Monday, November 09, 2009

OWH's ad-sense

We're not sure how the OWH picks its online ads.

When you look at the Adsense ads on the Leavenworth Street blog, they're automatically chosen by Google's supercomputers, associated with the content in the story (usually).

So we cracked up a little in this OWH story about a criminal defendant in Douglas County District Court.

He had a number of outbursts in the court room, and apparently threatened the judge, so...
"Lewis was rolled into the courtroom this morning in an office chair. Five Douglas County sheriff's deputies flanked Lewis. He was wearing at least two stun belts and was in handcuffs and leg restraints."
(How's that for a Hannibal Lecter-esque visual.)

And then, apparently completely unrelated to the story, we get the Office Depot ad for...
Ven Highback Vinyl chair

(save $30)
You gotta love some prime product placement. (Man, when they say they have ALL your office needs, they really mean it. Wonder if they carry these.)

The defendant's final quote of the article:
"I'm fixin' to beat these charges. Let's roll."
No word if Lewis was speaking to the deputies pushing his chair...

[Btw, apparently the ads change. But from the pic up above, you get the gist...]


macdaddy said...

If there were an ad for OPPD as well, I'd be a little worried.

Anonymous said...

Rachel Maddow is hot and I'm a girl

Anonymous said...

Rachel Maddow will be happy to hear a girl thinks she's hot. Rachel Maddow is proudly lesbian.

Anonymous said...

And from the other world of nonsense, I was perusing Liberal websites(they remind me why I am a Conservative), I found many of them believe an undue burden is put onto poor women that cannot afford to pay out of their own pocket for the rider that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment would require if they want abortion coverage in their taxpayer subsidized (or paid for) health insurance plan.

Perhaps, they should have thought of that before. If they can't afford a $500 abortion; if they can't afford a few dollars a month for a rider to insure against that $500 surprise; then they sure as Hell should not be engaging in an activity that could end up costing them tens of thousands of dollars over their lifetime.

The fact is: Kids are expensive, abortions are cheap and if you don't want one, then don't act like you want the other.

Anonymous said...

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment says that Republicans and Blue Dog Dems believe in a government so huge that a woman's reproductive organs are state property.

Brian T. Osborn said...

It's about time we got abortions back to the way they were in the good old days - the good Republican dads coughed up the cash to pay for back alley, coat-hanger atrocities that often resulted in the young woman's death. It was alright because those tramps were usually from the wrong side of the tracks anyway. Then junior got to go marry Betty Sue the cheerleader and have an upstanding life as President of the local Rotary Club.

(This is an example of sarcasm, for those of you that wouldn't "get" it.)

Street Sweeper said...


(Since this was just a BS post, I'm happy to let the comments wander.)

Just remember that every Republican in Congress voting for a bill cannot get it passed.

Not in the House. Not in the Senate. And not signed.

Please remember who is or isn't making law in Congress these days.


One Out In The Third. said...


And how does the old back alley coat-hanger extrication of the 50's and 60's compare say to the partial birth abortions that followed? Oh...the doctor with the white coat and tastefully decorated professional office with a sterile environment waited for the pregnancy to reach four-and-a-half months or more then scheduled an appointment with the "inconvenienced" mother to perform the "Fiskar's Twist" followed by a gentle vacuuming of the poor baby's brains.

Yep...this is an improvement over what was done back in the good ol' days. I bet the Doctor might even have been that "son-of-a-Republican" that married Betty Sue.

I could never figure out why the baby was not delivered completely before performing the finish work...suppose someone might have had an inkling of a conscious thought that maybe what they were doing might be murder? Maybe they just couldn't look the baby in the eye? I don't know.

The times they are a changin' - yeah right. Nothing has changed...the technology of murder just got better. We are advancing as a civilization...I see it every day.

I read an article just the other day that suggested government should pay certain members of society not to procreate. Think it would make a difference? Your check's in the mail...c'mon laugh...I was being sarcastic.

Brian T. Osborn said...

When the Republicans had all three branches of government - The White House, Congress, and the courts - they did NOTHING about abortion because it is the greatest anti-Democratic issue they have. It could be the right to carry AK-47s, but some of us Democrats are for that too, believe it or not.

The old back alley abortions often killed the woman too - so two lives were lost. The real guilty party, the guy that couldn't keep it zipped, got off the hook then, just as he too often does today. Maybe the legislation we need is one that bans abortion, but requires the inseminator to raise the child, including making them take the necessary hormones so that they can breast feed too.
I can't imagine why anyone would do a late-term abortion. If I were a woman, I wouldn't. But I certainly would not legislate that it could NEVER be done. There are certain cases where the woman's life is at risk where it might be the only solution.
The interesting thing about this issue is that it is a religious, not so much a moral, issue. I've read where the Jewish faith states that life begins with your first breath, not at conception. I don't know why just one religion gets to rule everyone, when our country doesn't have a church of state.
I think I like your idea of paying some folks to not procreate. Hell, the Catholic church already has a segment of their society that does that - Priests and Nuns! Let's make government paid tubal ligations and vasectomies voluntary.

Deployed NE said...


I agree with what you said.

Republicans won't do anything about abortion (except use it as a firm campaign block)because it wins them elections.

Your point about the Jewish religion is spot on! I have been waiting for YEARS for someone other than me to say that. Who are we to judge when life begins- that seems like a pretty personal question.

Republicans are anti-government healthcare, but on issues like this they will be the first ones to tell people what medical procedures they can and cannot have. Being a republican, I cannot stand that aspect of my party.

One Out In The Third said...

I believe it was a majority of Republicans and a handful of Democrats that passed the ban on partial birth abortion...and it was George Bush...a Republican...that signed it into law.

And good old Bill Clinton vetoed the first attempts to stop partial birth abortion in 1996. To bring things up to date...Michelle Obama has has also done her part to overturn this law by supporting fund raising activities that promotes abortion.

In regard to using abortion to save a mother's life...studies have shown that abortive procedures to save a mothers life were only necessary 0.004 percent of the time over the course of one 23 year study. Modern medicine has basically reduced the need to abort to save a mothers life. I have also read that "nature" itself will take the unborn first to protect the mother. Rape and incest are another issue.

I agree it takes two to tango...and that the male is equally responsible. I will leave neutering and adding sterilants into the public drinking water to John Holdren...Obama's Science Czar.

In some of the ObamaCare "Death Panel" discussions I read that life is expendable to those through the age of 4 years as those in that group haven't been around long enough to know what life is about.

Brian T. Osborn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian T. Osborn said...

Yup. The best thing is to teach our kids about birth control early on, provide it to them economically, and remove the social stigma of sex education in the schools. Good grief! We don't want the kids to know anything about how their bodies work, nor how they can take measures to alleviate the consequences of what they're going to do no matter how much religion you throw at them.

Most kids today are getting their sex education from TV anyway. Between sit-coms and advertising, they are sold the idea that having sex all the time, with whoever is available, is OK. Two and a Half Men comes on right after supper, five times a week. That is what used to be known as the family hour insofar as television entertainment was concerned. My how the times have changed!

I seriously doubt that Mrs. Obama is "promoting" abortion. And John Holdren is not "adding sterilants into the public drinking water." And ObamaCare "Death Panel" discussions?!! Geez, 1/3rd, I thought you were smarter than that! You've gotta get your news somewhere other than the Fox Cartoon Channel - you know, the one with O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck!

Big Bob said...

Funny thing -- that's exactly how state Senator Tom White enters the Nebraska Unicameral.

NE Voter said...

Official - Mike Fahey Street.


Pension Spiker said...

God Bless you Mike Fahey. My family owes you a lot!!! Well about $80,000 a

Mike Kelly (not really) said...

I think Chris Jerram needs a street named after him. He always votes the right way.

Anonymous said...

OOITT, there was an abortion "performed" that way at UNMC at the beginning of a prominent female OB/GYN's career. It is a bit hard to find (you have to go to physical archives of the OWH), but the allegation from a nurse is well known that she was ordered to take the baby to a linen closet and put the "baby" into the wash basin.

That was back in the days when a woman would go to her "doctor" for an exam early in the day and was told if she had any discomfort or bleeding after hours she should go to an emergency room where they could deal with the "miscarriage" she was likely to be experiencing by then.

All very legal, as long as violating the spirit of the law is something you are comfortable with.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how much the Fahey campaign contributed to the City Councilmen that voted for the renaming?