I've been sporadically active on this site for several years now (tho I'm a consistently-active reader of it).  Seems to me no community's format is perfect, but TPM is pretty good. 

But, as I was driving around this a.m., I was wondering how the regulars here find items to read and comment on.  Is it the list of recommendeds, is it the list of recents, is it the dashboard (which would seem to be especially hard for those who are "following" dozens or hundreds)?

Personally, I usually browse the most recommendeds and the most recents - I only occasionally look at the dashboard.  (Which then makes me wonder, do I only "follow" people as a way of giving them a vote of confidence?)

So, how do YOU TPM?

The New York Times' Maureen Dowd is, in my view, one of the worst journalists in the nation. When she's not "borrowing" words from Josh Marshall, she's being scolded by her own newspaper, or shamelessly admitting that she cares more about "the latest Neimann Marcus scandal" than about the economy. This week, one more FAIL is added to her rap sheet.

MoDo's topic choice for her first column following the release of the CIA Inspector General report on interrogations earlier this week, was...a woman who called another woman "skank."

But fucked up priorities are not even the focus of my entry today.

Instead, I'd like to bring your attention to Dowd's complaint about anonymous attacks on public figures:

Who are these people prepared to tell you what they think, but not who they are? What is the mentality that lets them get in our face while wearing a mask? Shredding somebody's character before the entire world and not being held accountable seems like the perfect sting.

But as writer Liz Cox Barrett dutifuly observed, Dowd herself has a history of resorting to such ad-hominem attacks, which I may add are usually aimed at, but not confined to, Hillary Clinton. Here's one of the several examples cited, from last year's primaries:

DOWD; It's impossible to imagine The Terminator, as a former aide calls [Hillary Clinton], giving up.... "It's like one of those movies where you think you know the end, but then you watch with your fingers over your eyes," said one leading Democrat...

"There's no love between [Al Gore] and Hillary," said one former Clintonista. "It was like Mitterrand with his wife and girlfriend. They were always competing for the affection of the big guy."

Frankly, I would have fired this irrelevant, overrated hypocrite a long, long time ago, if it were up to me.

I could use a little help here - maybe someone in our TPM community can explain this:

In my reading and research on Dangerous Pastor Steven Anderson (whose "church" is wayyyy too close to my home and my office, btw) yesterday, I was prompted to do some checking on the tax-exempt status of his "Faithful Word Baptist Church".  Some commenter (here or over on the New Times site) claimed that FWBC doesn't have tax-exempt status because it is an "independent Baptist church" (and such congregations don't avail themselves of that govt-granted benefit).

I didn't do much checking on the latter point, but I did check FWBC's status, and it seems contradictory to me.  Anderson registered FWBC as a non-profit with the Arizona Corporation Commission. (http://starpas.azcc.gov/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=wsbroker1/names-detail.p?name-id=12540118&type=CORPORATION)  And, his 2008 budget was only $32,000, of which he took $700 as salary (per his 2008 annual report filed with the Commission - he isn't required to attach financials any longer).

However, he has not applied for tax-exempt church status with the IRS, and he has not even registered with them as a non-profit charity (as other independent Baptist churches HAVE done).  (http://www.irs.gov/app/pub-78/forwardToSearch.do)

Soooooo, if he's claiming to be a non-profit with the state govt, yet not with the IRS, is he filing the proper returns and paying the correct taxes?  Is he misleading donors as to the church's status and the deductibility of their contributions?  (Sure, he hasn't had a big operation to date, but I'm guessing that his notoriety will bring a stack of donation-bearing envelopes to his desk.)   Can he have it both ways?  Anyone know?

Just 37 percent of the poll's respondents correctly identified the public option from a list of three choices provided to them. . . . This should serve as something of a reality check for people on both sides of the public option debate. If the respondents had simply chosen randomly among the three options provide to them, 33 percent would have selected the correct definition for the public option. Instead, only 37 percent did.

By Raquel Brown, TMC MediaWire Blogger

Our throwaway economy is largely to blame for our environmental woes, as Lester Brown points out for Grist. First introduced after World War II to stimulate growth and create more jobs, throwaway products offered consumers convenience. Soon, disposable paper towels replaced hand towels, tissues replaced handkerchiefs, and plastic diapers replaced cloth ones, eventually building up an overwhelming amount of garbage. Throwaway products create a multitude of problems, including maxed-out landfills, air pollution and depletion of limited resources. Instead of hunting for new places to stash our trash, we should focus on consuming less altogether. But in the midst of an economic crisis, can we transition to a sustainable economy?

Read more »

So the head of the RNC is going around bad-mouthing government.  You got supporters running around with 'tree of liberty' tee-shirts and others talking about the perils of government access to online medical records.

It's hard then to explain their earlier confidence when government was detaining people without trial and bugging their phones without warrants. No problem there.

So my question is, what happened?

This is the most important video you will ever watch.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&feat...

George Soros and the progressive democrats he has in his pocket have a goal to destroy the dollar and to push for a global currency. As a result, George Soros would make billions just as he did from his attempt to destroy the British Pound. To accomplish his goal, George Soros and his team of democrats have chosen a messenger who via teleprompter will spread their message and will not oblige to his constitutional obligation to prove that he is a US citizen. Please view
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe2bpV1QlkE To help George Soros push for global dominance, the democrats have created legislations such as the Stimulus Bill, the Equal Pay Bill, the Global Poverty Bill, the Tobacco Bill, the Climate Change Bill, the upcoming Health Reform Bill, the UN sponsored Bill that will force Americans to pay a global tax and whatever else they have hidden in the bills no one has read. If George Soros and the democrats are allowed to succeed, it will increase the deficit by trillions, make the dollar worthless and cause this country to self-distrust.
Wake up America before it's too late. Please also watch this video-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9-2PhChboU&feature=player_embedded

If you want to learn more about George Soros, please visit this site http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977
cybercorrespondent
http://cybercorrespondent.blogspot.com

Ruben Navarrette Jr., a nationally syndicated columnist and a regular contributor to CNN.com wrote the following:

It's not every day that you see an administration devour itself. But that's pretty much what happens when you have the Justice Department investigating the CIA. This will poison the relationship between the entities, which still have to work together to keep America safe in the war on terror.

And we're expected to believe that Holder is acting on his own, without approval from the president. Obama has said he wants to "look forward, not back" and called this "a time for reflection, not retribution."

This is not a good look -- not for Holder, not for Obama and not for the administration...

What do Americans know that the Obama Justice Department doesn't? Maybe this: If you wanted to demoralize and destroy the country's intelligence agencies, and thus put its people at risk, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more effective way of doing it than by prosecuting CIA agents who did the nation's dirty work and acted in good faith, oftentimes after consulting with lawyers about the legality of their methods.

By the way, where did those lawyers work? This is the poetic part. In the case of Steven Bradbury, Jay Bybee, and John Yoo -- the authors of the so-called "torture memos" that were the subject of so much reporting a few months ago -- they worked in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.

That would be the same Justice Department that is now investigating CIA officers for, in some cases, doing what the department's lawyers told them was legally permissible to do.

Mr Navarrette, would have you believe that the CIA is above the law, that they would never commit a crime and that they almost always consulted with the Justice Department before doing anything illegal.  Good grief! 

Mr Navarrette, would have you believe that the 'end' justifies the 'means'. 

He would also have you believe that because a few bad apples were caught in fact doing illegal actions for the Bush/Cheney administration, that other members of that same organization would rebel and purposely disobey any order given to them by the White House or Justice Department thereafter.  He would have you believe that they would want 'payback'.

"If you wanted to demoralize and destroy the country's intelligence agencies, and thus put its people at risk, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more effective way of doing it than by prosecuting CIA agents who did the nation's dirty work and acted in good faith"

If what you say is true Mr. Navarrette, then thousands of our military would currently be "demoralized" and our military would be "destroyed" over the prosecutions of some of their bad apples that committed atrocities while conducting military actions during war time.  You say that any prosecutions would:

"poison the relationship between the entities"

Are you implying that our troops would disobey Pentagon and White House orders if any of their fellow comrades were prosecuted or court marshaled for illegal actions?  You don't have much confidence in our troop's sir, if this is what you mean - nor do you have confidence in our CIA agents in doing their jobs.

Some CIA agents actually questioned the legality of the action they were taking.  In fact, a few have been reported as saying something like,

"We knew this was going to come back and bite us . . . These people weren't judges, they were just lawyers in the justice department. It was kind of like us telling ourselves it was okay to do it."

The official recalled the atmosphere at the time of the 9/11 attacks. "A colleague of mine said, 'I know this is all wrong but I keep picturing these people jumping out of windows and falling out of buildings'."

Yet they chose to go ahead and do 'the job' as ordered.  These people may be vindicated for their actions because they were ordered to do them.  The person(s) that did the ordering would hopefully then be brought to justice instead. 

It's been reported that there may have been some agents that went further than authorized - they should be punished for those war crimes - don't you think?  Otherwise sir, what would you consider a 'war crime' to be? 

If we were at war with Russia or China and these illegal actions took place against our own troops, would you still ignore them?  How would you explain that to the soldier that may someday be a POW themselves?

War Crimes may have been committed, most likely were from the reports we've been shown.  If America steps aside and ignores those crimes, how will we ever have the right to demand justice for crimes made by other nations?

For those that are REALLY worried about those Palin Death Panels (and I do think that her name should always proceed "Death Panels") you are late to the fight, see... we are in the fifth round in this health care fight and Palin's Death Panel have been functioning for a long, long time under the name  "DENIAL of SERVICE" etc....  Palin's Death Panels have killed, perhaps, tens of thousands of people just like you and me. People that thought they actually had good coverage were finally killed off  by Palin's Death Panels because someone at the insurance company decided as a matter of policy to FORCE those sickest of us into appealing the denial of care. And even when the denial of care was overturned on appeal it still led to a delay in getting the life saving care. That delay in getting care has caused the death of far more people than we will ever know. This is why I will forever call Health Insurance companies the Soul Eating Bastard industry, that long ago developed Palin's Death Panels to save shareholders profits.

Does anyone really believe that the big shots of the Soul Eating Bastard industry care for ANYTHING other than their bottom line?

Does it seem wrong to you to that the Soul Eating Bastard Industry also has Palin's Death Panels called post claim underwriting, a practice that actually concentrates on finding a way to deny coverage to sick individuals by canceling their policies RETRO-ACTIVELY, only they wait and let people think they are covered and when the individual policy holder is sick and really needs the insurance the Soul Eating Bastards send out a team (or panel) of investigators to find a way to justify the "retrocancelling" they do to thousands of individuals and policy holders each year.

Then there is AHIP (America's Health Insurance Plans),  the term "wolf in sheep's clothing" has never been more accurate. AHIP is probably the single worst actor in the health care debate, they are the Harry and Louise folks, they are the folks running ads today that say they support "bipartisan" reform efforts but they don't define what they consider bipartisan and if the past is any indication it means GOP. Oh I almost forgot... AHIP is the lobbying arm of the Soul Eating Bastard Industry.

On an almost totally different topic... I have heard recently the figure 35%. I have heard this percentage in context to what the Baucus Finance committee says the average American consumer will be required to pay of their total care after the Soul Eating Bastards pay your claim. As I understand it (and I hope I am wrong); you will pay your normal health insurance premiums and then 35% of all your health care costs. Think about that, what it is basically assuring is that health insurance companies will ALWAYS be able to pay 35% of revenue to shareholders in the form of dividends or huge CEO salaries. Perhaps I have gotten this wrong or misread it or something, if someone out there knows more about this please post it so we can make some sense out of it, I have been unable to track down the exact details and would appreciate some help on this Baucus jewel.

Finally, remember that Palin's Death Panels already exist they are just called something else. When you hear the term Post Claim Underwriting think Palin's Death Panel. When you hear the phrase "coverage denied" think Palin's Death Panel. When you hear the term "treatment considered experimental" think Palin's Death Panel. Shoot from now on when we hear of someone dying because the treatment was denied or delayed it should be blamed on PALIN'S DEATH PANELS.

The heat is on folks, time to fight fire with fire, and lies with the truth!  It is also time to kick down the door that the "gang of 6"  is hiding behind. I also think that we should drop the "ber" from Joe Lieberman's last name, then his last name would be the far more accurate "Lieman". But hey, I could be wrong about all of this.

I propose a short bill of no more than 2 pages with simple declarative sentences, such as:

1)  No health insurance plan may decide to drop coverage on a person because the value of their life is not deemed worth coverage.

2)  When a person leaves one insurance plan, their previous insurer must maintain coverage for six months or until they get their new coverage in place.

3)  No health insurance plan may kick people out for failure to disclose a condition.

4)  Health insurers can no longer deny coverage on basis of pre-existing conditions.

5)  All citizens will be required to have some form of health insurance coverage.

6)  No person will be forced by the government or their employer to drop their existing health insurance plan.

7)  All citizens whose employers do not provide health insurance must purchase their own health insurance.

8)  The Federal Government will allow citizens who are currently ineligible for Medicare benefits, the option of enrolling in Medicaire by paying premiums.  This optional Medicare coverage will help bring down the cost of health insurance for the uninsured who work.

9)  The optional Medicare coverage will work just as Medicare does: reimbursing private doctors for covered services.

10)  The optional Medicare coverage must be self-sustaining financially, not draining any benefits away from enrolled Medicare recipients.

11)  Those citizens who cannot afford private health insurance or optional Medicare coverage will get a tax credit to cover the extra cost of the optional Medicare premiums.

12)  The tax credits will be paid for by the extra revenue generated by the cap on health insurance tax exemptions for those making more than $250,000 per year.  No one making less than $250,000 per year will have their exemption for employer paid health insurance capped.  Those making $250,000 per year or more will have their health insurance tax exemption capped and their tax deduction for health care costs capped.  If this cap is insufficient to create revenues to offset coverage, adjustment of the marginal tax rate for those earning more than $250,000 per year may be made yearly.

Empty yourself of everything

Let the mind rest at peace.

The ten thousand things rise and fall while the self watches them return.

They grow and flourish and then return to the source.

Returning to the source is stillness, which is the way of nature.

The way of nature is unchanging.

Knowing constancy is insight.

Not knowing constancy leads to disaster.

Knowing constancy, the mind is open.

With an open mind you will be open hearted.

Being open hearted, you will act royally.

Being royal you will attain the devine.

Being devine you will be at one with the Tao.

Being at one with the Tao is eternal.

And though the body dies, the Tao will never pass away.

Tao Te Ching (Ch-16)

Let us pray.  How many thousands of times have I heard that phrase. You know I use to catch religious radio shows in the old days. By accident.

I will never forget the prelaw party my buddy Willard put together back in 1971. He happened to know three or four others who had been accepted to law school the only 'day' law school in the state with only 209 openings.

Someone brought liquid opium and Willard had the weed. There was beer and it was going to be heaven. His mommy was gone so he had the house to himself. A great stereo system.

Now I got to go back a little in order to put all this in proper context. I never liked weed, unless it was tobacco weed. MJ did nothing to me.  Of course I look back now and the biggest problem I had in my life was noise. Too much noise in my head. I would try praying as a boy and later meditation. I could never, or almost never get rid of the noise.

People like Willard reacted to good THC and the noise went away. Did not work for me. All through college everybody had weed. Or so it seemed.

But Frank started dunking a couple joints in that opium and I am telling you, all my noise went away.

Later on I wanted to get into the act, not really being myself, and of course dumped the brackish liquid on the white carpeting.  I do not think I saw much of Willard after that night.

At any rate, the others left earlier and I think there were just the three of us felons, and Willard decided to get us to other music. So he is turning the dial--we had dials in those days--and all of a sudden there was this deep southern voice coming out of the stereo:

Hold it. Hold it. Do not touch that dial. Folks three hippy commies smoking dope and preparing to sin even more have just tuned in.

Don't touch that dial boys.

I mean, we are laughing so hard. Uncontrollably.  It was so funny.

See in those days, the radio programs would have these 'ministers' on the air doing magic tricks.

I see a woman in Cleveland who is receiving surgery tomorrow, surgery on her left knee. We must pray for her.

And sure enough some lady from Cleveland would call in and talk about her pending surgery.

It's like that seer who used to have his own show talking to ghosts in the audience. 

Some lady took this so far that she speaks with your dead pets for you.

All kind of harmless really.  It sells soap and everybody leaves happier thinking grandpa is feeling better in heaven and smoochy the dead poodle is getting in some good runs during the day.

Then Pat Robertson and all these fake shamans saw that they could make a lot of money. And they turned the whole damn show into a money-making machine and added the political angle and they were off and running. TAX FREE.And they took note of a Father Coughlin from the thirties.

Father Coughlin was doing ok in the early thirties. Supporting FDR and spreading the WORD over the radio waves.

Oh he would throw in some virulent garbage about how bad the Jews were. Not that far from the main stream Christians really.

But as Europe heated up, the priest would rant and rave about how great Hitler and Mussolini were. And well the FDR Administration kind of got pissed and that was the end of Coughlin. He died in '79 at the age of 88.  

I have spoken before of Pat Robertson standing hand in hand with four or five people on his show praying that Supreme Court Justices would die.  Heads bowed with that funny squint these idiots all have which is supposed to demonstrate to the audience that they are praying hard. I guess the harder the squint the harder the prayer and the more likely our lord and savior will hear them.  It has to give a bunch of people in the audience headaches.  There would be thousands and thousands of people squinting real hard to show the tv gods how intensely they were praying.

This is where the words LET US PRAY  became LET US PREY.

Let us prey upon the mentally weak.

Let us prey upon the uneducated.

Let us prey upon the unread.

Let us prey upon the older richer folks who are afraid to die.

Let us prey upon those who hate minorities.

Let us prey upon those who hate Jews and Muslims  and all religions that do not jive with their own.

Let us prey upon those who work for ten bucks an hour and think their pains are somehow related to illegal immigrants or commie atheists.

Let us prey upon those who are too afraid to walk down their own street because of gang activity.

Two things grabbed me today that brought all this to the fore.

First, it was THE RUSH.  The rush was making bets concerning the death of Ted Kennedy:

Rush Limbaugh offered himself some kudos Wednesday for predicting in March that the health care bill wouldn't be passed before Ted Kennedy's death.

"Before it's all over, it'll be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill," Limbaugh said at the time.

Indeed, with Kennedy's passing, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) has called for health care reform legislation to be named in his honor. Limbaugh, who was criticized for his insensitivity over the Kennedy remarks, is expressing vindication. "I predicted it, and I caught all kinds of grief for it out there," he said  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/26/limbaugh-congratulates-hi_n_269711.html

Are not we all proud of rush? Is he not a true seer? I bet he made fifty bucks off of the janitor for that prediction.

This of course is not praying, it is simply bad taste. Who better to put a bad taste in your mouth or a rumbling in your bowels than rush?  But is this bad faith on the part of rush any different from those wearing the collar of religion praying that god kill judges?

Rush does not do much praying and stays away from religious matters most of the time.  He loves to grab onto it when he can use it, of course. Does anyone really believe that rush gives one goddamn about the termination of a pregnancy or the death of a baby for that matter?

But he kind of fits into this:

Let us prey.  He  has a lot in common with the new religious right for sure.

The second item that just blew my mind comes from our very own TPM:

Chris Broughton, the man who brought an assault rifle and a handgun to the Obama event in Arizona last week, attended a fiery anti-Obama sermon the day before the event, in which Pastor Steven Anderson said he was going to "pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell", Anderson confirmed to TPMmuckraker today. Anderson also said Broughton had informed the pastor about his planned show of arms-bearing, but "he planned out the AR15 thing long before he heard that sermon," delivered Sunday August 16 at the fundamentalist Faithful World Baptist Church in Tempe, AZ.

This is the second example of the gun-toters at the Arizona Obama event tied to the violent fringes of American life. "I don't obey Barack Obama. And I'd like Barack Obama to melt like a snail tonight," Anderson said in the sermon.

The sermon, which was titled "Why I Hate Barack Obama" and also contained virulent anti-gay themes, continued:     http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/pastor_of_gun-toter_at_obama_event_day_before_even.php?ref=fpa

First, how exactly do snails melt?  It sure sounds painful do you not think?

Okay so what am I going to do today?  Well, let's see. Go to church. Grab my assault rifle and my gun and holster and stand across the street from the President of the United States.

You might think, well at least church should calm one down a bit.

NO

The fascist is running the service and not paying taxes and getting everyone armed and getting everyone angry.  

LET US PRAY that the true Christians win the fight against the false prophets and the false preyers.

The American Medical Association has weighed in on the new Obama health care proposals.

The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves. The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception. Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted. Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, "Oh,Grow up!"

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it. Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing. The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter...."

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington .

{Note:  This came in an e-mail so it was someone else's if they want to comment it is theirs, I have no objection giving them the credit, whoever they may be.}

Tonight, I received a crowing e-mail from astro-turf leaders Americans For Prosperity (bankrolled and led by billionaire oil industry brothers) that had me racing to Google News.  AFP is declaring victory on the Employee Free Choice Act, claiming credit for Harry Reid's comment today that EFCA ("Card Check") won't be on the Senate's plate during the last four months of this year. 

Sure enough, here are the couple of sentences in the Las Vegas Review Journal today:

Reid also said the Employee Free Choice Act, designed to help unions organize more easily through card-check votes and mandatory binding arbitration, has fallen off the Senate's radar for now.

"We have too many other things on our plate," he said.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/55332617.html

Roll Call adds that it is unlikely that he would bring it up for a vote even if the schedule suddenly cleared.  http://www.rollcall.com/news/37994-1.html

Here's the AFP's e-mail:

Dear ,

Ever wonder if we can win tough public policy battles like health care and cap-and-trade?

Well, today we scored a big victory on a crucial issue that looked impossible just a few months ago.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that the outrageously mis-named Employee Free Choice Act -- or Card Check -- is NOT going to be brought to a vote this year!

Card Check would effectively take the secret ballot away from American workers when it comes to deciding whether or not they want to join a union. It would take a cherished freedom away from millions of Americans, and at Americans for Prosperity we've been fighting it tooth-and-nail throughout the year.

A few months ago, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and their Big Labor allies were confident of passing this legislation, which would dramatically expand the power of unions by giving them millions of new union members along with their "forced dues."

We launched a "Save Our Secret Ballot" effort with rallies in key states like Pennsylvania (where union organizers aggressively attacked us), North Carolina, Arkansas and Virginia. We urged grassroots activists like you to call and email your Senators and House members. AFP was one of several free-market groups who took up the fight to stop this union power grab. TO SEE PHOTOS AND COVERAGE OF OUR GRASSROOTS EVENTS CLICK HERE.

Faced with this grassroots uprising, the big-government side had to back away -- and today they did.

So, we should take heart! Yes, we face a big challenge on stopping the health care takeover. Sure, the cap-and-trade battle is not easy. But, if we fight aggressively, fight hard and remain committed we can win -- just like we won the Card Check battle.

Today, I was in Wisconsin where Americans for Prosperity Foundation hosted a series of Town Hall meetings across this great state with special guest John Stossel of ABC's "20/20". AFP Foundation provided citizens with a forum to discuss a government takeover of health care. The crowds were huge and energetic: 1,900 in Madison (last night), 500 in La Crosse today and over 1,200 earlier this evening in Wausau, which is the home district of House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, who has refused to hold town hall meetings with his constituents.

***

I'm a bit surprised that - even with so much of our attention elsewhere - this only merited a story in Roll Call.  But, I have a feeling that more media outlets will pick this up as the right wing starts to crow loudly about it over the next couple of days.

I am really a capitalist.  No, I am being serious, I am.  I own and operate a retail venture.  I am all about making money.  I am not all about the wealth redistribution stuff. 

But then again. 

Capitalism is a economic system that prizes competition in the marketplace.  Many players splitting the money equally while fighting for a share of the market on a level playing field.  Businesses not being able to game the system and use political connections for a competitive advantage over others...government neutral and no more people using their money to get laws passed to give them an unfair competitive advantage in their marketplace.

Ya know what?

The more I think about it the more that sounds like socialism...wealth being more evenly distributed through the economy and the government making sure no one can gain an unfair advantage?  Yeah that is pretty radical...

Josh just posted this at the Mothership.  The republicans will support health care reform if all the proposed reforms are optional?

Hmmmmmm...

They want the Public Option to be optional?  Fine not a problem at all, I can live with that "compromise".  People should be able to keep their current health care if they want to.  Let's get the thing passed...

One of its most remarkable assets was the convincing manner of Beveridge's argument which made it so widely acceptable: Beveridge appealed to conservatives and other doubters by arguing that the welfare institutions he proposed would increase the competitiveness of British industry in the post-war period, not only by shifting labour costs like healthcare and pensions out of corporate ledgers and onto the public account, but also by producing healthier, wealthier and thus more motivated and productive workers who would also serve as a great source of demand for British goods.

When the U.S. Constitution was sent to the states for ratification after being signed on September 17, 1787, Anti-Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights should be added. One argument of Federalists against the addition of a Bill of Rights, during the debates about ratification of the Constitution, was that a listing of rights could problematically enlarge the powers specified in Article One, Section 8 of the new Constitution, by implication. For example, in Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton asked, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" Likewise, James Madison explained to Thomas Jefferson, "I conceive that in a certain degree ... the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted" in Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists persisted in favor of a Bill of Rights during the ratification debates, but also were against ratification, and consequently several of the state ratification conventions gave their assent with accompanying resolutions proposing amendments to be added. In 1788, the Virginia Ratifying Convention attempted to solve the problem that Hamilton and the Federalists had identified by proposing a constitutional amendment specifying:

That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress. But that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise as inserted merely for greater caution.

This proposal ultimately led to the Ninth Amendment. In 1789, while introducing to the House of Representatives nineteen draft Amendments, James Madison addressed what would become the Ninth Amendment as follows:[5]

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

Like Alexander Hamilton, Madison was concerned that enumerating various rights could "enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution." Here is the draft of the Ninth Amendment that Madison submitted to Congress in order to solve this problem:

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

This was an intermediate form of the Ninth Amendment that borrowed language from the Virginia proposal, while foreshadowing the final version. Like Madison's draft, the final text of the Ninth Amendment speaks of other rights than those enumerated in the Constitution. The character of those other rights was indicated by Madison in his speech introducing the Bill of Rights (emphasis added):

It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.

The First through Eighth Amendments address the means by which the federal government exercises its enumerated powers, while the Ninth Amendment addresses a "great residuum" of rights that have not been "thrown into the hands of the government," as Madison put it. The Ninth Amendment became part of the Constitution on December 15, 1791 upon ratification by three-fourths of the states.

OPM requires that all FEHB Plans to provide certain information to their FEHB members. You may get information about us, our networks, providers, and facilities. OPM's FEHB website (www.opm.gov/insure) lists the specific types of information that we must make available to you. Some of the required information is listed below.

The right to an Advance Directive, living will, or other directive to your contracting medical providers with respect to your future healthcare choices.

The right to information regarding how medical treatment decisions are made by the participating medical providers or Health Net of Pennsylvania, Inc. as well a payment structure.

Kansas Republican Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins made a mistake last week!   In answering a question during a meeting with Young Republicans in Hiawatha on August 19th, she said:  "Republicans are struggling right now to find the "great white hope"

OOOPS!!   From a constituent's meeting in a small Kansas town to the national news media in the space of a week.  Thanks to the wonder of the camera phone.  You see, "The phrase "great white hope" dates to the early 1900's when white Americans were looking for a white boxer to defeat Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champ."   Probably not the phrase you want to use when discussing how your predominantly white political party is trying to figure out how to defeat the country's first black President.

Fox4's local coverage reports:

On Friday, Jenkins claims that she didn't realize the racial significance of the phrase "great white hope," and didn't mean to offend anyone. But according to a University of Missouri, Kansas City political scientist, the phrase suggests that the GOP is looking for a white politician to defeat Barack Obama, the nation's first African-American president.

"There is a racist connotation when you say the great white hope, even if you don't mean that," said Prof. Max Skidmore of UMKC. "There is an undercurrent a habit of thought that it reflects."

Jenkins says that it was a comparison that she did not intend to make. She says that she was responding to a question from someone asking about the future of the Republican Party.

"I responded to that inquiry by saying that there were some bright lights, some hope in the Republican party for the conservatives in the crowd," said Jenkins. "Obviously I had no idea there were negative connotations associated with that phrase and apologize if someone has misinterpreted those comments."

The comment, whether it was meant to be racist or not (and I really don't think it was meant that way) was NOT a good choice of wording under any context.   "The great white hope" is a phrase that I heard often growing up.   (But then, I grew up in the Ozarks.  I graduated from a class of over 400....with only 4 black students in the entire school.   So my exposure to people who might have taken exception to the phrase was severely limited.)

So, it is very possible that she was just using a phrase that she had heard so often growing up that it's lost it's cultural context to her.  There are lots of those phrases I heard daily growing up in southern Missouri that today I shudder at the thought that I or my parents used them.  "N*gg&r in the woodpile", "jew" down the price, "chinese fire drill", etc.   In a past world where Archie Bunker was the norm and not just a funny character on TVLand, these phrases were common.  But today we are more aware that while a phrase might just be a cute saying to some, it can be an extremely hurtful comment to others. 

The use of these types of phrases are not wise for anyone with aspirations of public office in this age of camera phones.   But it is not the end of the world.    It especially is not the end of the world when she responds quickly to the criticisms with a very simple apology!

No bitter fight to prove that she really didn't do anything wrong.  No discussion of what others say that's worse than what she said.  No tirade against a media that is biased against conservatives.  No commentary on who she has heard say the same thing in the past.

She simply said she didn't realize the context of the saying and she was sorry for any offense it caused.  She took the blame. 

That's class!

Now some will say that she HAD to realize the context of her words, but absent any other slips of the tongue, that's a hard case to make.  So it's time to drop the story and move on!    I wouldn't vote for Congresswoman Jenkins if I lived in her district but I can at least respect her integrity!

(And of course, if she continues to make such mistakes....we hold her responsible for them!) 

I propose that the Canadians open up their health care system to any American who lives within 10 miles of the border.

The Americans would be charged whatever it is that Canadians spend per capita on health care (as a total percentage of their taxes, not the premiums which are tiny) plus some sort of monthly service charge for the privilege. Then, they'd have the same access to the system (including access to prescription medications) that Americans do, except for ambulance rides, because ambulances might have trouble at the border.

It would be interesting to see what would happen. My guess is that Americans might purchase this coverage for basic medical care, but maintain an extremely high-deductible policy in the event that they come down with some totally rare disease and need access to the world's smartest doctor.

Another guess: Americans would find that if they lived near a big Canadian city, their wait times for procedures or appointments wouldn't be as long as they thought. If they lived near a little town, basic care would be pretty easy to get but wait times for fancy stuff would be longer. (I've long maintained that part of the "wait time" story has more to do with living in the boonies than with the system itself.)

I know that Canada's current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, would be unlikely to support this idea because a "run for the border" would embarrass his conservative political buddies down south. But maybe it could be tried in the more liberal provinces?

Very curious to know what the health care economists in the crowd would think of this idea as a single-payer trial balloon.

WASHINGTON, Aug 27 (Reuters) - U.S. State Department staff have recommended that the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya be declared a "military coup," a U.S. official said on Thursday, a step that could cut off tens of millions of dollars in U.S. funding to the impoverished Central American nation.

The official, who spoke on condition he not be named, said State Department staff had made such a recommendation to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has yet to make a decision on the matter -- although one was likely soon.

I was wondering about what's going on in the US Congress, where our astute practitoners  of American politics will soon return to clashing and hashing out a way to get everybody fairly covered with some kind of health insurance. And I was remembering that, a month or so ago before the recess, this "co-op"  phrase cropped up, and it seemed to be associated with some breadbasket prairie success stories having to do with  the collectivization of corn and grains and other such commodities that will ultimately prove to be our greatest asset and source of  real national wealth. So I was wondering if there would be any validity to this idea that, you know, there's some relationship between democratizing health care and the prairie wisdom of pooling resources.

 And I, attempted centrist that I am, was pondering what little I knew about the public option, and this other idea, the co-op,  that came from the Senate finance committee, and I was really thinking that what we need around here is some damn competition among the providers of health care finance. 

So anyway, thanks to Nicholas Kristoff, today I follow a link or two and come upon this blog written by Wendell Potter, a former lobbyist for the health insurance industry, in which he expresses this opinion about the co-ops: 

 "nonprofit co-operatives don't stand a snowball's chance of competing with those big companies and making a whit of a difference in the lives of the 75 million Americans who either have no insurance or have such marginal insurance they might as well have no insurance."

And it's because of those 75 million uninsured Americans, of whom I may be, a few days from now, one of them--like you know, uninsured, uncovered, due to loss of job, and feeling a little exposed, like a fellow might feel in one of those drafty hospital gowns. So  I'm thinking, then, about, like, what's it gonna cost to get all these people, including me, covered.  I'm just considering these angles like any pragmatic problem-solving southerner would. Who's going to pay for this?

Then I happen to notice Gerson's column today in the Charllotte Observer, and he shed some light on the problem:

Democrats are fighting against a swift current of fiscal responsibility, widespread skepticism about government, and resentment against the use of Medicare as the smashed piggybank for reform."

 and "...one of the main sources of revenue to fund Obamacare is reductions in Medicare...And it doesn't  help that cuts in Medicare would be used to fund someone else's entitlement, instead of strengthening Medicare itself."

So I'm wondering, like any responsibly informed American, about these money issues that constrict the health care dilemma, and what bearing they must have on our programs. 

A  lot of folks down here, down south, partake of the skepticism that Mr. Gerson mentions, and they kind of wear it proudly on their sleeves, similar to the way northern liberals wear their faith in government on their sleeves,  and  both groups probably for, you know, good reason. The truth lies somewhere between.

Anyway, I suppose the sort of southern take on this is that we just don't really understand, or can't even bring ourselves to trust, those numbers that waft out of Washington like smells from a neglected bedpan. It sho'nuff  do befuddle the standerby...makes you feel like a spotted dog under a red wagon. 

Why, earlier today I was checking out a certain fiscal  scenario described by Chris Martenson on Seeking Alpha, How the Federal Reserve is Monetizing Debt, in which he is attributing to our Fed and Treasury the same kind of financial shell-game shenanigans that ran the Zimbabwe currency sky-high and their economy into the ground, as if that kind of third world hocus pocus thing could happen here in the good ole USA:

 "...we find that the Federal Reserve is effectively buying government debt at auction. This is exactly, precisely what Zimbabwe did, but with one more step involved, introducing just enough complexity to keep the entire game mostly, but not completely, hidden from sight. They can scramble the shells all they want, but the pea is still there somewhere - the pea being the fact that the Fed is creating money to fund the purchase of US debt."

And while this kind of malady is definitely a grave matter for public concern... 

it appears that that kind of scamming contagion could never actually happen here in America, especially in so official a capacity. But the bottom line is: times are hard and we've got a lot of people to take care of, especially with the swine flu nosing around like a herd of pig microbes in slop, too small to detect.  

I mean, I did see, in a public-service video in a Chinese airport this summer,  one cartoon pig explaining to his porcine friend where H1N1 came from--America, you know, the same place that originated toxic securities, toxic shock, toxic waste and probably toxic taxes too (no, that was George III.) 

But in spite of it all,  I think we just need need to look beyond all that, reach out and grasp the public option, because we need to take care of those who are,as Jesus called them, the least among us. That's what decent folks do for their neighbors, and we're all in this together whether we like it or not, and wwthgsd?. (What would the good samaritan do?)

Carey Rowland, author of Glass half-Full

UniCare is a WellPoint Company

For self funded plans, claims are administered by UniCare Life & Health Insurance Company or UniCare Health Plans of the Midwest, Inc. Insurance coverage is provided by one of the following companies: UniCare Life & Health Insurance Company, UniCare Health Insurance Company of the Midwest (IN & IL only), UniCare Health Plans of the Midwest, Inc. (HMO in IN & IL only), UniCare Health Insurance Company of Texas (TX only) or UniCare Health Plans of Texas, Inc. (HMO in Texas only). ® Registered mark of WellPoint, Inc. © 2009 WellPoint, Inc.

It appears a PRIVATE HEALTH INSURER also provides for end-of-life planning coverage that is similar to that being put forth by House Democrats.

Under the "Member Rights and Responsibilities" portion of United Healthcare's website there is an outline of "exactly what you can expect from your health care experience and how you can improve that experience, too." The list includes the following pledge:

Consumer will be allowed to "Choose an Advance Directive to designate the kind of care you wish to receive should you become unable to express your wishes."

The goal of the provision, it seems, is to offer consumers the type of medical consultation that is often needed (and frequently forgone) to make end-of-life procedures can be smoother and less painful. If it sounds similar, that's because the House provision that has been derided as creating government-administered.

Officials with United Healthcare did not immediately return request for comment.

The truth is finally seeping through the muck! Now what will Governor Palin, Sean Hannity and others say?  Will they apologize for scaring seniors into believing the government is going to kill them off -- I doubt it; but I do know they SHOULD!

More than fifteen years after the passage of the National Voter Registration Act, few states are complying with the law's requirement that voter registration services are provided to those who apply for public assistance. Though highly successful in the first two years the NVRA was implemented, in 1995-1996, registrations through public assistance agencies have steadily declined, and had fallen by 79 percent nationwide in 2007-2008. Project Vote and other voting rights organizations have been working to bring several states into compliance with this key provision of the NVRA, and--as a last resort--have been forced to bring lawsuits in several states to ensure that low-income public assistance clients have access to voter registration services as required by law.

Read more »

My Hero

Not too long ago I shared some thoughts and memories of my heroine, my maternal grandmother.  Well I have a hero also and that is my father who passed away in 1988 after a battle with colon cancer.  I miss him so much although a number of years have gone by.  He was my rock and my savior many times in my life.  I am sure I would not be here if it wasn't for his unselfish nature.  He showed patience, love, understanding and aid during my childhood and throughout my adult years until he passed away.

Dad was quite the man.  He had it rough during his early years due to his parents being quite poor.  When he was fourteen years of age, his father, suffering from shingles, took an overdose of the pills he had been prescribed and died. His mother and younger brother needed assistance.  My father dropped out of high school and started working.  His mother became a house cleaner and between the two incomes, although small, they managed to survive.

My father's job was in a brokerage firm.  He was hired as a messenger boy and he worked both in the office and also ran messages to other firms and the Stock Exchange.

Now at the time, my father was quite short and the people in the firm called him Pinky and that name stuck.  The reason I share this is as my father got to his later teens, he shot up and became 6'4" tall and was actually one of the tallest people in the office.  Pinky was his name and it stuck until my father retired. 

At the time he was working as a messenger boy, my father went to night school and eventually, received his diploma.  He worked hard at his job and must have impressed his superioirs for they moved him up to higher paying jobs, although not anything impressive.  Every bit of money helped at home and his mother was thankful that the family managed to continue to live in their apartment in the Bronx. 

My parents were married in the thirties and had my brother and then four years later, I was born.  My father was a wonderful parent.  My mother was not and I did not have the happiest of childhoods.  My father, my maternal grandmother, who lived with us, and my older brother were my safety net and helped me to cope with the pain and distress caused by my mother.  My earliest memories of my father were feeling protected and safe while he was home.  He was an avid sports lover.  He enjoyed almost every type but his favorites were baseball and football.  Later on, when money was more plentiful, he began to play golf and enjoyed the game so much.  As children, my father took us to baseball games at the old Polo Ground stadium to watch the New York Giants play.  We also went to Yankee Stadium which pleased my brother and me since we were Yankee fans.  We were taken to hockey games, basketball, track and field events and professional football games.  I loved them all and attending these sports is one of my fond memories.  My father had patience with me if I didn't always understand what was going on but he eventually taught me how to keep score at the baseball games and I still, on occasion, do so. It was through these sports that my father tried to instill fairness and good sportsmanship in our lives.

As I grew older, my father had moved up the ladder at the brokerage firm and eventually, he became a partner.  To me, this was one of his most inspiring and difficult achievements.  He was one of many partners and the only one who had not attended college.  This was an embarrassment to my father but I am proud of the fact he worked his way to that position through hard work, devotion to the firm and by being a person who was respected and admired by many.  I know this because I still have the letters he received when his new position was announced. They are filled with admiration and heartwarming praise.

Of course, our financial situation had improved through the years, but his partnership brought a great deal more wealth with it and our lifestyle changed dramatically. We moved to a larger apartment in a well to do community, we joined a country club and we traveled for the first time.  I was also sent away to a preparatory school when I was fourteen.  I am not sure if this was because he thought I would get a better education or if he felt it would be beneficial to get me away from my mother.  At any rate, I went and then on to a two year college upon graduation. 

My father was very good mannered and genteel.  I never heard him use an expletive except when I eloped at the age of 18.  When my husband and I went to tell my parents months after the event, Dad was furious.  Of course he blamed my true love and called him an S.O.B. but he didn't use initials.  I really knew how angry he was at his choice of words but he later, being the gentleman that he was, apologized to us both.

Throughout his lifetime, my father was there for me.  I led a rather upside down life and often got into trouble.  Nowadays, Dad would no doubt be called an enabler but I know he had me in his heart and wanted my children and me to have as much as possible as far as living conditions, clothing and food went.  After my divorce, he practically paid our way in life.  I didn't have to ask.  He gave out of love and caring.  Of course, being an alcoholic, I took advantage of his generosity many times but still he took care of us.

I know he spoiled both my children and me terribly but his intentions were good.  We had a good life due to him and lived in good places with his help.  After my father retired, he lost his sight due to cataract surgery that caused an infection in one eye and then he had undetected glaucoma which became worse and worse and eventually he lost most of the vision in his other eye.  My mother passed away and later, he moved away with a woman who had befriended him.   I was not terribly happy about their situation but he adored her and she was a faithful companion.  He appreciated her attention and love which he had not received from my mother.  When she died, he was devastated and shortly after, he was diagnosed with cancer.  His last year was not a happy one and because of the distance between Maryland and New York, I only saw him once a month.  My late husband and I enjoyed our last times with him but we knew he did not have a great deal of time left.  He kept his dignity and love for me till the end.  I was very grateful that he died of pneumonia and did not suffer.  He passed away after falling into a coma.

I look back now and see a man who always did his utmost to take care of his family, to be a good husband and father. He loved my mother under difficult circumstances and I know that this caused him a great deal of pain.   His work habits were proven as he moved up the ladder at his firm.  He had many long lasting friends.  His love of sports prompted him to donate money for scholarships and many young people benefited by being able to go to college. He gave generously to many charities and always looked out for those less fortunate than he.  All in all, although he did have some faults, he was a wonderful and caring man.  I don't think there was a mean bone in his body and I cannot recall his ever having anything bad to say about another human being. 

I am so very proud of him and think of him often.  I know he would be unhappy with some of my political changes in this past year but I also know he would be pleased that I have gotten involved in the country and its government.  He was a very intelligent person and knew so many facts.  He knew the Bible inside and out although he did not attend church with my mother.  When the minister came to call and asked when he was going to appear at a service, he informed him that his home was his church and God was there with him.  I liked that. 

I have many fond memories of my father.  I so admired the way he dressed.  Everything always matched - suit, tie, shirt, socks, belt and back in the day, his hats. When my brother and I were young, he read the funny papers to us.  He also told us stories based on the bible.  He especially liked Proverbs and the Psalms.  He was a strict father but never raised a hand to us children.  His manner of punishment was deprival such as if I misbehaved, when we would walk to the ice cream store after dinner in the summertime, I was not allowed any treat and would have to walk back home, watching my brother devour his cone.  Believe me, most times when I was warned this punishment would be inevitable if I didn't behave, I was as good as gold. I loved simple things like listening to his wide collection of "records".  Dad loved music but was especially fond of Glenn Miller and Benny Goodman.  Whenever I hear "Sing, Sing, Sing" or "Moonlight Serenade",  I have a memory of a Sunday afternoon with my father reading the New York Times and tapping his foot along with the beat.

So that is a picture of my Dad.  He was and still is an inspiration to me.  I would love to have led his exemplary life.  His selflessness, honesty, diligence, caring and love were there for me to follow but many times, I chose other routes.  However, I am so very lucky to have had him in my life.  My hero - My Dad.

P.S.

It is purely a coincidence that LisB and I both wrote about our fathers at almost the same time.  Neither of us knew the other planned these blogs.  Like mother, like daughter?

Write your own future headlines:

Michael Steele Says GOP Full of Racists, OK by Him

Sen. Grassley Calls for Hold on HC Reform, Can't Explain Why

Holder Hints at Expanding Investigation, Cheney Announces Move to Dubai