Ayn Rand Dead in Gloucester Snowstorm
110 year old philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand perished in a snowstorm that covered much of the Northeast this week. Thought to have died in 1982, it was revealed she simply faked her own death to avoid paying debts on the successful treatment of her lung cancer which ran into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, her being philisopically opposed to Medicare.
Having escaped to East Gloucester to live under an assumed name, she was known for loudly rejecting help from neighbors. “Do not condescend to me with charity,” she shouted at Bob D’Palazola who just recently tried to remove snow from her driveway with his snowblower as he had for many elderly neighbors on the street.
“I thought she was nuts,” said the plumber and good Samaritan, “Considering how much she smokes there is no way she should be out there shoveling herself. I tried to get her reconsider but she started yelling about how indebtedness corrupting the fiber of the soul of man and I’m like screw it, Ill just go do my brother-in-laws house.”
D’Palazola after giving up on the woman he correctly referred to as a “Batshit crazy Russian lady”.
Other neighbors were shunned by the centenarian objectivist when they attempted to bring gifts of fresh baked cinnamon buns and hot cocoa during a “senior wellness check” organized by residents. Mary Ellen Katzen, a local volunteer, claimed to have been berated at Rand’s door. “She started yelling about how the strong owe nothing to the weak and I was just like, ‘have some cinnamon buns’ but she batted them away told me to blow them into brass coins and spread them at the winds for the poor of spirit. What does that even mean?”
Rand’s long and eventful life was ended by an hit-and-run with a snowplow as she attempted to shuffle down to the Richdale for cigarettes. The as-yet-unidentified truck most likely belonged to an unlicensed plow company and was reported by witnesses to have a Gadsden flag sticker on the back windshield.
Rand is survived by several hundred thousand lonely men in fedoras.
States with the most people on food stamps
(Information is current as of February, 2015. Rankings have also changed to reflect current data.)
Number of food stamp recipients: 877,340
Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 18.87%
Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $108.22 million
Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $23.27
6. West Virginia
Number of food stamp recipients: 362,501
Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 19.59%
Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $44.71 million
Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.17 per person
Number of food stamp recipients: Just over 1.31 million
Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 20.04%
Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $161.9 million
Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.72
Number of food stamp recipients: 802,190
Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 20.21%
Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $98.96 million
Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.92 per person
3. New Mexico
Number of food stamp recipients: 430,622
Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 20.65%
Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $53.12 million
Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $25.47 per person
2. District of Columbia
Number of food stamp recipients: 142,707
Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 21.66%
Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $17.6 million
Estimated cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $26.72 per person
Number of food stamp recipients: 656,871
Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 21.94%
Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $81.03 million
Estimated cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $27.06 per person
Read more: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/personal-finance/7-states-with-the-most-people-on-food-stamps.html/?a=viewall#ixzz3RwQsKxYq
This article appeared in the Washington Post. The headline
100 FINALISTS HAVE BEEN CHOSEN FOR A ONE WAY TRIP TO MARS
From one of our readers,
Who said they don’t make em like they used to?
Harold, our Fed Ex delivery man, wears shorts even when the temperature is below zero. Here he is in front of our house.
Posted on February 17th, 2015 No comments
Can you guess which one is which?
From one of our readers:
I’ve been out since before 7:00 (walking the dog) and I don’t understand the complaints of New Yorkers. I also walked about 2/3 of a mile last night at around 7:30 PM. I wear a head mask type of thing (balaclava?), long underwear, thinnish jeans, T-shirt, turtleneck and then a sweater, and a pea jacket, scarf and mittens, and I don’t feel cold in the least, with the exception of my walk home as I get closer to the river winds.
Received some pictures taken yesterday and today from neighbors. 17 below this AM.
The below published in the New York Times February 3, 2015. Sadly Sandy didn’t live to follow the Brian Williams story. He would have loved it and if he were in charge, he would have fired him on the spot.
Sandy Socolow, CBS Newsman During Heady Days, Dies at 86
Sandy Socolow, a longtime executive at CBS News who worked closely with Walter Cronkite and helped shape television coverage of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal, died on Saturday in Manhattan. He was 86.
The cause was complications of cancer, his sons, Michael and Jonathan, said.
Mr. Socolow worked for CBS almost without interruption from the mid-1950s until 1988. He arrived as a writer for the morning news and shortly thereafter began working with Cronkite, first on a midday news program and later on “Eyewitness to History,” a series of news specials that evolved into a weekly prime-time half-hour that lasted until the “CBS Evening News,” with Cronkite in the anchor seat, expanded to 30 minutes, from 15, in 1963.
For several years Mr. Socolow was a co-producer of the “Evening News,” in charge of, among other things, Vietnam coverage; according to CBS, he was the New York segment producer of the shocking 1965 report by Morley Safer that showed American Marines setting fire to Cam Ne, a village near Da Nang, and that helped awaken Americans to the escalating calamity of the war. Mr. Socolow produced Cronkite’s coverage of the moon landing in 1969. In 1971 he hired the program’s first female producer, Linda Mason.
He became vice president, deputy news director and executive editor of CBS News in New York, and in 1972 was involved in one of the news division’s most controversial episodes. Less than two weeks before the presidential election, the “Evening News” broadcast Cronkite’s two-part summation of the unfolding Watergate story, largely following the reporting in The Washington Post by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward.
The first installment, which detailed the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington and a dirty tricks campaign orchestrated by the committee to re-elect President Richard M. Nixon, appeared on Friday, Oct. 27, absorbing an extraordinary 14 minutes of the 22 minutes or so devoted to the news.
The Nixon White House put pressure on CBS corporate executives to cancel the second installment of the report, which was to focus on the financing of the illicit doings and on the ways figures involved in the Watergate scandal were connected to the president.
According to an account in David Halberstam’s 1979 book, “The Powers That Be,” William S. Paley, the chairman of CBS, encouraged Richard S. Salant, the president of CBS News, not to show the second segment. But Mr. Salant, working with Mr. Socolow and others, merely cut it back to eight minutes, just over half its original length, and it was broadcast on Tuesday, Oct. 31.
Mr. Socolow, who was afraid he would lose his job for defying Mr. Paley, according to Mr. Halberstam, was the one charged with doing the cutting, a thankless task resulting in what Daniel Schorr, who wrote the report, recalled in a memoir as “a nasty argument,” not to mention bitter feelings that the network had caved in and betrayed its principles.
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
The CBS report nonetheless had a significant impact, not least because it gave the Watergate story the imprimatur of the nation’s most authoritative newsman, Walter Cronkite. Less than two years after Nixon was resoundingly re-elected, the Watergate scandal forced his resignation.
“The fact that Cronkite did Watergate at all (let alone at that length) gave the story a kind of blessing, which is exactly what we needed — and exactly what The Washington Post lacked,” Ben Bradlee, the editor of The Post during the scandal, wrote in Newsweek after Cronkite died in 2009. “It was a political year, and everyone was saying, ‘Well, it’s just politics, and here’s The Post trying to screw Nixon.’ We were the second-biggest newspaper in the country trying to scramble for a good story — whereas Cronkite was the reigning dean of television journalists. When he did the Watergate story, everyone said, ‘My God, Cronkite’s with them.’ ”
Mr. Socolow was born in the Bronx on Nov. 11, 1928. When he was very young his family moved to North Franklin, Conn., where his immigrant parents — Adolfo Socolovsky, an Argentine who had trained as a classical violinist, and the former Sarah Mindich, a Ukrainian — tried their hand at dairy farming.
They disagreed about what to name their son; his father called him Saint, the name that appears on his birth certificate. Registering her son for school, however, his mother called him Sanford, which is how news organizations often referred to him. Mr. Socolow rarely used either name, however; he was always known as Sandy, for his hair color as a baby.
The dairy farm experiment lasted until Sandy was 10, and the family returned to New York, where he attended Stuyvesant High School and worked for its newspaper. A family friend, the business executive and former ambassador Carl Spielvogel, said in an interview that Mr. Socolow had told him that that was where the journalism bug bit him.
He attended Baruch College and later City College of New York, where he studied history and was a campus correspondent for The New York Times.
He became a copy boy at The Times and served in the Army, working in a broadcasting unit in Japan during the Korean War. Afterward he worked in the Tokyo bureau of the International News Service, a Hearst news agency, which later merged with United Press to become United Press International.
Mr. Socolow married Anne Krulewitch in 1960; they divorced in 1977. In addition to his sons, he is survived by a daughter, Elisabeth Socolow; a brother, Alfred; and four grandchildren.
In 1974, Mr. Socolow moved to Washington, where he oversaw CBS’s coverage of Nixon’s resignation and the trials of the Watergate conspirators. He returned to New York in 1978 as executive producer of the “CBS Evening News With Walter Cronkite” and briefly maintained control over the program after Dan Rather succeeded Cronkite in 1981. Mr. Socolow was later London bureau chief and a producer for “60 Minutes.”
After leaving CBS in 1988, Mr. Socolow worked for the Christian Science Monitor program “World Monitor” and produced programs for the Discovery Channel and the Public Broadcasting Service.
In a 2008 interview with the Archive of American Television, Mr. Socolow was asked what advice he could offer to an aspiring news producer.
“If you hear of a story, especially a foreign story that has an American quotient to it, in a misbegotten place — I’m not talking about Rome, Paris, London,” he said, instead naming as examples Vietnam in the 1960s and Central America during the early years of the Reagan administration, before picking up the thread: “Just get there as fast as you can.”
New York Times January 24th editorial page. That darn rival has hit the bigtime. I’m humbled because the article is right on the money and they even mention his day time job when he is not fishing.
The Opinion Pages | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Why Tolerate Terrorist Publications?
By MARTIN LONDON JAN. 23, 2015
WHILE most of us would agree that religious fundamentalists, foreign and domestic, sometimes do serious harm to our society, there are other kinds of fundamentalists who are also dangerous: I refer to legal fundamentalists.
More precisely, the tranche of lawyers, academicians, journalists and publishers who, over the years, have developed into First Amendment fundamentalists and have become a powerful influence on our government. Currently, they appear to have persuaded our attorney general that the amendment bars him from taking action against Inspire magazine, published on the Internet by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
The organization is a sworn enemy of the United States, and its web publication is available throughout the land. The online magazine proclaims its goals of providing inspiration and justification to inflict harm on the United States as well as Britain, France and other countries, by killing its citizens, preferably in large numbers. It encourages its readers to engage in attacks.
The magazine has given instructions for building car bombs as well as pressure-cooker bombs using material from a kitchen or a hardware store. Those instructions were followed to the letter by the Tsarnaev brothers, who murdered three and sent 264 to hospitals in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.
It also — in its issue this past Christmas Eve — shared a new bomb recipe aimed at bringing down civilian airliners. According to Inspire, the new bomb would not be detected by the Transportation Security Administration metal detectors, only potentially by sniffer machines. But even if detected, the bomb probably wouldn’t be discovered, the publication says, without probing into orifices that a T.S.A. officer might be reluctant to visit.
In Britain, possession of the online magazine is a crime. Is this publication protected by our First Amendment? Not on your life!
In 1791, our forebears, anxious lest the new government adopt some of the restrictions that had been imposed by the king, adopted a basic commandment barring the government from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech.”
Does that mean what it says? Obviously not, because we have adopted many laws abridging speech, such as in cases of child porn, perjury, false representation, libel and slander, criminal conspiracy, etc. The list is substantial. When it comes to political speech, how do we distinguish the good speech from the bad? We look to bedrock principles.
For example, threats are not protected because they provide no social value. The idea behind the First Amendment, wrote the founders, was that the citizens be free to criticize their government. And over the next several centuries, our courts have developed a great body of law refining and expanding that concept. In the area of national security and politics, there are no wrong ideas, and free speech is indispensable to the disclosure of truth.
The most recent and most expansive Supreme Court decision on protected speech in the context of national security was the Brandenburg case in 1969, which struck down an Ohio law that criminalized advocacy of crime, violence or terrorism as a means of accomplishing political reform. The statute was unconstitutional, the court said, because political speech is protected unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Because this Ohio statute did not adequately distinguish between abstract advocacy versus true incitement to imminent action, the conviction of Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, was reversed.
In looking at the question of what speech is protected and what is not, courts have always looked to context. For example, every Supreme Court decision on this subject recognizes war as an exception to the First Amendment, even though the Constitution says no such thing. The classic example cited by the older cases is recognition of the government’s unfettered right, in time of war, to ban the publication of information revealing the sailing dates of troop transports. Ten years after Brandenburg, a district judge in the United States v. Progressive case enjoined the publication of classified nuclear bomb formulas. The court found that times had changed, war was no longer limited to foot soldiers who travel to battle sites on troop transports, and even though it was not clear that a reader would imminently “build a hydrogen bomb in the basement,” the scope of the danger overwhelmed the imminence factor.
The balancing act was succinctly explained by Robert W. Warren, the district court chief judge who, when referring to Patrick Henry’s famous liberty-or-death choice, wrote, “in the short run, one cannot enjoy freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom of the press unless one first enjoys the freedom to live.”
The balancing test must look at what is real. The measurement of imminence changes when we are talking about detonating a nuclear bomb in New York City as opposed to an unlicensed rally blocking the Brooklyn Bridge.
The federal government should move decisively to block Inspire on the web. It is criminal incitement that has produced lawless action, and no sentient judge would today say otherwise.
It is one thing for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to excuse the journalist James Risen from revealing a book source, and quite another to permit virulent enemies to recruit, train and support those who would destroy our country. If we sanction this kind of so-called freedom, we risk horrible consequences. The Paris killings are small stuff compared with what would happen if our civilian airline system were crippled. I fear that in response to more terrorism, we would see repression on a terrifying scale.
Martin London, of counsel to the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, has litigated First Amendment issues.