website but couldn't find anything, did anyone else see those commercials? I want to know just how adult are they? I may have to call them up tomorrow and ask them.
Court ruling: Same game, new rules
5/30/2007
A Missouri Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday strengthens the rights of school employees to negotiate employment terms with school districts — and requires that contracts be honored.
The Independence-NEA v. Independence School District decision came in response to a suit brought by the district’s transportation employees and educational support personnel after the district ignored a longstanding agreement and unilaterally decided to move to a "collaborative team policy" that recognized both NEA and MSTA members.
In its decision Tuesday, the Court overruled earlier decisions and wrote that once the Independence district entered into an agreement, the district could not unilaterally change it.
MSTA Executive Director Kent King said the decision is relatively narrow in scope and leaves many issues that the General Assembly must address. One thing is sure, though, he says: "Districts will be forced to interact with all educators, and MSTA will be there to represent them, just as it has always been."
King added that the ruling confirms rights for teachers that MSTA has always supported: "Look at how MSTA’s resolutions speak to these issues. We believe districts should listen to teachers, and if school boards and administrators have agreed to something with their employees, that agreement should be binding."
The 1945 Missouri Constitution states "employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing." In 1947, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that provision only applied to private-sector employees. The Supreme Court's 5-2 ruling, announced Tuesday, overturns that decision. The court also unanimously overturned a 1982 decision that allowed governments to negate agreements made with unions.
The court’s ruling did not describe the negotiating process for employee groups and employers. There was no mention of agency fee or exclusive representation. Instead, the opinion relies on the current public-sector collective bargaining statute. The legislature will be responsible for determining the exact method and parameters of the process. The court does, however, make it clear that if a district enters into an agreement with an employee association or union, the district must abide by the terms of that agreement.
The ruling also makes it clear that a public employer is not required to agree to any proposals. It suggests that districts are required to go through a process and at the conclusion of the process can determine to accept or reject the proposal.
How the ruling may change the way MSTA operates will unfold over time. The association will continue to protect and represent its members, providing the services that are important to them.
"MSTA has been around for more than 150 years," King says, "and when the playing field changes, as everything does over time, we adapt. Through the years, though, our basic goal remains the same: To take care of our members so that they can take care of students."
From the MSTA website.
Missouri Supreme Court
gives educators bargaining rights
Ruling will allow educators to become a part of the decision-making process and make contracts binding.
In a historic decision May 29, the Missouri Supreme Court gave public employees, including teachers, the right to bargain collectively with employers.
The ruling supports Article 1, Section 29 in the Missouri Constitution, which provides “That employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.”
“This is great news for all public employees, but it is especially good news for Missouri’s educators and students,” says Missouri NEA President Greg Jung. “This decision begins a new era in public education as it finally brings all the experts to the table and provides a means for collaborative decision making combined with accountability. Ultimately, the result is better working and learning conditions in Missouri schools.”
The ruling reverses a 1947 decision, Springfield vs. Clouse, whereby the Court ruled that the constitutional language did not apply to public employees, including teachers.
“Collective bargaining provides a fair process for educators to join with administrators at the decision-making table and holds all parties accountable for upholding the agreements they reach,” Jung says. “It allows employees to have a voice in negotiating their working conditions and students’ learning conditions. In addition, it provides for a rational, non-disruptive process to resolve disputes.”
In both the neighboring states of Iowa and Kansas, and 32 others, collective bargaining correlates with increased student achievement and a more stable workforce.
“MNEA believes that every child has the basic right to attend a great public school, and the court’s decision allows educators to have a voice in how that is accomplished,” Jung says.
Prior to this decision, some public employees in Missouri had meet-and-confer rights under RSMo 105.500. Teachers were specifically excluded from the provisions of this statute. Although educators were not included in the statute, many school districts in Missouri encourage positive employee relations by providing employees a legitimate voice in decision making.
from the MONEA website
She lost her son.
She became a galvanizing force for those who opposed the war.
She tried to save the world.
She burned out.
Read about it here. and here also..
I am sorry she lost her son.
This just in from Reuters:
Poland to probe if Teletubbies are gay
Mon May 28, 2007 1:20PM EDT
Poland's conservative government took its drive to curb what it sees as homosexual propaganda to the small screen on Monday, taking aim at Tinky Winky and the other Teletubbies.
Ewa Sowinska, government-appointed children rights watchdog, told a local magazine published on Monday she was concerned the popular BBC children's show promoted homosexuality.
She said she would ask psychologists to advise if this was the case.
In comments reminiscent of criticism by the late U.S. evangelist Jerry Falwell, she was quoted as saying: "I noticed (Tinky Winky) has a lady's purse, but I didn't realize he's a boy."
"At first I thought the purse would be a burden for this Teletubby ... Later I learned that this may have a homosexual undertone."
Poland's rightist government has upset human rights groups and drawn criticism within the European Union by apparent discrimination against homosexuals.
Polish Education Minister Roman Giertych has proposed laws sacking teachers who promote "homosexual lifestyle" and banning "homo-agitation" in schools.
But in a sign that the government wants to distance itself from Sowinska's comments, Parliamentary Speaker Ludwig Dorn said he had warned her against making public comments "that may turn her department into a laughing stock."
The 10-year-old Teletubbies, which features four rotund, brightly colored characters loved by children around the world, became a target of religious conservatives after Falwell suggested Tinky Winky could be homosexual.
In other news, Jerry Falwell is still dead.
There was a short piece in the voices section of the SNL lampooning Edwards and his actions after the death of his son in an automobile accident. The blogger questioned the sincerity of Edwards and suggested that he was "artificial" and that even Kerry didn't trust him. Now, Edwards is running for president.
And so is this guy....how many times has he been married? How's his relationship with his kids?....
From the Springfield Community Free Press May 9-22, 2007
The fight continues in Jefferson City for a much needed crime lab in Greene County.
"Right now, I'm gravely concerned that House Bill 19 is on life support," Rep. Bob Dixon said, "The Speaker indicated that, in his words, 'We can just do that bill next year.'"
Right now, HB 19 is currently in teh House Rules Committee. Dixon said that the bill is somewhat tied down in the legislative process because House Bills 1-13, which compromise the primary operating budget, must be passed first.
"What's really frustrating is that the members of the House sent the bill over to the Senate in February, and it's been sitting there, collecting dust," he said.
"I'm fighting with everything in me to get this bill passed," Dixon said, "It's crucial not just for Southwest Missouri, but for the entire state."
Vice President Dick Cheney gave a commencement speech at West Point. Andrew Sullivan blogged this reader's comments:
A reader writes
Read the speech more carefully. He didn't just attack the Geneva Conventions. He attacked the Constitution of the United States of America. The reality is in fact much worse than your original post would indicate.
Here's the key passage:
As Army officers on duty in the war on terror, you will now face enemies who oppose and despise everything you know to be right, every notion of upright conduct and character, and every belief you consider worth fighting for and living for. Capture one of these killers, and he'll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States. Yet when they wage attacks or take captives, their delicate sensibilities seem to fall away.
Cheney, as usual, is careful with his words. He is, of course, right that our enemies are barbarians. Their torture manual confirms what we already knew. But the way he expresses this is very telling. He portrays the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution as devices by which al Qaeda can defeat the United States.
The effect can only be to undermine respect for both Geneva and the Constitution among West Point cadets and the military in general.
In the current debate, Cheney is using a West Point graduation to urge the military to support his disavowal of Geneva and his interpretation of a unitary executive in which the president has indefinite dictatorial powers with respect to "enemy combatants" in the war on terror. Invoking Geneva and the Constitution in a time of war, Cheney implies, is only something terrorists or terrorist-supporters would do. Sticking by Geneva and the Constitution is a function of "delicate sensibilities," which, in Cheney's faux-macho worldview, is about as contemptuous an expression as can be imagined.
Cheney represents the GOP establishment consensus, as expressed in the recent South Carolina debate, and across the Bush-blogosphere. He views both the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution of the United States as obstacles to be overcome in fighting the war on terror, the kind of obstacles only wimps defer to.
After all, the Constitution might be read as forbidding the executive branch from detaining a U.S. citizen on American soil, bringing no charges for years, and torturing that citizen in solitary confinement until he is a quivering wreck of a human being. But in the battle between Cheney, Padilla and the constitution, Cheney won - and Padilla and the Constitution lost.
Cheney seems to believe that the military and the president have taken oaths to defend American lives and American territory and American interests. But of course, presidents and vice-presidents and U.S. servicemembers take no such oath. Servicemembers take the following oath:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Does Cheney understand this oath?
Do the Republicans?
The Constitution - not the territory, not the people - is what the U.S. government is constructed to defend.
And yet the current administration clearly views that Constitution as very September 10.
We have a year and a half to go under a president and vice-president with this view of the Constitution.
If you are not worried, you should be.
The Washington Post says Dick Cheney is "Attempting to Constrain Bush's Choices on Iran Conflict: Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush."
This is further reported by Joe Klein in TIme Online: Cheney's Iran Fantasy.a
Then Andrew Sullivan has picked up on it also: Bush vs Cheney on Iran..
How will they spin this news?
Also, the Democrats are taking a lot of heat for the war funding bill, but if there were not enough votes to pass Bush's veto, it all boils down to rhetoric.
75% of Americans oppose the war. What are Bush and Cheney trying to do to us?
