Friday, April 29, 2011

447 Cool, young looking Bill Moreland from my Streator grade school daze

Bill Moreland

Attending Ice Breaker?  Yes

Last Updated:  February 21, 2009

Residing In:  Ottawa, IL USA

Spouse/Partner:  Jo Ann (Blumenshine) Moreland

Occupation:  Engineering Manager

Children:  Benjamin, born 1977
Josie, born 1979
Jacob, born 1982
Christie, born 1985

Birthday:  May 5, 1951

Bill & Jo Ann

Jake and wife Jen, Ben, Christie and fiance Erik, Josie and husband Scott


Send a private message to Bill Moreland:

From:  Mark Ganzer

Thursday, April 28, 2011

446 My streator grade school class mate Gretchen Klein whose mother hosted the most wonderful party back in the day - the guys got all dolled up in sprts jackets and ties and the girls were simply gorgeous

Gretchen Klein (Katrein)

Attending Ice Breaker?  Yes

Last Updated:  July 17, 2010

Residing In:  1414 S Wasson St
Streator, IL 61364 USA

Telephone:  815-672-4949

Spouse/Partner:  Gary Katrein (SHS class of 63) Married Jan. 17, 1970

Occupation:  Bookkeeper

Children:  Amy (Mark) Webb born 1970 Librarian, Mahomet IL
Brandi Katrein (Nathan Killion) born 1974 Works for BCA Urbana IL
Jody (Frank) Powers born 1977 Lt. Commander US Navy
Jason Webb born 1999
Sarah Webb born 2001
Jennifer Webb born 2003
Katreina Powers born 2006
Trent Powers born 2007

Birthday:  June 5, 1951

Comments:  I haven't been up to that much since 1969. Didn't go to college; jumped right into motherhood. Was a stay at home mom until we started our own heating business in 1976. Well I was still a stay at home mom, but added bookkeeper to my daily to do list. In 1982 we started a retail business, Contractors Supply and both businesses are still going strong. Gary will never retire; thus I guess I won't either.
Our girls are our pride & joy as well as our 5 grand children. The grandkids were all here last Friday as Jody's family is on their way to Everett WA for her next tour of duty. Jody will have been in the Navy 10 years next month. She always likes me to stress that she made Lt. Commander at age 30.
So that's what's been happening in my little world. I really enjoy this site and check it out often. Thanks to those involved in keeping this working like a well oiled machine. Hope to post some pictures soon.

School Story:  Super Dairy, Hills, Norris Hall, football games, Streatorettes, strip films in Driver's Ed.-anyone else remember that little slip by Coach Lumberg??
Wow, I'm impressed I remembered that much!!

Me & Gary at Jody's wedding Dec. 2004

My girls. Left to right: Jody, Brandi and Amy

Starting with my first born; Amy and her husband Mark Webb. Met at Eureka College. Married May 1994. She will be the librarian at Sangamon School in Mahomet this fall. Mark is a computer programmer and works in Champaign. They make their home in Mahomet with their 3 kids, a dog and 2 guinea pigs.

These are Amy & Marks kids. Jenny on the left is the youngest and will turn 6 on June 30th. Jason in the middle will be 10 in December and Sarah on the right will be 8 in August.

This doll is Trixie, the Webb family dog. She was adopted from the Humane Society and has been in the family for about 11 years. The first of my grandpups.

Next came Brandi. She lives in Urbana with her boyfriend Nathan Killion. They've been a couple for 10 1/2 years. They just bought their 2nd house together on the east side of Urbana. Brandi is a secretary/drafter by day and a Close To My Heart consultant by night. Nathan is a Mechanical Designer. They have 2 dogs Cheyenne & Austin.

Brandi & Nathan's 'kids'. Cheyenne & Austin. They don't have any of the 2 legged variety.

This is Jody & her husband Frank Powers taken at the Navy Ball last fall. They met in Pascagoula, MS in 2002 aboard the USS Shoup. They were married December 2004 in Charleston, SC at The Citadel. Frank now works for National Park Service as a Contracting Specialist. Jody is a Lt. Commander in the Navy's Meteorology & Oceanography (METOC) community. She's currently the METOC Officer and Force Navigator for the Commander, Carrier Strike Group Nine staff and homeported in Everett, WA on the USS Abraham Lincoln. She's responsible for the weather and oceanography services and safe navigation for the ships & aircraft assigned to Carrier Strike Group Nine. While in Everett they are living on a sail boat and she also owns a cabin on Mt. Index that she bought when first stationed in Everett about 6 years ago.

This is Jody & Frank's daughter Katreina ready to go to dinner at The Country Cupboard in town while visiting last April. She was 3 in March.

This handsome fellow is Trent Powers. He is 1 1/2 years old.

This is our grand dog Bryce. He's a husky shephard mix and was adopted by Jody & Frank in Washington state 6 years ago. Moved with them to Stafford VA, then to Slidell MS and now is living with me & Gary. Jody decided last fall that the demands of her job and 2 kids didn't leave much time for Bryce and was thinking of putting him up for adoption. I pushed my name to the top of the list and now he's mine. My first boy dog and first shedding dog in 30+ years. He's a real sweatheart.

The last member of my family is our schnauzer Ginger. She'll be 10 years old this fall.

Taken yesterday at Amy's birthday party. 
Back: Mark holding Katreina & Jenny, Jody holding Trent, Brandi & Amy.
Front: Jason & Sarah

This is Jody, Katreina, Trent & Frank enjoying some family time before her deployment.

445 Masjid Huda is presenting a lecture on Sunday the May first 2011 in its adult education series. At 2PM.

Dear Friends
Peace be upon you
Masjid Huda is presenting a lecture 
on Sunday the May first 2011  in its adult education series.
At 2PM.
 I want to invite our Christian friends for this lecture.
Please see the attached flayer for the topic and details
Dr. Khalid sami

Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:58:34 -0700
Subject: Rights of EXPRESSION Flyer for 
Sunday May 1, 2011

Please forward to your contacts as we are trying to estimate the number of participants for food.

3950 Industrial Avenue
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008-1024
(847) 253-6400

444 Watch terrifying tornado footage from southern storms

A ferocious system of tornado-filled thunderstorms has claimed at least 250 lives in the past few days—with Alabama suffering the worst hit. We've rounded up videos, below, that show the destruction. One video captured by local news channel WBMA's tower shows a large tornado touching down last night near Tuscaloosa, Alabama, where the University of Alabama is located.
"It's been a devastating blow to the people of this community," Tuscaloosa Mayor Walt Maddox told ABC, adding that hundreds of businesses and homes were destroyed. "We need men, materials and equipment. Our system is overwhelmed. The tornado took out a major nerve center of city, our environmental services department which is how we pick up debris, trash. It's gone and the fleet that we have, the vehicles are gone." At least fifteen people were killed in the town of 83,000 and about 100 more are in a local hospital, according to the AP.
Including yesterday's storm, there have been a whopping 800 reports of tornadoes in April, easily surpassing April 2003's all-time record of 543 twisters. We rounded up videos of some of this month's twisters here. And check out the New York Times' map of where tornadoes hit here.
You can watch the tornado touching down in Tuscaloosa below:
And this video, shot by storm chasers, shows a tornado barreling through Philadelphia, Mississippi:
See the damage in Northern Georgia after the twisters:
(Tuscaloosa tornado: AP)

443 Digby weighs in on a few issues

Thursday, April 28, 2011

He's just an old country aristocrat

by digby

David Swanson has posted a blockbuster piece about a panel he attended featuring Alan Simpson, David Walker, Larry Sabato and Dean Baker on the subject of the debt and the economy. He notes Sabato's fuzzy-wuzzy affection toward Simpson, a common occurrence among Villagers --- they love to portray his countrified aristocratic misanthropy as Real American folk wisdom and pretend that means that even the plebes agree that class warfare only runs one way:
There were more questions from the audience, but Simpson addressed himself to me when he explained what was wrong with taxing wealthy people. We have to get away from talking about the rich versus the poor, he said. For one thing, when you talk about who's responsible for something, the commission you're working on can't come to any agreement. The Iraq Study Group, for example, had to set aside who was to blame in order to propose what should be done. (Of course, most of us don't spend our lives serving on bipartisan commissions, and taxing the rich is as forward looking a concept as any other; blaming the rich was a straw man Simpson created.)

See, we can't get anything done if wealthy and powerful people are held accountable for their crimes (unless it involves unsanctioned fellatio, of course.) He's just being pragmatic. It's just a plain fact that Very Important People will be Very Seriously Upset if they and theirs are forced to pay and that means they won't let our allegedly democratic government do its job. Surely you can understand the problem.

Swanson got footage of the event and I highly recommend that you take a look at it when you get a chance. Apparently, Baker was there to give the others a break from their mutual snogging since nobody seemed to pay any attention to the fact that he vehemently disagreed with everything they were saying. (Village consensus means never having to listen to anyone who doesn't validate your biases.) Everything he says is true and important.

Be sure to also click over to the link to read Swanson's full account and see some classic footage of Simpson being an ass. He's all for cutting defense --- and by that he means cutting funding for the Veterans Administration. Seriously.

Conspiracy Clerics

by digby

In case you thought that the lying documentary hoax was invented by James O'Keefe, here's a reminder that it has been a thriving wingnut industry for years.(Remember The Clinton Chronicles?) Here's a new one coming from the infamous Coral Ridge Ministries featuring a couple of alleged ex-employees from Planned Parenthood who say the clinics routinely give out defective condoms and weak birth control pills to girls so they can meet their abortion quota and become millionaires. Apparently, it's something like selling Mary Kay or Tupperware.


Ex-Planned Parenthood Clinic Director and Former Abortion Clinic Owner Expose Business of Abortion on Cross Examine TV

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL (April 27, 2011) – Two former abortion industry insiders talk candidly about the business of abortion this week on Cross Examine, a nationally aired television program featuring Dr. Del Tackett.

“If you want to keep the doors open, you better sell a lot of abortions,” says Abby Johnson, who left her post as executive director of a Texas Planned Parenthood clinic in 2009. “I was probably the best in my clinic. I sold abortions to girls as young as twelve.”

To view “The Business of Abortion” online now, please visit (After April 29, log in for free as a “Cross Examine Insider” to watch the show.)

Carol Everett, an owner of two abortion clinics in the Dallas-Fort Worth area in the 1980s, wanted to become a millionaire. “And the way for me to be a millionaire was to sell 40,000 abortions a year.”

It was easy money. When she opened a new clinic, “In the first month that clinic would pay for itself, and the second month it would be a cash cow.”

Johnson charges on the program that Planned Parenthood, a $1 billion corporation which took in $363 million from government sources in 2008-2009, sets abortion targets for each clinic.

“Planned Parenthood absolutely has quotas that each center has to meet,” Johnson says about her former employer which performed 324,008 abortions in 2008.

“They have an abortion budget and they have a certain number of patients that you have to perform abortions on every month, and there’s a dollar amount attached to each woman.”

Everett’s business plan included outreach in schools with talks given to break down children’s natural modesty and promote Everett and her clinic associates as trusted authorities for all things sexual.

Everett wanted students to “come to us with their sexual questions so we could put them on a low dose birth control pill we knew they’d get pregnant on. Of course we passed out condoms but we never passed out high quality condoms; we always used seconds or defective condoms. Our goal was to get the kids pregnant.”

The target, Everett says, was “three to five abortions between the ages of 13 and 18 from every girl we could find.”

Cross Examine co-host Dr. Del Tackett said it is “shocking to realize that this industry actually attempts to increase the number of abortions, rather than a desire to make them rare as we are led to believe.”

Fox News is Walter Cronkite compared to these people. But they are all playing in the same fetid pool of conservative lies and propaganda.

After-birthers running through the fever swamps

by digby

I'm so sick of this birther BS that I can hardly stand it. But since the right wingers seem to be ratcheting up the crazy on this, I guess it's necessary to at least bring attention to the aggressively stupid nonsense that's out there. Here's Media Matters:

A lot of attention is being paid to last night's Follow The Money on Fox Business Network, during which host Eric Bolling and crew had themselves anextended wallow in the birther swamp, in spite of the release of Obama's birth certificate, and in spite of Fox News' Shep Smith exhorting the media to "just freaking stop it."
Monica Crowley was on Bolling's panel and she eschewed the spittle-flecked lunacy of co-panelist Pamela Geller, instead going for a more high-brow justification of birtherism, bringing up the question of whether Obama qualifies as a "natural-born citizen".

Gateway pundit Jim Hoft is full-on on the kerning watch, with charts and graphs and Youtubes like this "proving" that the birth certificate is a fake:

And this "expert" opinion:

And he also flogs Monica Crowley's nitwit garbage about Obama not being a "natural born citizen":

Finally, also wanted to make the point that regardless of where Obama is born, he’s still not a Natural Born Citizen since both parents were not born on U.S. soil but I won’t hold my breath waiting for the media to educate the public on this fact.

This has been floating around the fever swamp since 2007, when the morons suddenly caught up with the fact that McCain was born in Panama, so he "must be born on American soil" part of their argument got dicey. So, they came up with a few other back-up theories to prove that Obama couldn't possibly be legitimately elected to the White House.

The first was the "natural born parents" theory, which is obviously just made up fantasy since seven former presidents had parents of foreign birth, including one of the founders:
And needless to say, unless the 14th Amendment has been repealed when I wasn't looking, this whole argument is utter nonsense since Obama was born in America.
US v. WONG KIM ARK (1898)- the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all persons born in the United States, regardless of their ethnic heritage
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’
To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.

Another stupid right wing trope is that Obama couldn't possibly be an American because his mother was only 18 and therefore hadn't fulfilled the citizenship requirements that would allow her to confer citizenship on her son if his father was another nationality. (Look it up --- it's too dumb to even try to explain.)

I'm sure there are other theories about the "usurpation" I haven't run across. But the fact that there are so many proves that these people are determined to find a way to defend their primitive belief that this man is not a legally elected president. And that belief lies in their fundamental, bedrock definition of what constitutes a Real American -- a white, Christian conservative. There's no way they will ever be able to reconcile the idea that a black Democrat could legitimately represent a majority the American people. Clearly, they will rewrite history and the constitution if they have to in order to make that case.


441 Published on Thursday, April 28, 2011 by The Guardian/UK 2016: When China Overtakes the US After more than a century as the world's largest economy, the US will need to adjust to its declining global hegemony

Various observers have noted this week that China's economy will be bigger than that of the United States in 2016. This comes from the International Monetary Fund's (IMF's) latest projections, which were made in its semi-annual April world economic outlook database. Since 2016 is just a few years away, and it will be the first time in more than a century that the United States will no longer be the world's largest economy, this development will be the object of some discussion – from various perspectives.
First, let's consider the economics. China has been the world's fastest growing economy for more than three decades, growing 17-fold in real (inflation-adjusted) terms since 1980. It is worth emphasising that most of this record growth took place (1980-2000) while the rest of the developing world was doing quite badly by implementing neoliberal policy changes – indiscriminate opening to trade and capital flows, increasingly independent central banks, tighter (and often pro-cyclical) fiscal and monetary policies, and the abandonment of previously successful development strategies.
China clearly did not embrace these policy changes, which were promoted from Washington by institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and later the WTO. (China did not even join the WTO until 2002.) It is true that China's growth acceleration included a rapid expansion of trade and foreign investment. But these were heavily managed by the state, to make sure that they fitted in with the government's development goals – quite the opposite of what happened in most other developing countries. China's goals included producing for export markets, promoting higher levels of technology (with the goal of transferring technology from foreign enterprises to the domestic economy), hiring local residents for managerial and technical jobs, and not allowing foreign investments to compete with certain domestic industries.
China's economy is still very much state-led, with the government controlling most of the financial system, the exchange rate, and about 44% of the assets of major industrial enterprises. That is why China was able to plow through the world recession with GDP growth of 9.8%, despite losing about 3.7 percentage points of GDP due to falling net exports.
Now for the politics and international implications. First, much of the discussion of China's rise is written from a Washington perspective – that is, from the perspective of an empire. From this view, China's rise is a "threat". Since this view sees the supremacy of Washington and its allies as good for the world, China's rise is also seen as a threat to the world. It is assumed that China will become an empire like the United States, but will not be so "benevolent" as the United States is.
This view is not supported by the facts. To take just current and recent history, it is the United States that invaded Iraq, leading to an estimated million deaths, is occupying Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan and Libya, and threatening Iran. The United States' and its allies' control over many developing countries' economic policies through the IMF, World Bank and other institutions has also caused a lot of damage over the past few decades.
So, a shift of power toward a more multipolar world is likely to give us a more peaceful and just world. In fact, it is already happening: the majority of South America, for example, is now governed by democratic left governments that have produced positive reforms that benefit the majority – something that was practically impossible to achieve while Washington dominated the region. And of course, the vast majority of people in the United States also stand to benefit from a smaller US role in the world, as we transition back to a republic from an empire: less spending on senseless wars, fewer casualties, fewer enemies, less distraction from our real problems at home.
China's foreign policy is mainly geared toward securing the raw materials and trade that will fuel its growth and development. This is done through commercial transactions. Of course, its corporations – like those of the rich countries – have come under criticism in various countries. But China does not try to tell other countries what their foreign policy towards other countries, or their overall economic policies, should be – as the United States often does. This is an important difference between a country that pursues its own national and economic interests, and an empire that seeks to impose its own order on the world.
It is always possible that China, once it becomes a rich country – and this is many years away – could develop imperial ambitions. But so far, its leadership seems to see China as a developing country seeking to become a high-income country, and doesn't see a role for empire-building in this process. "Hide brilliance, cherish obscurity," Chinese leader Deng Xioaping once said.
A few months ago, press reports, using an exchange rate measure of GDP, announced that China had become the world's "second largest economy" just this year. But by a purchasing power parity (PPP) measure, which adjusts for the difference in many prices between China and the US, China had become the second largest economy years ago. A technical matter: if we measure China's economy in dollars at current exchange rates, it reached $5.9tn in 2010, as compared with $14.7tn for the US. By a purchasing power parity measure, its economy reached $10.1tn in 2010. It is that measure that the IMF projects to grow to $18.98tn in 2016, putting the US in second place at $18.81tn.
However, it is likely that even the IMF's PPP measure understates China's GDP: economist Arvind Subramanian has estimated that China's PPP GDP in 2010 was already about even with that of the United States. An IMF spokesperson, quoted this week by the Financial Times, weighed in on the debate:
"The IMF considers that GDP in purchase power parity (PPP) terms is not the most appropriate measure for comparing the relative size of countries to theglobal economy, because PPP price levels are influenced by non-traded services, which are more relevant domestically than globally … The Fund believes that GDP at market rates is a more relevant comparison. Under this metric, the US is currently 130% bigger than China, and will still be 70% larger by 2016."

It is true that the "market rate" measure is better for some comparisons. But one important place where the PPP measure is more relevant is in military spending. The cost of producing a military plane and training a pilot in China is much lower than in the United States. Washington's current policy is to maintain military supremacy in Asia, but an arms race with China could make the cold war look cheap by comparison. The Soviet Union's economy was just a quarter of United States' economy when we had that arms race. If the US were to have a serious arms race with China, we could forget about Medicare, social security and most of what our federal government spends money on.

Fortunately, a new cold war with China is not in the cards for now. But the size of China's economy is another good reason to make sure that it doesn't happen.