Chucky Award

November 21, 2007

The Chucky AwardIt’s that time again. Time to give recognition to those who show us that their brains really ain’t much bigger than a monkey’s. What would we do without these people? Probably live in a better society, but in the meantime we can still laugh at them.
[ad#Google Adsense]
Our first nominee is Oliver Thomas, a former New Orleans City Councilman, who cares so little about his city that he’d rather sit in jail for three years and 1 month than to help New Orleans become a better city. Originally Oliver made a plea agreement with prosecutors that he will cooperate with them as their investigation continues. Instead, he tries to un-snitch his snitching, and encourages other people to snitch. In Mr. Thomas’ world it’s okay to tell people to snitch, but it’s not okay to actually snitch.

Mr. Thomas would rather the people of his city continued to be mired in poverty while just handful of city officials and their cronies get rich. Now some of you are probably disappointed that Oliver Thomas isn’t winning the Chucky Award, but at least he gets a runner up prize for the next three years.

You are what you are, but as our next nominees prove you ain’t what you really are if you don’t want to be. The City of San Francisco will soon issue ID cards that exclude the gender of a person because some people who might not have all the tools attached that are required to be a man want to be a man anyway, and some people that really want to be a woman have, well too many tools in their toolbox to be a woman.

Once Mayor Gavin Newsom signs the new ordinance, one has to wonder if the City of San Francisco is going to stop other “discriminating” practices. Shouldn’t women who really want to be younger and go through great lengths and surgeries to look younger be able to have their date of birth reflecting so? Why include the date of birth on an ID card as well? Why not just give everybody an identifying number that way we won’t have to worry about discriminating against one person or another? Think of how easy it will be for somebody who’s transgendered to be what they really want. They could just switch back and forth if they wanted to without all the hassle of discrimination against them.

Again, no need to worry again as Mayor Newsom is bound to win a Chucky sooner or later, he’s the type of guy who will sleep with his political aid’s wives, and who knows in San Francisco, maybe their husbands too.

I love it when somebody makes it as a nominee for sexual stupidity, but this almost has to be a tie for stupidity, though I’m a little confused on the second. One nominee is Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) who is pushing for condoms to be given to prison inmates. Oh tis the season to be giving, but if your going to rape your cell mate, please do it safely. Here’s a piece of advice, if you don’t want to get Aids while in prison, how about not committing crimes that will put you there? Just a thought.

And tying Barbara Lee is Ontario high school special ed teacher Dina Calautti, who was fired for giving a student relationship advice. Just because Dina Calautti is a special Ed teacher doesn’t mean she has the right to teach um special, inter, or any other type of courses without the express written consent of the school board. From the article….

“Dina Calautti was charged with committing sex-related offences against a 16-year-old student last week has raised the issue of how to define an appropriate relationship between teachers and students.”

Now I’m confused. I understand we don’t want teachers making any nude time connections with the students, that I get. But we don’t want teachers giving students any advice on personal matters, but we want them to give students condoms, teach em how to use the condom, and get into private matters during classroom time, but we don’t want kids taking private matters to teachers? Does this go over too child abuse as well? I mean, if a student is being abused at home, is a teacher supposed to say “That’s a private matter, please tell me about it in the classroom.”? But if you are a teacher and would like to win the Chucky Award, please sleep with one of your students and surely you make the list of nominees.

And the winner is… Yvonne Dorsey Welch for her email she sent out encouraging contributors to give to her campaign so they’ll have a little black mark next to their name while she’s serving them in the State Senate. Quotes from her email made the Fax weekly from John Maginnis

“From the Fax Weekly – Friday, November 16th
It takes a lot to offend a lobbyist, but recent fundraising appeals by legislators have their tongues wagging.

Some lobbyists are more disturbed by a late fundraising appeal from Rep. Yvonne Dorsey, D-Baton Rouge, who is in a heated Senate race against Jason Decuir.

Asking for the maximum donation and quick, she writes, “Slow or delayed contributions have no value in war or campaigns.” She offers to personally pick up checks from Baton Rouge givers.

But what really sets off lobbyists is her closing: “I look forward to working with you in the Senate and putting a tick mark by your name as one of my proven friends and tested supporters.”

The phone was not answered at Dorsey’s district office or residence.”

Now we all heard about Royal Alexander’s notorious email that cost him the election, but Democrats who held a Republican accountable proved to the rest of us that they are more than willing to overlook corruption on their side. In fact, this goes to show that the Democrats don’t mind being mired in poverty while their State Senator sells her vote to the highest bidder, er excuse me, gives little “tick marks by” the names of the people that give to her campaign. While many Republicans were holding Royal accountable for his email (this website included), Democrats ignored the bidding and gladly voted for party before principle.

Yvonne Dorsey is no stranger to giving to those who give to her as she made room in the state budget for her alleged boyfriend’s non-profit organization, he gave her a little, and she gave him a lot.

Congratulations Yvonne on both your victories this week and we look forward to your many future campaigns for the Chucky Award. With Carla Dartez out of the running, you could be our first Chucky Award Hall of Famer! Keep up the good work, and we’ll keep watching!

Until the next Chucky Awards, thank you and good night.

Many of us who live in the rest of the country might marvel at the tenacity of Floridians who weather hurricane season year after year, but the truth is a large percentage of the population lives at risk of one kind of a natural disaster or another. And more of us probably wish we did. The riskiest places just happen to be some of the most beautiful: the banks of the babbling brook which occasionally floods; the fringes of the forest, which sometimes catches fire. The question is, who bears the burden of the risk of living in one of these beautiful but perhaps perilous places? web site beaches in florida

With us now is Dennis Mileti, retired director of the Natural Hazard Research and Applications Information Center at the University of Colorado and the author of “Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States.” He joins us from the studios of KPSI in Palm Springs.

Welcome to the show.

Dr. DENNIS MILETI (Author, “Disasters by Design”): Thank you very much.

PALCA: So we just heard a discussion about the destruction in Florida. Why do people there keep building in such a risky area? And maybe the answer is simple as it’s nice to live there most of the time.

Dr. MILETI: Well, that’s certainly, I’m sure, one of the reasons people go to Florida. But in general, the real answer is, they’re human beings. And human beings are wired in a particular way that has them discount low-probability, high-consequence events like hurricanes. We really, as a general rule, don’t take those sorts of extremes into account when we make decisions about where to live.

PALCA: Well, but actually, since you bring it up, I mean, there’s a lot of people who are terrified of flying, even though that’s a low-probability, high-risk event. And some of them can’t even bring themselves to get onto airplanes.

Dr. MILETI: That’s right. And the psychologists have a name for that, and it’s in the category of diseases.

PALCA: Aha. OK. So you’re saying that if you’re so obsessed with the concern that something bad will happen, it’s not a normal state? this web site beaches in florida

Dr. MILETI: Psychologists say that. I’m a sociologist, so I’ll let them have that categorization.

PALCA: OK.

Dr. MILETI: But in general, yes.

PALCA: All right. So, you know, I mean, but right afterwards, certainly the memory must be painfully clear for people in Florida, and they can’t have discounted it so much to start banging a nail into a board and rebuilding a house. So do they just say, `Well, I’ll just forget about it’?

Dr. MILETI: How most people process information about risk is, after an event, if you’re a member of the public, it’s a much more salient issue than it was before the event. But the salience of it decays and decays quickly. If there isn’t another hurricane in Florida and we did some polls over time, we’d probably find out that in two years, most people’s degree of concern about the hurricane hazard would be back to where it was a few months ago.

PALCA: So whose responsibility is it to help people rebuild? Should people have to take this upon themselves and acknowledge, you know, whether they do it psychologically or just economically, that they live in a high-risk area and it’s going to cost them a lot of money from time to time to repair the damage?

Dr. MILETI: Well, our federal government has always come to the aid of disaster victims and provided that which needed to be provided to put lives back together. So by choice, our society as a whole helps people who need help from natural disasters.


0 comments

Please help Louisiana Conservative Dot Com. Please donate $5, $10, or whatever you can afford to help our cause today!

Like Box