Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter
Call Afternoons Live
TEXT Afternoons Live at:
Dave Bowman, a/k/a Dave! Diamond, is a radio talk show host, father, baseball fan, football fan, avid reader and a frustrated writer. He has a passion for coffee and for tequila, and is a ToTaL Star Trek and Big Bang Theory geek.
He was born in Oklahoma, grew up in Colorado, attended Pueblo South High School for two years and then graduated from Ogden High School in Ogden, UT, served for eleven years in the US Navy Submarine fleet, was a Naval Instructor and Ballistic Missile Fire Control Technician, achieving the rank of FTB1(SS) through sorcery and favoritism but would have been happy staying an FTB2(SS) for life. He later attended Seminary in Atlanta, GA, then served as a pastor for five years before realizing the massive error of his ways.
He then worked in non-Profit management until 2006 when he was hired to do sports for a local talk radio show, eventually moving into the host position in September of 2007.
In 2008 Dave converted to Judaism.
He is heard each weekday from 3pm to 6pm (Pacific) on KFIV 1360AM in Modesto and everywhere via the iHeart Radio Application.
Want to get to know Dave! personally? Read his blog, "And Deforest Kelly as Dr. McCoy"
Write this down, because this is what is going to happen.
Louis Lerner's fiasco before congress yesterday will go down in history as a confused bungle of an attempt to do something, nobody is quite clear as to what exactly she was trying to do, it will be studied by law students for years to come and, this is the important part, it will be ruled by whatever Court ends up hearing this (presuming that it goes that far - and it should) that she did not, in fact, provide direct material testimony before invoking her 5th Amendment rights and therefore cannot be recalled by Congress.
And you are already mad about it. Even if you don't believe me, and think that the talking heads on Fox are infallible, you are angry at the idea that I could be right and put off by the confidence I have have that I am right.
You should be.
For the record, I don't want to be right. Frankly, this is a plate of crow I would gladly chow down upon. But you know as well as I do that when it comes to technical matters of the law, things rarely work out in a way that provides for what we common folk like to call, common sense.
Furthermore, if it were you or I making such a statement and then invoking our 5th Amendment Rights, we'd be blasted by the Judge, mocked by the opposition lawyers and end up being told to answer the question(s) or go to jail for contempt. But, as you may have noticed, neither you nor I are the head of an entire Department of the Internal Revenue Service, the most feared and politically useful agency in the entire Federal Government. Try as they might to appear otherwise, neither Democrats nor Republicans want to give up the most powerful piece of Governmental control.
And so, Congress will do what makes them look like they look like they are up in arms and look like they are looking like they are doing something about this, but in the end, they will rely on the Court system which after great and careful deliberation will decide that her statement did not amount to "testimony" and tell Congress to leave her alone. She'll be "vindicated" and essentially cleared. One party's hard noses will look "mean spirited" and vindictive, going after a woman, after all, for just doing her job. Pretty much nobody will notice when 2014 rolls around and elections are happening with both parties claiming to represent the interests of the American People, that each are conveniently forgetting that now both sides have been caught at least once using the IRS to punish political opponents. Amazingly enough, neither side has done one single thing to prevent it from ever happening again.
Polls say that almost half of Americans aren't paying attention to the IRS scandal. Why should they? Nearly half have literally nothing to fear from the IRS.
Trust me, Louis Lerner is done "testifying" before Congress. The talking heads will tell you that she "screwed up" and "is in contempt." Nope, she did what she had to do to keep the actions right on truck'n. In the end, the people who are screaming about her "contempt" will be the ones vilified and defeated.
And the IRS will go back to the shadows, watching and auditing. Oh, and running health care...
On May 22, 1968, USS Scorpion was lost at sea with 99 souls aboard.
There are any number of theories about what happened, certainly I have my own thoughts as does every submariner in the world, but the fact is that nobody living actually knows for certain what happened near the Azores that spring day.
The most important lessons of that day are simply this: Going to sea is very dangerous. Going to sea on a ship designed to operate underwater is very dangerous. The Navy knew of those dangers and it is a matter of record that USS Scorpion was in less than "4.0" condition when she deployed to the Mediterranean Sea in early 1968. There is a reason for procedures and for processes, and in the case Scorpion, regardless of what happened on May 22nd, those processes had not been completed for her. Her operational parameters had been reduced to less than those of a WWII Balao Class boat.
As look back at the times and we understand that the world was different, that a Cold War drove needs and concerns. With the passing of time we have the luxury of wondering if those needs and worries were worth the cost.
I believe that they were. Those men - and the men who dive today - understand the mission and the purpose of what they do. If we decide that that it didn't matter, then we steal from them the honor and pride that they earned and so richly deserve.
The men of Scorpion did everything that could have been done to save their boat. That is what all submariners around the world and throughout history have done. Sadly, it is not always successful.
As Memorial Day approaches, we recall the 99 men of USS Scorpion, eternally on patrol.
As if the Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798 weren't bad enough of an idea, a hundred and twenty years later Congress got the idea up to try again to stifle free speech and government criticism with the Sedition Act of 1918.
That's right. Congress decided that dissent against the government "during time of war" was now the moral equivalent of sedition. The really scary part of the second round of attempts to muzzle opposition wasn't just that Congress came up with an already shredded idea of how to usurp the 1st Amendment, but that this time around, the Media (as it was in 1918) actually seemed to take the lead in suppressing critique of the President and the Government.
Think about that for a minute.
I am all about National Security. But there is a huge difference between discussing, say, the operation characteristics of a TRIDENT C4 Missile and the concept that the thing should have exited in the first place.
Even more, things today aren't as confused, I suppose, as they were in 1918. It was not crystal clear back then that one side, The Allies, or the other was necessarily in the "the right" and that they needed the US to join a war that had already consumed Europe in an attempt to fight a war to end all wars.
Many in the US felt that both sides were wrong or that both sides were right. Recall that in the early 20th Century, America had large direct immigrant populations from Germany, Ireland, the Balkans and even Russia. Not to mention we weren't yet on 100% friendly terms with the British, and our on again, off again love affair with the French was in an off again phase.
In short, while much of the nation had been outraged by the German use of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, another large part of the nation thought it was none of our problem and we'd be better served to stay out of it. How have we always resolved such issues?
Mainly through political discourse and the votes of our elected representatives. Even we a large part of the country disagrees, vehemently, it is ultimately up to Congress to decide. In fact, a point many like to forget is that George Bush asked Congress to go to war in Iraq, and Congress, with Hillary Clinton voting "Aye," agreed.
Later, dissent would become her watchword, declaring that dissent against the government was true patriotism.
Today we watch as a stunned media discovers that for the past few years they have been functionally no different than their distant ancestors who once willingly laid down the 1st Amendment to help the government prosecute what was - at the time - a not so popular war. With the realization that its self-muzzling and attacks on those who critique the government and its leaders are racists or gun nuts or whatever, the Media may at last be waking up to the realization that any organization that makes it illegal to criticize it, or if not illegal certainly demagogues speech against it, is really about one thing and one thing only. Power over everybody.
Welcome to America, circa 1798, 1918, 1973 and now 2013...
After the show on Tuesday, I go an eMail which caused me to stop for a second and realize that I had failed to consider all of the possibilities involved with the City Attorney's Officer Time Care Tax Payer Rip off scam. You see, I read - as did some of you - that the City Attorney, Susan Alcala Wood, simply failed to read her mail, which if she had done so, the whole scandal would have been avoided as she would have seen quickly that it was in fact an attempt to defraud the tax payers. Alas, she didn't have time, you see. Her office is undermanned and she had other things going on.
But what if... it wasn't that she didn't have time to read the eMails, or even just failed to read the eMails. What if she intentionally DID NOT READ the eMails... on purpose.
Think about it. She's the City Attorney. She knows her job and duties. So failure to read eMail means that she is either (a) incompetent, in which case she needs a bit more than a "Counseling Session" and the full support and backing of the City Council; or (b) she intentionally did not read them because she knew that they would make her complicit in the fraud, which she says didn't happen.
If that is the case, then she IS part of the fraud and even a part of the cover up.
Which would also indicate that the Councils lack of action against anyone in this $41,000 plus the cost of subsidized child care TAX PAYER rip off scheme is because they knew about it and tacitly approved it. Hence the Mayor's amazing "We don't investigate anonymous complaints" statement, especially ones that we know are gonna be trouble, right Mr. Mayor?
The fact that the ENTIRE Council has "agreed to not discipline anyone" in this matter is an outrage and indicative of collusion. Can I prove it? Nope. But like the man said,* I know the difference between chicken salad and chicken s---.
And this FRAUDULENT scandal to rip off the tax payers doesn't smell like delicious chicken breast and mayonnaise, if you get my drift.
*President Lyndon Johnson