Knock it off with the "Deals" Patricia Froehlich

Why is Prosecutor Patricia Froehlich “willing to listen” to plea bargain deals with an accused child killer?  Fredy Chingo-Riz, an illegal alien, is accused of murdering his girlfriend’s daughter Athena Angeles.  An autopsy revealed that Athena was basically used as a punching bag until she died at the ripe old age of three. 

Froehlich is supposed to be representing the victim.  Has she forgotten that?  Saving court’s time and a few bucks is lousy reason to let accused child killer off easy.

The adults in Athena’s short life betrayed her.  In death the one person she is counting on most is the prosecutor of her killer.  Will Froehlich let Athena down as so many others have?  

Froehlich should listen to her own conscience, rescind all offers and throw the book at Chingo-Riz.  If guilty he should spend the rest of his life behind bars. 

The Best Damn Arguement I Have Ever Heard on Gun Rights

Ray Hackett is a Bitter Old Queen

 

Norwich Bulletin Editorial Page Editor Ray Hackett BANNED ME from the Norwich Bulletin!  No more of my constructive criticisms for you to read under his op-eds or the editorials that he also writes.  What a pity, I had developed a little bit of a following --- granted you probably could count them on one hand.  I am not allowed to submit letters to the editor anymore either.  Apparently I called Mr. Hackett a "bitter old Queen".  That did it!  Are you banned yet too?  I called him and I asked him why I couldn’t post and get my letters published.  He yelled “YOU CALLED ME A QUEEN!” and I have been banned as punishment.

Sorry, that’s just damn funny.  I did not remember writing that (at first) but I didn't deny it because that sure sounded like me.

With this particular instance over this op-ed (or a latter one I am not sure) I thought what is he so bitter about?  You would think that with Bulletin Buddy Chris Murphy getting elected U.S. Senator over Mr. Hackett’s nemesis Linda McMahon that he would be happy. But no!  My comment's (since deleted) emphasis was the bitter part and that’s why I didn’t initially remember calling him a “queen”.  I have no idea of Mr. Hackett’s sexual leaning (nor do I want to know!).  I just threw in “queen” for flourish.  You know us homos are into a little flourish now and then -- i.e. ’OH THOSE DRAPES HAVE GOT TO GO!’

His column summing up the election was as fuming as all of his columns have been this year.  I think the man might need some anger management sessions.  He was crazy-weird mad over Linda McMahon’s refusal to come to an editorial interview for the endorsement she had no chance of getting.  He was certainly every bit the drama queen over that so maybe that is what inspired me to call him one:

' You are not coming to my interview??!!  How dare you!'

  I for one was titillated by the fuss he made.  He was as mad as a wet hen!  Oh no, now I called him a hen…  What will I get for that?  Will they stop cashing my checks and stop delivering the newspaper to my door?

 Honestly though, for a real Republican going to these “interviews” is a bit like going to the Democrat State Central Committee asking for their endorsement.  You aren’t going to get the endorsement so why go?  Its the enemy camp.  I thought Mrs. McMahon made a terrific statement with that.

When I called Mr. Hackett (previous occasions as well) he seemed intimidated by me on the phone.  Intimidated by little ‘ol me?

I am pretty sure that the real reason why he doesn’t like me (and why I was banned when others have said far worse) is I almost cost him his job.  I e-mailed his bosses and I explained how he lied about what Daria Novak said in her own interview with the Bulletin.  Mr. Hackett charged Mrs. Novak brought up a statistic that she didn’t source and it fact she had.  I knew he could have been fired by doing that.  I didn’t want him fired; I just wanted the record set straight.  Their endorsement of her primary opponent would stand. 

There was no retraction as I demanded or any correspondence back to me at all but I think Mr. Hackett was given a stern warning.  It’s nice to know that there are still some journalistic ethics of some sort there.  In the old days there would be a retraction and one less editorial page editor. 

That’s why I was banned.  Calling Mr. Hackett a bitter old queen was just the excuse he was waiting for. 

I thought about apologizing but you know what?  I am not sorry. 

Bulletin/ Ray Hackett Are Lying About Daria Novak

The Norwich Bulletin can endorse whomever they wish for the Republican 2nd Congressional Primary.  That is not the issue here. I am saying they can't call people liars when facts say otherwise.  The Bulletin wrote:


QUOTE "during her editorial board meeting with us, one of the claims Novak made was that 83 percent of doctors across the country are contemplatingleaving the medical profession because of the Affordable Care Act. But there is no evidence to support that claim, typical of the inaccurate and misleadingstatements she makes in defending her positions.  UNQUOTE

So since the Bulletin basically said Novak made up this statistic out of thin air, here is the report in question which had that statistic as Novak said.  It was written by the Doctor Patient Medical Association Foundation.  You can read it in full here

The Town Hall article that Novak mentioned about this study is probably this one by Kate Hicks 

On this narrow point the Bulletin owes Daria Novak an apology and must retract its false accusation.  Their endorsement shall stand (for whatever that is worth), but they must fess up that they blew it.  If a retraction isn’t forth-coming than they are the intellectually dishonest ones. 

Another Example of Media Bias

I have to put in my two cents on the layout of the Opinion Page in the print edition for The Bulletin today July 9 2011. Someone thinks he is being oh so clever!

On either side of a fantastic letter by John McCommas are seemingly combating op-eds. I love the concept but things didnt go 'right' --pun intended.

On the left, under the banner "From the Left", is a full frontal attack on presidential candidate Michele Bachman by Richard Cohen. Fair enough except for the unsubstantiated 'she hates fags' remark. On the right side, "From the Right", is ANOTHER attack on Mrs. Bachman! In a snarky backhanded way George Will basically writes she and her staff are "not ready for prime time". Will seemed to endorse Rick Perry from the way I read it.

What the fuck? -- Just whose idea of fairness and balance is this shit??!!! How about picking a From the Right columnist who is actually FOR BACHMAN? That would be the point-counterpoint you would expect in a head to head match up but someone seems to want it both ways here. The message sent was 'The Left AND the Right agree Bachman is a loser'.

Well that is not what the polls say lately boys!

I am not a Bachman supporter yet, I am leaning towards Rick Perry in fact, but I like her a lot and clearly she is not being treated fairly by The Bulletin and this is but the latest example. Mrs. Bachman is getting the same treatment as Sarah Palin gets. What is so threatening about a conservative woman who looks like she just might be our next president or Veep?

The Bulletin did the same exact thing a while ago with abortion which is another issue they are kinda funny about. From the Left had someone who naturally is *pro-choice*, but then on the other side was Kathleen Parker. Parker's so-called From the Right perspective was great until you get to the end where she says well gosh darn it even if abortion is murder, we still shouldn't make it illegal.

I guess that is a From the Right position the editor didnt mind printing, but that is not what most Pro-Lifers think.

The Norwich Bulletin seems to be saying heads the Left wins, and tails the Right loses.

note: The mentioned op-eds did not appear in The Bulletin's online version.

Barbara Boxer's Partial Birth Abortion Logic

President Reagan 1981 Inaugural Address