TPMCafe
« September 13, 2009 - September 19, 2009 | Home | September 27, 2009 - October 3, 2009 »

Week of September 20, 2009 - September 26, 2009

Six Job-Seekers Chase Every Job


From the New York Times...

Despite signs that the economy has resumed growing, unemployed Americans now confront a job market that is bleaker than ever in the current recession, and employment prospects are still getting worse.

Job seekers now outnumber openings six to one, the worst ratio since the government began tracking open positions in 2000. According to the Labor Department's latest numbers, from July, only 2.4 million full-time permanent jobs were open, with 14.5 million people officially unemployed.

President Obama was apparently unimpressed by this news when it reached him in yet another TV studio where he was emitting still more meaningless blather.

"Maybe those are big numbers," Obama quipped, "but... I can't count!"

(Mr. Obama was probably referring to his puzzling announcement that "I have been in office for just nine months -- though some days it seems a lot longer," on September 22 at the UN, only eight months and two days after his inauguration.)

And since nobody cares about unemployment when there are much more fun things to think about, like those evil Republican racists and their latest shenanigans, the rest of this diary consists of a semiotic and psychoanalytic analysis of Obama's slip, quip, gaffe, or goof about "nine months," beginning with the Freudian headline...

Obama's Occult White-House Pregnancy!

Blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah...

(It's teh humor!)

Thoughts on Current Nuclear arms issues


Thoughts on Current Nuclear arms issues

Here are some thoughts that have come to me while listening to different aspects of the recent debates on nuclear proliferation and the reduction of nuclear weapons, possibly to zero.

My bet is that Iran is trying to [at least] reach the point that they could quickly construct an A bomb. Just because people whose foreign policy I despise say that that is the case does not make it false, but I also believe that an attack on Iran to destroy their enrichment facilities is a very bad and very wrong idea.

Iran claims they want processed uranium as fuel and that is very likely true but unlikely the whole truth.

If I ruled Iran and the geopolitical situation was as it is, I would also want the bomb. I bet you would too.

One of the threats to Iran is the cut-off of refined petroleum products. Why are they not building refineries? Maybe they are but I haven't heard anything about it. Would they be too easy a target because they could not be built in underground hardened bunkers? Do the Iranians feel that a defensive bomb is a higher first priority when they are being threatened with a cut off of the vital energy source they now depend on.

If treaties were reached that promised the destruction of all A bombs:

Russia would secretly keep some, China would secretly keep some, Israel would secretly keep some, and so would every other country that has them. The United States would definitely keep some.

As for reductions, most of the countries in the A club have so many weapons that they can deactivate 95% of them and have enough left over to likely destroy life as we know it on the entire planet and so the offer to give up ten thousand and keep only a hundred or so is a bargaining chip that would have no value if offered to me as an inducement to not get my own.

Getting the Senate to agree to a treaty giving up all A-bombs would be much harder than passing meaningful health care reform. Very much harder. A higher percentage of people would be against it to start with and by the time the fear mongers and war mongers and corporate interests held stage for a while a much higher percentage would be against it. Some people who are reasonable and wish for a safer, saner world would also think that a total ban would be un-verifiable, quickly reversible, and isn't a reality based and realistically possible way to achieve one.

If America's armed forces were actually of a completely defensive nature and not designed, and intended, to be able to bend any other country to our will, the retention of a few nukes might actually make sense by making such a defensive position possible.

If all nukes were destroyed, all fissionable material accounted for and somehow made unavailable to all entities for the quick assembly of weapons, if that is even remotely possible, and if the powers that be in the world believed it had happened, full scale conventional war between major countries might become more likely. Also,regional domination by major countries of weaker or smaller countries just by the threat of war would be more likely and more common.

The money saved by scaling back our military and using that money to invest in an honest full blown effort to reach energy independence would greatly increase our national security beyond anything we can expect by continuing on our present course of having a military capable of "protecting our vital national interests". That phrase is almost totally a reference to maintaining access to foreign oil.

.

Geography Refresher: Iran, The Middle of the Middle East


by Ron Powell





Secret nuclear facilities have been revealed in Qom, Iran. Failure to fully report the existence of these facilities, which as President Obama said," are inconsistent with a peaceful program", to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and permit the required inspection, will bring sanctions and other dire consequences.

Obama accuses Iran of building secret nuclear plant

President Obama with Prime Ministers Gordon Brown of England and Nicholas Sarkozy of France spoke as one at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh.

With a line drawn in the sand, and an October 1st deadline for a meeting with the UN Security Council ( United States, Russia, China, France, England) and Germany (P5+1) regarding compliance, Iran will be at the top of the news for the next week and beyond...A refresher in geography seemed to be in order.

Clinton welcomes Iran move to admit IAEA inspectors 

 

The risks of being alive.


I'm goint to ask a series of questions anbout certain
unpleasant states. I'm nosaying we should not have
strong feelings or preferences about them. Nevertheless
from these examples we can begin to get a clue; and
when we have a clue we can see more clearly what we are
doing in practice. Here are the questions:

*If I am told told "Joko, you have one more day to
live, " is that OK with me ? Or if someone told you
that, is it OK with you ?

*If I am in a sever accident, and my legs and arms have
to be amputated, is this OK with me ? It that were to
happen to you, is it OK ?

*If I were to never again to receive a kind and
friendly encouraging word from abyone, is this OK with
me ?

*If I, for whatever reason, have to be bedridden and in
pain for the rest of my life, is this OK with me ?

*If I make a complete fool of myself, in the worst
possible circumstances, is this OK with me ?

*It the close relationship that you dream of and hope
for never comes to pass, is this OK ?

*If for whatever reason I have to live out my life as a
beggar, with little food and no shelter, exposed to the
cold, is this OK with me ? With you ?

*If I must lose whatever or whoever I care for, is it
OK with me ?

Now, I can't answer OK to any of these. And if you're
honest, I don't think any of you can either. But to
answer OK is the enlightened state, if we understand
wht it means for something to be OK. For something to
be OK, if doesn't men that I don't scream, or cry, or
protest or hate it.


Charlotte Joko Beck - Everyday Zen

The instinct of most of us in times such as these is to
keep our heads down and hang onto our pleasures and
possessions and bear our pains as best we may. We wish
to run no risks in a world with chance so badly skewed
against us. The result is that we are trapped, closeted
with our fears while the storm rages worse outside.
Here in this tight space dread grows, and the
possibilities for remedy are few. On television
maniacally cheerful people contrive to sell us
happiness. Buy! Enjoy! Experience! Out on the streets
glowering zealots paste up posters urging struggle,
war, confusion, and the death of their enemies -- after
which, presumably, mankind will enjoy bliss.
Civilization appears to be spiralling down into awesome
decadence, and the fall of Rome comes to the minds of
those not altogether oblivious to history. It's an
unpleasant thought, so we take shelter in our small
delights or else in the blandishments of psychological
and religious quacks who -- for a fee to defray the
costs of their own indulgences -- will tell us anything
we want to hear. Do we feel guilty? It's probably
someone else's fault. Are we tempted by vice? Go ahead,
fulfill yourselves! Will we have to give up anything to
achieve happiness? Oh, never! Perish the thought! A
golden age is dawning.


Leonard Price

Being alive means taking risks. Each breath we take everyday
is a risk. Getting up in the morning is a risk. Will we burn our
breakfast and set our house on fire ? Going to work is a risk.
Will some one cross the median and plow into us ?

Being around others is a risk. Walking up stairs is a risk. We are
confronted everyday by risks. even if we hid ourselves away in a
mountain cave there is a risk of a cave in or being flooded.

Try as we may, we simply cannot rid our selves of risks. There is a
risk of getting sick or injured or dying everyday.

Yet we try to remove them by surrounding ourselves in big houses
in gated communities, driving big expensive cars, running our selves
into the ground, taking all sorts of vile potions and making laws to
eliminate these risks.

We try to eliminate the risk of being in business or working or having
a relationship.

Now some risk management is certainly a good thing. Requiring that people
know how to operate a vehicle in a safe manner, making killing, and stealing
an illegal act are wise and good things to do.

But anyone who pays attention to the news knows that these things as
a total prevention of the risks imposed are not as effective as we would like
them to be.

We make laws to prevent the use of certain drugs but we all know how
effective that has proven to be. We even made the use of alcohol illegal.
Ask some people who lived in the 1920s and 30s just how effective that
was.

And here is my point. We cannot legislate risk away. People will still
engage in activities that are risky to themselves and to a certain
extent, to other people.

And we certainly cannot legislate activities that we ourselves find
unpleasant or uncomfortable for whatever reason. It just does not
work.

I myself do not like alcohol and do not go to bars or nightclubs to hang
around drunk people. It's not my thing. But I will defend you right to do so
if that is what you wish to do. (Though I would be rather upset if you attempted
to drive afterward.)

Forcing others to bend to our wishes simply because we don' like what
they do will not remove our own risks. However we also need to extend
some common courtesy to others who may not appreciate our activities.

We need to all be more tolerant of others and their chosen life styles and
realize that we ourselves are responsible for our own life.

Or do we really want to live in a risk-less world of Aldous Huxley.

C
 
 

The Tears of Peru


A chain of events.  An independent filmmaker's group in Honduras uploads a video to YouTube. It's a short clip of protesters and cops in an unnamed poor barrio in Tegucigalpa, but towards the end someone picked up a spent tear gas canister and pulled out its ID label: Policia National de Perú.  Last Wednesday, the ever vigilant Al Giordano posted the video in a story on his NarcoNews web site, with this comment:

We can also see in that video the revelation that the tear gas canisters shot by the National Police yesterday were stamped as property of the government of Perú, suggesting strongly that Peruvian President Alan García is a participant in smuggling arms to the Honduran coup regime. Something he will now have to answer for to the Organization of American States in general, and his neighbor Brazil in particular.

Then three major news services in Brazil and Perú lift the story from NarcoNews and publish it.   La Republica in Perú asks:  "How could these gases arrive in Honduras if they belong to the Peruvian police?"  This leads Octavio Salazar, Peruvian Interior Minister,  to issue a threat of legal action against the perps of the story, and La Republica edits the story this way:  "How could these gases arrive in Honduras if they belong to the Peruvian police?"

It gets much better, and I encourage you to read Giradano's complete story.  For example:

That's fútbol, Narco News style, in which the information ball bounces from Honduras through somewhere in América, ricochets through Sao Paulo then Lima then, GOOOOOOLLLL¡

Reporting for the Peruvian daily La Primera, Raúl Weiner wrote:

"The story is very serious, to have clandestine relations between a government that daily proclaims itself democratic and the coup plotters condemned by the world, behind the backs of all Peru. The situation rarifies even more because a country as important as Brazil has taken a decisive role in the current phase of the Honduran crisis, decisively pushing the return of President Zelaya, and Peru appears to be in the opposing camp, providing the weapons to save Micheletti."

The moral of this story?  Be careful what you blog. Ha.

Changing Board Rooms from the Inside


Prof. Emma Coleman Jordan, of Georgetown Law Center, has a shocking (in traditional corporate law circles) idea:

put a public representative in the boardrooms of "systemically important" firms.  You know, the kind that taxpayers are going to have to bail out if/when doomsday comes.
(see http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/   you'll need to scroll down)

This is why it's so titillating for the gray lawyer types:

the theory of corporate governance is to let management do what it wants, deferring to their "business judgment," so that capitalism may flourish -- within certain guidelines.  No fraud, no self dealing, no gross negligence.  Further, the board's fiduciary duties are to the shareholders  alone; it is to them they must act with good faith, in their best interests.  But government won't ordinarily step in when management goofs up (no matter how big the goof) as long as no one's lied outright or dunked his hand in the corporate cookie jar to buy that new rolls for the third wife.

It's a hypocritical standard; you and me and anyone else will get sued if we're negligent and someone gets hurt.  Corporate management? Gross negligence may not even be enough, because most states allow corporations to write in immunities for gross negligence in their charters.  

In summary: corporate management's only duty is to shareholders, and at that, they can act with impunity, absent fraud and self-dealing.  The law has operated thus for a hundred years, at least.

To illustrate, boards do not violate corporate law -- as it exists now -- when they take excessive risk with the goal of maximizing short term profit. Case in point: Citibank gets away with underwriting subprimes and running the company into the dirt.  

Nowhere in this equation is room for the board to consider: public interest; employee's interest; environmental interest--or, indeed, the interests of any other constituent.  Of course, if you get a nice board, they'll protect the environment and employees because they think it will, ultimately, be good for shareholders.  but you're depending, essentially, on their good will.
So Prof. Jordan's suggestion is bold, and I am so very happy to have a respected jurist actually speak, out loud, of our emperor's state of undress.

Imagine, reserving a seat on the board for a constituency other than shareholders.  For the taxpayers that will, potentially, have to bail their asses out.

Whistling Past the Graveyard?


Is it hubris?  Whistling Past the Graveyard?  Or just the sort of "We're Gonna WIN This One!" talk the coach gives his doomed football team before heading out onto the field for a game everyone knows they're gonna lose?

You decide.

Read more »

Microsoft vs. iFascism, and groupthink.


As user of Apple's computers since 1981, I've watched with some interest as Apple evolved from an apparently wide-open technology company to a profoundly leak-resistant company. (Anyone remember the Mac the Knife column in MacWEEK?) Apple's lawsuit against the Mac rumor site Think Secret ruffled many feathers, leading at least one person to ask if Apple was becoming "Microsoft-like" in its conduct.

It has and it hasn't. As our fair editor pointed out, Apple has maintained a close integration of its hardward and software, and "always strived for beautiful, cool, elegant, and [easy-to-understand] interfaces, while most things in the wintel world are clunky/geeky/and for some hard to understand."

And furthermore, the licensing of Microsoft's products is infamous. Attempting to reinstall Windows on a computer requires you to (somehow) liberate the license number from the old computer, or even the old hard disk. Even if this has started to change, they're still sticklers for the license number. To much the opposite effect, I've never had to enter a license number when dealing with an Apple product -- make that any Apple product, be it produced in 1981, 1991, 2001, or so on.

But there's one overriding quality about Microsoft that stands out in my mind: groupthink. It permeates Microsoft's corporate culture, and, I imagine, its most devoted user base. The prevalent groupthink (that and the fact that I'm not a computer programmer) is a large part of why I could never work at Microsoft, or be a Republican. An ad for employment in Microsoft's group that makes their iPod knockoff illustrates it to a tee.
 

This is from The Register:

"As previously reported by TechFlash in December, Microsoft has posted
job listings for positions at its Musiwave subsidiary that involve
incorporating Musiwave technology into the Zune Marketplace.

" 'The Zune organization is making a strategic change from a 3rd party
content provider to in-house," reads one Musiwave job post. 'We need
to rebuild, re-architect, and revitalize a content ingestion pipeline

[emphasis added] that powers the entire Zune business. And we have a very
short time to do it.' "

While I've only seen a few listings for employment at Apple, I never saw one that had such overwhelming and buzzword-compliant groupthink in its core. Groupthink was at the antithesis of what made Apple such a revolutionary company in the early 1980s, and probably some of what led to its near downfall in the mid-90s. While Microsoft has used groupthink to its advantage to achieve a de facto (and now slowly eroding) monopoly, it's still nothing that I want to be a part of, or use if I don't have to.

A CONTRAST AMONG DOOLITTLES


http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsH/8131-13255.gif

                       Alfie Doolittle



John Doolittle

Once upon a time there was there was a Mormon attorney who wished to make a difference, strive for change and make America a better place for rich white people to live and thrive. In 1990, John T. Doolittle was elected to the House of Representatives from a district in California where gated communities and rich exurbs are the rule of the day.


And John T. Doolittle was able to do that House seat proud until January of this year; I mean what a voting record:   http://www.ontheissues.org/ca/john_doolittle.htm

Any time he could make life a little bit easier for those attempting to scrape by in gated communities, Doolittle was there doing a lot. Any time he was called upon to vote down breaks for the poor so that they could just sit around on food stamps and drink beer all day, Doolittle was there for the count.

You would never him quote Alfie Doolittle his dear departed cousin:

I'm one of the undeserving poor, I am,  up against middle-class morality all the time. What is middle-class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything.

And this was what Doolittle was all about, and let me tell you this man DIDALOT, not a little to further Truth, Justice & The American Way:

  • "Conservative Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.), for example, said he hoped a Bush administration would beat back efforts at campaign finance reform and gun control while dramatically cutting federal regulation. 'The power of the presidency, coupled with a Republican Congress and conservative control of the Supreme Court, is nothing short of awesome,' said Doolittle, one of DeLay's closest allies. 'This is the implementation of the rest of the 'Contract With America.'" --Washington Post, December 6, 2000.
  • "A DeLay ally, Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.), said Republicans 'are going to have to respond in kind' by filing ethics charges against key Democrats. From now on, he said in an interview, it's a matter of 'you kill my dog, I'll kill your cat.'" --Washington Post, June 15, 2004.
  • "'I do not subscribe to the theory of global warming,' he said. 'Liberals like to use pseudo-science.' He said that liberals want to implement severe restrictions and their actions 'would make everything more expensive.'" [Chester Progressive, Wednesday, Aug 16, 2006, pg 16A. (Doolittle interview with newspaper, Chester,CA)]
  • "The legislation introduced by Congressman John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) provides for deregulating campaign finance, eliminating both contribution and expenditure limitations. It also provides for ending federal financing of presidential campaigns. Its emphasis is on improved disclosure of campaign finance information primarily through electronic filing. To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the financing of campaigns for election for Federal office."


All Representatives find special projects to work on during their tenure in the People's House; or at least the good ones, and Doolittle was one of those good ones for sure. Back in 2006 it was reported that:

Most Americans couldn't locate the Northern Marianas Islands on a map if their lives depended on it-- nor could they tell you anything about the island chain. However, in the northern California district between the Sacramento suburbs and the Oregon border, more and more people are knowing an uncomfortably lot about the Northern Marianas. That's because the Republican incumbent in CA-04, John Doolittle, an incredibly corrupt and thoroughly immoral bribetaker has been all caught up in a whole slew of Abramoff-related scandals, one particularly horrible one centered in the Commonwealth-- a nice way to say "colony"-- of the Northern Mariana Islands. And the swirling controversy around the scandal is being covered by the Sacramento Bee, the district's most read newspaper.

Now that the FBI is actively investigating Doolittle's role in the pervasive Culture of Corruption in DC, his activities in the
Northern Marianas scandals are coming out. Last week, the Bee reported that the forced prostitution, slave labor, forced abortions and generally nightmarish conditions put together by villains like Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, Don Young and John Doolittle as a model working situation for a Republican Party-dominated society has become a campaign issue in CA-04.

A month before Rep. John Doolittle took actions that would help disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff win back a contract to represent the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in blocking immigration and labor reforms, he heard sworn witnesses describing some of the sordid abuses the legislation was intended to halt. At the Sept. 16, 1999, hearing before the House Resources Committee, witnesses told of deplorable working conditions, trafficking in women and forced prostitution.

Now, seven years later, Doolittle's opposition to the reforms in the
U.S. territory has become a dominant issue in his campaign for a ninth term in Congress. http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2006/10/another-chapter-in-john-doolittles.html

Getting young girls employment was one of the greatest accomplishments of Doolittle during his tenure and it had nothing to do with food stamps or welfare. I mean these girls had to follow the rules in order to better their lot.


But those dirty liberals have taken it upon themselves to attack this sort of conduct and they found out how to get this epitome of conservative values by going after an underling:


"Doolittle's former chief of staff, Kevin A. Ring, went to work with Abramoff. Doolittle's wife, Julie, owned a consulting firm that was hired by Abramoff and his firm, Greenberg Traurig, to do fundraising for a charity he founded. Two sources close to the investigation said that Ring, while working for Abramoff, was an intermediary in the hiring of Julie Doolittle's firm, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions Inc., which last year received a subpoena from the grand jury investigating Abramoff," Susan Schmidt and James Grimaldi, reported in the November 26, 2005, Washington Post.  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Doolittle/Commentary

Ring is in the midst of his trial right now, facing 127 years in prison (something Madoff would have hoped for) on seven felony counts. The trial has worn on some participants:

Crying witnesses, colorful e-mails and descriptions of lobbyists as "sugar daddies" and congressmen as their "champions" -- it's all become routine in the trial of Kevin Ring, former associate of imprisoned ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. With a full cast of former lobbyists and congressional staffers who have already pleaded guilty in the scandal testifying as cooperating witnesses, courtroom drama has yet to cease, and it's only bound to continue as the defense is expected to begin presenting evidence next week.
Read more: http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2009/09/ri.   http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x483520

Former DOJ Chief of Staff David Ayres invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, according to this report.David Ayers, who was Ashcroft's chief of staff at the Justice Department during the Bush administration, refused to answer questions under oath about tickets he received from Abramoff's firm and any favors he may have granted for the firm's clients.

Ayers was called as a defense witness in the corruption trial of Abramoff deputy Kevin Ring. Ring faces charges that he illegally influenced federal officials by providing them with expensive meals, drinks and tickets to concerts and sporting events   http://politicalactivitylaw.com/?p=5283


In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth...(Luke 13:28)

So, in the midst of Ring's trial, Doolittle has been indicted.  Or has he?

Federal prosecutors named ex-Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) as a co-conspirator Thursday in the public corruption case against former House aide-turned-lobbyist Kevin Ring. The government included Doolittle, who has not been charged with wrongdoing, on a list of 11 co-conspirators filed Thursday.

The government's list of co-conspirators also included Doolittle's wife, Julie Doolittle, as well as John Albaugh, chief of staff to then-Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) who pleaded guilty in 2008 to conspiracy to commit honest services fraud; Ann Copland, a former aide to Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) who pleaded guilty in March to honest services wire fraud; Robert Coughlin, a former top Justice Department official who pleaded guilty in 2008 to violating conflict of interest laws; Will Heaton, chief of staff to then-Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) who pleaded guilty in February 2007 to a conspiracy charge; Laura Blackann, Doolittle's former spokeswoman and wife of Trevor Blackann who pleaded guilty in November to filing a false tax return for not reporting more than $4,100 in gifts from lobbyists; Peter Evich, Doolittle's former legislative director; Gregory Orlando, who also served as Doolittle's legislative director; former White House aide Jennifer Farley; David Lopez, Doolittle's former chief of staff and political adviser; and Ryan Thomas, a top appropriations aide to then-Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.).   http://www.rollcall.com/news/38936-1.html?type=pf

Well he made it on the list of co-conspirators, But he still walks free as a bird.

Doolittle has little in common with his cousin Alfie Doolittle.  I mean you will never hear Representative Dooliittle say for instance:

I'm wanting to tell you, I'm willing to tell ya, I'm waiting to tell ya.


John T. Doolittle rather makes his cousin Alfie seem like a pillar of the community, does he not?

Cross posted at my new blog site:

http://forestroot125.blogspot.com/


Check it out, reposting first chapters of Arthur and including a lot of pictures of naked ladies.


Bogus "Generosity" by MS


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/09/ifascism.php#more?ref=fpblg
I could not let this false "fact"of Bill Gates supposed generosity pass with out comment.
The form that  of the donations by MS and Gates has historically been product promotion.
An example was a number of years ago MS through the Gates Foundation "Donated" generous amounts of software to Children's Museums. The kicker was that it was Windows only software exclusively produced by MS. Even if there was a Mac version of the software produced by MS they would not give that away or exchange it or even offer a discount. The upshot was with thousands of dollars of software sitting on the shelf the local Children's Museum switched from Mac's to Windows.
A very clever tax deductible product promotion by MS. If one reads the fine print on many of Gate's and MS "donations" you will find they come in the form of Windows products/hardware exclusively. That is not philanthropy but rather marketing with the US taxpayer subsidizing it because of the tax deductions that MS claims for its generosity.
I am reminded of growing up in Chicago when the press would launch an investigation into mob activities all of a sudden many local churches etc. would get donations from people of interest and they would be publicly exalted as Civic heros rather then the thugs they were. 

It is the same syndrome as Al Neuharth exhibited, After being the head of Gannet and using every method he could to monopolize and dumb down the news (Richard McCord's The Chain Gang: One Newspaper versus the Gannett Empire - Columbia: Uni of Missouri Press 1996) he takes his ill gotten gains and starts a Journalism foundation ( The Freedom Forum) to decry the evils he promoted in journalism, without ever admitting any guilt. 
So it is with robber barons, Mafioso's and retired dictators who when, in old age, they find the cold breath of natural mortality they donate to the church a portion of their ill gotten gains in hope of redeeming their reputation and purchasing forgiveness.
So it is with Gates and MS after 20 years of promoting an inferior product through the use of FUD ( Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) while stealing other peoples code ( i.e. Stacker, false error message with Windows using other then MS-Dos etc.etc) are now trying to buy respectability. Just like old John D. Rockefeller trying to appear beneficent with his very public campaign of handing out dimes to poor waifs after crushing so many to build Standard oil.
Interesting to note that only after the anti trust trail  is when MS and Gates decided, like the oil and tobacco companies, that a little money to grease the PR and political machine might erase the ugly truth. Remember this was the trail where where every, I repeat every, MS witness was discredited on the stand, including Mr. Gates during his deposition.


Lets not forget the money that MS poured into GW's campaign in 2000 in a successful effort to buy a lenient DoJ who promoted a minor slap on the wrist to MS. Do not forget the campaign scandal it was involved in by hiring future Bush apparachec, such as Ralph Reed, to keep them on tap for the Bush campaign without it being listed as a contribution or cost to the bush campaign. So lets make sure we add MS and Gates contribution to giving us 8 years of GW to the balance of their marketing "generosity".

So when citing MS and Gates generosity lets put it in perspective rather then simply buying the PR hype. 

Meandering Thoughts on G-20


We have a great opportunity, rising from the ashes of this crisis, to come up with a global securities/financial products regulatory governance structure that might actually get a grip on the world in the 21st century.  Because, I suppose, the Asian currency crisis in the 1990s wasn't enough to scare the crap out of anyone.  We had to wait until Lehman and Bear fell.  I only hope that the G-20 will give the SEC and its foreign counterparts the go-ahead to start drafting us some coordinated regulation. 

Also at the summit, the U.S. pledged -- all hortatory of course --  to cut imports and consumer spending, and obtained  a counter promise from China to start building its own domestic demand.  The aim, obviously, to do *something* about the gigantic trade imbalances that...remind one, in a very frightening way... of that little Thai Bhat crisis of 10 years ago.  Except a million times bigger.

 And they all agree that the IMF will monitor the progress of our promises and assurances, and that they would open books and records for member-country review and observation.  This is where I get confused.

First, the IMF already monitors trade imbalances and slaps countries around when their pegged currencies get a little too ridiculous. That's like, um, its purpose.  And...since a country's voice and power over the IMF, like that of its sister Bretton Woods institution, correlates directly with how much that country pays in...Well, it's all sort of like the U.S. promising to be what it already is.   I suppose Obama is hoping that everyone is so confused as to what the IMF does that we'll all walk away happy....sort of like when they talk about monetary policy at the Fed.  Until it all falls apart. 

Second.  I don't suppose anyone remembers, wayyyy back before 9-11, that the world sat down and came up with the Millennium Development Goals, to, inter alia, end extreme poverty (bono anyone?), improve womens rights, and save the environment.  All they could think to do to make sure countries' honored their promises was to insert some sort of peer pressure -- lots of countries' agreed, and ostensibly would want to save face instead of reneging.  Instead of forming a real treaty.

So, like, that turned out real well.

Iran Pilot Program: A Trap?


Iran: UN will be allowed to inspect newly revealed site

Nuclear chief says his country will open doors of newly revealed nuke facility to U.N. agency after Obama threatens consequences for non-cooperation

At G-20 Summit:  Obama joined the leaders of Britain and France in accusing the Islamic republic of clandestinely building an underground plant to make nuclear fuel that could be used to build an atomic bomb. Iranian officials acknowledged the facility but insisted it had been reported to nuclear authorities as required.

"Iran's action raised grave doubts" about its promise to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only, Obama told a news conference at the conclusion of a G-20 summit whose focus on world economic recovery was overshadowed by disclosure of the Iranian plant.

"Iran is on notice that when we meet with them on Oct. 1 they are going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice" between international isolation and giving up any aspirations to becoming a nuclear power, he said. If they refuse to give ground, they will stay on "a path that is going to lead to confrontation."

************************************************

Unbowed, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country had done nothing wrong and Obama would regret his accusations.


Why do I get a feeling that Ahmadinejad has just tricked the United States and others? 

I have this weird feeling that what Iran has done is purposely built this so called 'pilot' program to corner the U.S., knowing they would rally others into pushing Iran for inspections of it, of which Ahmadinejad would most certainly give access to.

When Ahmadinejad said that Obama would "regret his accusations" I felt then that he had just trapped President Obama.

Could it be that Iran built this 'pilot' program, sent a letter to the UN disclosing it, knowing that the U.S and others would demand access to 'it'?  Iran could then comply easily to the UN wishes -- proving that the 'pilot' program is indeed for peaceful purposes.

Iran would do this being fully aware that the U.S. and others would then demand to see the original nuclear facility that they've been accusing Iran of building.  Ahamdinejad, of course, would then say, "No.  I've proven to the world by giving the United Nation's access to one of facilities -- that I do not lie, I will not again bow to the U.S. or any other nation's pressures ever again."

Iran's Nuclear Status - Where Lies the Truth?


Flash fires on Iran's nuclear status and capability are back in the news. From google images of an alleged underground nuclear site to a seemingly endless supply of pundits - the news is Iran. While Iran has admitted the existence of an undeclared nuclear site, their actual nuclear weapons status remains a question mark. This makes Iran's alleged nuclear status is front and center - again. However, other recent news should sound a note of caution about what is real.

Read more »

Attack on Zelaya: toxic gas or hot air?


Another day another murder attempt on Honduras' Manuel Zelaya. The embassy in which he is sheltered was attacked with potentially deadly gas ... or was it? Catholic priest Andrés Tamayo who is with Zelaya and his supporters in the Brazilian embassy issued several impassioned statements. He was quoted thus in Honduran news outlet Teimpo:

"First came a helicopter and then a tank, which was a sign of a company, but was handled by soldiers," said Tamayo, who also suffered the effects of chemicals.

The priest, who observed when discharging chemicals, said a hundred citizens, who are in the building, most presented problems, such as dizziness, headaches, stomach and throat, vomiting and bleeding.
 
Truck allegedly delivering toxic gas to be used against Zelaya. Enough HCN to kill an army ... the army doesn't seem too nervous.
(source: Teimpo.hn)

In the Mexican
Nuestro Pais (h/t neoboho) Tamayo didn't mention the helicopter or the truck. But interestingly, the story picks up an emerging theme in recent Zelaya assertions: Israel is behind everything.

Military Armed Forces of Honduras, with the logistical support of Israel advisers, gases released from neighboring homes into the interior of the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, causing vomiting of blood to the refugees in the embassy.
[...]

He said that "people are vomiting blood, are closed to the airways, and cause other serious problems of intoxication" and therefore called on all nations "to stop this barbarism."

Zelaya also made a statement that was carried by several sources including Teimpo:

"They spread a toxic gas that the military used to evacuate people, here are sixty people all trying to breathe in the yard," said the president, who said he is using a gas mask and although it has a dry throat .

"There are people vomiting and urinating blood," said Zelaya.

Physicians were called to the scene including former Health Minister, Marco Rosa and Zelaya's personal physician Mark Rhodes. According to Teimpo:

Former Health Minister, Marco Rosa, confirmed a few minutes inside the Embassy of Brazil there are at least 25 to 30 people poisoned with some kind of gas.

Indicated, by means of television, outside the building, those affected with vomiting, headache, diarrhea and even nosebleeds
[...]
Initially, Rosa said he did not know if it was some kind of food or gas, but soon after confirmed that from inside it confirmed that they have found a hose through which the gas would be infiltrating.

So there's a group of people pissing/vomiting blood; Rosa finds a hose; a diagnosis is made; toxic gas! Let's pause for a moment and run down the symptoms that eyewitness sources within Zelaya's media team have reported:

-Vomiting
-Vomiting Blood
-Urinating Blood
-Dizziness
-
Headaches
-Sore Throat
-Diarrhea
-Nosebleeds

Those conditions are no joke! Anything plus blood = not good. And don't forget, according to Tamayo, this attack began with gas delivered from a helicopter. Sure was lucky Zelaya had a gas mask ....

Manuel Zelaya displays the "gas mask" that saved him.
(source: Teimpo.hn)


Read more »

Forgiveness: What Is It?


The recent death of Susan Atkins led me to contemplation about forgiveness.

When the book, "Helter Skelter" by Vincent Bugliosi was published, I was a teenager. A friend of mine got the paperback version and lent it to me. I read it from cover to cover, and suffered nightmares as a result. In particular, the vicious and evil murder of Sharon Tate and her unborn child haunted me. Susan Atkins' crime was, to my mind, worthy of the death penalty.

Well, in a way, Susan Atkins got the death penalty. Not as quickly as the victims' families would have liked, but she died, in prison. I can't feel any sympathy for Atkins. I don't think it matters if anyone felt sympathy for her. The only people who can forgive Atkins are those whose loved ones were murdered by Atkins and her cohorts. What I or anyone else feels about it is moot.

Which leads me to the whole idea of forgiveness. What is it? Over the years, I have read a great deal about it and heard from many people how to achieve it, but there are still crimes in my own life that I cannot forgive; I can't let those perpetrators go into the clouds of letting go that forgiveness allegedly allows. There are things I have done that I cannot forgive myself for, despite the assurances of people that some kind of a god forgives me. I struggle with the whole god thing as well.

I am sensitive to the notion that forgiveness is not a feeling. Just as I know that love is a verb, not a noun, I am aware that it isn't necessary to feel  forgiveness to experience it. There are times when it is required of me to act with love no matter what I happen to be feeling at the moment, so the act of forgiving doesn't require me to express any heartfelt emotions toward the forgivee. I merely have to act in accordance with the idea that I am letting go of whatever bad feelings I have had toward this or that individual. I get this. I get this concept.

What is forgiveness to you? What have you been taught about it? Do you have instances in which forgiveness was shown to you or you have shown it to others? I'm interested in hearing what you all might have to say on the subject.

In time, I learned that part of my earning forgiveness from people was to walk the walk of change. Perhaps they only knew me as the bad person who hurt them and need to see a continous progression away from that person and a metamorphosis into a newer and better individual who has more sense and responsibility and awareness. But, ultimately...no matter what I do to regain someone's trust or to earn someone's forgiveness, it isn't up to me whether it happens. It is up to the one or ones I've harmed.

Several years ago, the relationship between my ex-husband and I was repaired by a noble act of forgiveness on both our parts. It was incumbent upon me to take the first step in repairing the relationship, since I had done the greater harm. It never occurred to me that he and I would find such a spiritual release from so much anger and pain accumulated over the years. In one shining moment, it was all released and forgiven. We have remained cordial and friendly ever since. I don't have an explanation for this event except to say that Something was guiding the both of us.

So, let me know what you feel or think about forgiveness. I'm truly fascinated to hear what others know or believe about it. Thanks to all.


Turkish Delight: Sibel Edmonds


Why isn't this woman running for office?
Sibel Edmonds lays it all down for Congresswoman Schakowsky - how to investigate, who to investigate, what to investigate, and what's happened so far.
Of course if Edmonds got to Congress, she could have some of the powers to investigate that Schakowsky won't use.
Next time someone laughs at "conspiracies in government", point to Sibel and the incredible lack of will and incentive in Congress to investigate anything worth investigating. "I see nut-tink, I hear nut-tink, I say nut-tink". Sgt. Schultz, the official mascot of the US Government.

President Obama repeatedly punked by neo-cons this week.


By Joseph Chez

Sept. 25, 2009 

President Obama was elected overwhelmingly by the American people who voted for CHANGE in our foreign policy.  However, the opposition has been working diligently and ferociously to co-opt President Obama's efforts to RESET our government's policies.   

One must wonder why, when world leaders came to the United Nations for talks on climate change this week, much of the conversation in the U.S. media turned to none other than the "specter" of Iran's nuclear threat on our nation and our allies.  Moreover, what appears not coincidental is that out of the blue, up to four separate terrorist plots were uncovered this week, and the media has been having a hay-day with the conspiracies.  Yet, two or three of the plots were actually "FBI sting operations" entrapping would-be terrorist.  The other, conceivably a potential terrorist, had been under surveillance for quite some time by the FBI and so far, that individual has only been charged with lying to a federal officer.  So the question is, why bring the issue of terrorism during this week?  Why set red flags and even place the nation's public places under high alert?  

Also this week, General Stanley Mc Chrystal, the top US military commander in Afghanistan met with the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, to make his case for a considerable surge in troops for Afghanistan.  Keep in mind however, that such meeting is out of the ordinary as it does not follow chain of command. In fact, General Mc Chrystal had already submitted his assessment report of the war in Afghanistan to the Secretary of Defense last month.  Further, it should be noted that the White House had urged the Pentagon not submit Gen. Mc Chrystal's assessment to the White House until other options were considered by them.  And yet, the report was leaked to the media nonetheless.  Not surprised, Republicans on the Hill have therefore been raising the anxiety levels and have been painting President Obama as ambivalent on the security issue. 

To top it off this week, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu also appeared before the UN General Assembly and reminded the world of the historical plight of the Jewish State, but he also sounded the alarm from the imminent nuclear threat to the free world by the tyrannical state of Iran.  Coincidentally, today's revelations of a second Iranian nuclear-enrichment facility came from intelligence sources from the UK and France and this raised the anxiety even more, that Iran indeed, is working on weapons of mass destructions.  But wait a minute! Let's not forget that faulty intel was passed on to the U.S. government by the Brits back in 2002, which coincidentally, became the "smoking gun" and the corner stone for laying the ground work for the invasion of Iraq.  Incredibly, this new information is not entirely new, as the CIA has been aware of it for some time.  But nevertheless, President Obama felt obligated to stand in solidarity with France, Britain and Israel and assumed the role as the pseudo leader of the new coalition against Iran.  Regrettably, President Obama sternly pointed out to Iran, that it was breaking rules that all other nations must follow.  He further gave a clear warning, that if Iran did not come clean by October 1, 2009, there would be consequences.  Really Mr. President?  Now that you've drawn a line in the sand (quick sand that is), what will you have the nation do if Iran does not comply? Have you considered the consequences? Whether we actively stop Iran and bomb its facilities, or if these theatrics will only embolden Israel to attack Iran, yes Mr. President, will you allow haste to overtake reason?  Do you realize that residual neo-cons remaining in the Pentagon from the former administration, Republicans at the hill, and AIPAC are setting you up (punked) to finish up what they left undone?  Please remember that the American people wanted to stop their madness and voted for CHANGE? 

Mr. President, before we can make a case before the world against Iran, we first must understand whose interest we are serving.  Would it be in our interest to go to war again? Does the industrial-military complex stand to gain from this project, or is AIPAC's  influence simply too much to overcome?  I am certainly not an apologist nor sympathetic for the Iranian regime, but Mr. Ahmadinejad does have a point when he argues, that they have the right to pursue a nuclear program just like any other nation, whether it's the US, the UK, France or Israel.  In law, there is a legal maxim which states that, in like circumstances, the law applies the same. 

In closing however, I have to remind our President that the neo-con's agenda is not ours and they must not be allowed to take the reigns of your administration, for they had their turn and their smoking gun was only a hoax. 

We must not waiver in the pursuit for peace Mr. President. 

 

 

 

Inspection- You Can't Win, Mr. President


   ...at least not if you continue attempting to please the radical Right. They do not deserve such respect, Mr. President. Indeed it only encourages them to go further down insanity's superhighway.


   For example...

   Have you noticed, Mr. President, all the tongue wagging and shaking heads regarding your use of the media; the many times you have reached out? You do realize, being one of the smarter presidents we've ever had, that if you had done less reaching out to find ways to speak to all of America they'd just go back to calling you an effete' snob like they did during the election, right?

   I can hear it now...

"Look, he won't even go on David Letterman to speak with us commoners!"

"Why didn't he just invite the two to sit down with him and have a beer or something? Why if Joe Biden is so great, he could have make it a foursome. What elitists!"

    Let's consider a side issue here: racism. You have said this isn't about racism. I agree. Though I have no doubt that racism is alive in America, and that racists are being pushed in a dangerous direction by certain pundits and pols, I doubt those doing the actual pushing are doing it because they are racists. No, Mr. President, the truth is far darker, more vicious and perhaps even more evil than that. So what is it about?

 

    More than anything it's about a party and a small, loudmouth, squeaky wheel movement, whose leaders and pundits have intentionally left civility, civilized and rational behavior behind. To them winning is the only thing; winning being defined only as monopolizing and controlling the national discourse. And the extreme Right does that very, very well.

    If using racists works for against their chosen target, that's what they will do. If claiming to be the victims of racism serves their purpose they will suddenly insist they are victims too.

    Lying is appropriate and necessary if it serves the cause, as far as they are concerned. After all, if you keep claiming that Saddam never let the inspectors in, or kicked the inspectors out, enough people will start to question reality or even believe such utter lies. The true "death panels" are the insurance companies that killed the real Norma Rae recently by denying coverage. The enablers of such are those who divert attention by claiming someone else; in this case the government, has death panels planned.

    Yes, pols like Sarah Palin are liars for hire by the Right, paid for by pure purveyors of propaganda like FOX and those who eagerly fund and give plenty of uncritical press to hate mongers. The payment is usually in power, contributions and a place on the national stage.

    But back to racism. I certainly believe that there is an intent to enrage the racists by certain right wing pundits and pols in this country, but this goes to "anything that might allow us to dominate the national stage" mentality. During the Clinton years I remember references to the Clintons that I'm sure were intended to enrage racists. He was, after all, "Holding America hostage."

    ...not Newt Gingrich who shut down Congress in an attempt to force a president to agree to his party's agenda, or Republicans who felt the most important thing was spending massive amounts of money wasting precious time pursuing a President.

    All that time; bin Laden was plotting. Even trying to take Osama out was called "wagging the dog."

Courtesy walrusmagazine.com

    ...not Vernon Wayne Howell; otherwise known as David Koresh, who could have at least let the children go at any time.

    ...not mass murderers Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh, who were so turned on by The Turner Diaries that they murdered enough people to fill a building; including a preschool full of little children. The Turner Diaries: where a heavy handed attempt to control the people, like they considered Waco to be, led to a revolution that had true believers hanging and shooting all the Blacks, all the Latinos: all non-Aryans and everyone who dared to disagree with them. They were literally lined up: town after town, city after city... all across the nation and slaughtered. This is what McVeigh and Nichols sought. This is what they dreamed of.

    ...not mass murderers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold who so admired Nichols and McVeigh that they held school children hostage; then brutally slaughtered them and their teachers off one, by one, by one.

    You won't find one Limbaugh or Beck who will say they support what McVeigh, Nichols, Harris and Klebold did. But you will find them framing issues for the Right to deliberately force feed an anger laced milk teat to this kind of audience, like Limbaugh recently claiming Obama was intentionally leading the country into a dictatorship because no one dares to criticize a Black man. Or Beck calling him a racist... presumably because he's anti-White. Gee, I wonder just how much that tweaked the minds of the next McVeigh or Klebold?

    The purpose?

    Easy.

    Whatever it takes to enrage more people.

   ...especially the least stable amongst us: most willing to follow and not think for themselves.

"I will do your thinking for you."

-Rush Limbaugh

Courtesy gfn.com

Courtesy gfn.com

   And while these type of pundits and pols may or may not personally be racist to the core, they willingly, eagerly: with malice, play this card... any card to their advantage: even if they have to cheat by sneaking cards into the game. That's what lying is in debate and discussion: cheating.

    They will play these cards whether it incites racists, or uses false cries of racism to beat down a Black woman who is called to testify during the Clarence Thomas mess. If need be, suddenly, they will become defenders of the Black man.

    This switch so easy for them because it isn't racism we're dealing with when it comes to most of these pundits and pols. They are bi-political: equal opportunity abusers of freedom of speech and civility. Doesn't matter who they verbally beat on just as long as they can make you afraid, very afraid, of someone other than them and their agenda.

   Notice the cries of socialism and the listing of bail outs that "prove" Obama's a Socialist almost always include the bank bailouts: the bailout George Bush did, not Obama. They lump that bailout in with others hoping no one will notice: making asinine excuses if they do.

    Don't forget the same pols and pundits were out immediately after 9/11 insisting the Oklahoma City terrorist attack was the work of Saddam: demanding that we must attack immediately... a wet dream they finally fulfilled after Cheney and the oil companies met to divide up the spoils: much like Hitler and Stalin.

     This ability to justify "whatever" is infectious. It's why they and their followers think talking over anyone who disagrees with them, or screaming at a town hall to the point of making the meeting come to a screeching halt, is nothing more than exercising their rights. If screaming fire in a crowded theater served their purposes, you betcha they'd be pushing an amendment to the Constitution right now and cursing the "damn Libural" Court for ruling against that so many years ago.

    The irony is that the movement that once claimed to be "the moral majority" is probably less concerned with their own morals and ethics than any large scale movement in modern times.

Courtesy dummidumwit.com

Courtesy dummidumwit.com

    To Beck who, along with making statements not unlike ones Osama might support and helping to incite scream and shout down anyone riots, the issue is never him and what he says. No, he always has some lame excuse like... "People are angry."

   Yes, some are. In the same sense that people who listened to Father Coughlin were angry. And for those who would rather we forget, let's remind them: Rush Limbaugh was encouraging his followers to help start riots at the Democratic Convention in 08 like they had in 68. Riots that could easily have taken a lot of human lives. He even spent a lot of time promoting the idea that the Right help this supposed "liberal" organization's attempt to recreate 68 on his show.

    Not one of the many one cells in this giant lake filled with human scum is "Pro-Life." Not one. When it's to their advantage they are Pro-Hate, Pro-Fear and... Pro-Murder: all for the mere purpose of political gain. They just let others do their dirty work by doing anything they can to encourage and incite them, then slyly show their support for murder by claiming "at least there will be one less clinic and fewer abortions."

     And their followers get it. That's why there have been multiple murders of people deliberately assassinated by Pro-Life and anti-Gay drones driven by hate talk.

    A few years ago a doe died on my property mid-fawn birth in the middle of the night. I discovered this horror early in the morning walking one of my collies. When we returned with a shovel to bury it we found a swarm of bugs had come up from the underworld and had already devoured more than three quarters of it in a mere half an hour: at best. Welcome to the kind of world that has been created by right wing theocratic and Neo Con ideology. Prepare to agree or be devoured, for they have little tolerance for civil discourse, and literally no respect for truth. That's why The Turner Diaries folks tune in so well to their message. They share a very brutal and vicious "ends justify the means" mentality.

    When bullets fly they make excuses.

    When the innocent die they blame the dead if it serves what they absurdly call "Pro-Life" purposes.

   They build websites to honor those who hang boys from fences in Texas.

   The likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Tom Delay, Michelle Malkin, Beck, Michelle Bachmann and the rest will do little to discourage, and even tend to encourage, the kind of anger that creates this cesspool we swirling down daily: every week, every month; year after year.

   This isn't Conservative. It isn't even Right Wing, really. It's a "whatever it takes, and whomever we can use, to get more power and threaten those who don't agree," philosophy. Not just "amoral," but intentionally malevolent: in fact gleefully so.

    It's, dare I type... quite Rove-ian in nature.

    You can't win with these folks Mr. President. You can't win when bullies and liars will do and say anything, unless you're willing to beat back: hard. I don't care how much you compromise or give up. You won't win. Never. Ever. You will lose, and so will America.

    Unfortunately?

    I know you'll keep trying.

    Please avoid anything resembling an open limo, Mr. President; for as long as you stay in office... and maybe even after. Remember, as I typed many times... they will use anyone; any group, encourage anger amongst the worst of humanity, just to get them where they want to go. They've done this for many, many years, Mr. President. They know the right buttons to push; metaphorical triggers to pull.

   And sometimes, unfortunately, "metaphorical" triggers can inspire the pulling of real ones.

X marks the spot: Dealey Plaza.

X marks the spot: Dealey Plaza.

There's a long history regarding the topic this edition of Inspection covers. Here's a link.



                                                                            
-30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved
Picture from Wiki Commons

Replaying failed Palin strategy: HOW REPUBLICANS LOST HEALTH CARE debate, ha-ha-ha!


Bible Spice sucked up a lot of attention and air time, and that was the kooky McCain campaign's strength, but also its undoing.  By the time people had taken in her full freak show two or three times, and especially after Katie Couric, they were ready for Tina Fey to eviscerate the ignoramus.   

So with health care also; way too much time on the boob tube with nothing to say,  i.e., Republicans have made the same strategic error.  Overexposed loudmouths who have nary a thing to offer.  That hideous Coburn has made a fool of himself, indeed a Scrooge, and so now has Cantor, in similar and all-too-predictable ways. Got no solutions, and that has registered. 

Americans listened to envenomated Republican surrogates and their bizarre invective, gave them every chance.  And finally concluded  that they are naught but a bunch of bigots and buttholes.  Enter President Clinton as relief pitcher, and he is throwing smoke.  (Go dawg!) 

The polling shows that Americans may be unhappy with some of Obama's leadership, but they are moving away from these ignorant haters and corporate stooges.  The nabobs claim (incoherently) that giving Americans what every industrial country already has now is excessive, and the voters think, "Overreach THIS!"   Voters won't move back because Republicans have taken their best shot, and people reached the conclusion that they're peddling snake oil:  accordingly, we are going to win. So we can decide for ourselves if the public option really is a good idea, because we are going to get it, and we will all try it out together. 

McCain wanted these town meetings all along (we just didn't realize what devilry he had in store), remember that?   He got the rough equivalent with Palin and her idiocy.  Now GOP has staged the real thing, and Americans were shocked but not impressed.   Republicans can try the same tactic in 2010, of course:  put a bunch of screaming people on the news night after night, who don't have one intelligent thing to say.  So far, it has failed twice.

Dems don't see fastball aimed at their head!


Democrats don't like Medicare Advantage (private Medicare plans offered by insurance companies but funded by Medicare). They are targetting Medicare Advantage for big cuts, starting in 2010. But Democrats don't seem to understand how these plans work - and they don't see the fastball that is aimed right at their head. 

With 10.5 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, the insurance companies must be chomping at the bit to ring the alarm bell about how reduced funding will change their enrollees' Medicare benefits (and the insurance companies' profits).  Humana got in trouble for jumping the gun and sending out a letter warning seniors about how health reform will hurt their Medicare benefits.

Democrats don't seem to realize that when seniors receive their Annual Notice of Change (ANOC) from their Medicare Advantage plans in late-October, they will be getting the message loud and clear.  Plans will be changing for 2010 with higher premiums and higher co-pays for doctor visits and hospital stays. And the real cuts to Medicare Advantage are coming up for 2011 and 2012.

As an insurance agent I don't think Medicare Advantage is the best coverage for seniors. But seniors in these private plans are going to see changes in their benefits.  (Sample enrollment numbers are: 32% in Arizona; 41% in Oregon; 36% in Pennsylvania;  34% in California and Rhode Island.) 

It amazes me that Democrats don't see this fastball coming straight at them.  The millions of seniors who pay attention to their "Annual Notice of Change"are going to be mad as hell - and Republicans will be happy to help them understand how they are being hurt by changes (forced by Democrats!).  As a Democrat I would argue that the insurance companies are more concerned about their profits than the welfare of seniors enrolled in their Medicare Advantage plans, but I don't think this argument is going to go over very well. It's a bit  more complicated than "You're Medicare IS changing!"

Let's put a face on 1 in 20,000


Kimberly Young died on Wednesday because she could not afford health care!

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/25/swineflu-boehner-constituent/

 I wonder if she voted for Boehner.

BREAKING: Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa Under Gas Attack


Honduras Coup 2009 just posted an alert on a gas attack by the Honduran Military on the Brazilian Embassy this morning.  The source was a teleSUR article.  My translation:

Military gases released into Brazilian Embassy in Honduras

Despite the talks that the legitimate representative of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, has been held with representatives of the church and with the candidates for the elections on Nov. 29, still not reached any agreement with the de facto regime of Roberto Micheletti.

The Honduran military began a new onslaught on Friday to pressure the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa by throwing gas bombs and blocking entrys to the embassy, which continues protecting the legitimate president Manuel Zelaya since Monday.

According to a report by correspondent teleSUR, Adriana Sivori, several people who are inside the embassy began to bleed from the nose and urinate. One of the doctors at headquarters is responsible for their care.

If you enter "Honduras gas" into Google News several hits from the Latin American will show.  I picked one from Mexico, Nuestro Pais:

Military of Honduras attack Brazilian embassy with chemicals

Writing (elpais.cr) - Military Armed Forces of Honduras, with the logistical support of Israel advisers, gases released from neighboring homes into the interior of the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, causing vomiting of blood to the refugees in the embassy.

The Catholic priest Andrés Tamayo, who is in the Brazilian embassy, denouncing on radio Progresso, which is owned by the Order of Jesus (Jesuits), those who attacked with chemical the site, which houses asylum from the President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya Rosales.

He said that "people are vomiting blood, have closed airways, and other serious problems of intoxication" and therefore called on all nations "to stop this barbarism."

"This is happening now in the morning. The situation is very serious. Embassy's neighbors are helping to spread the gas to provide space for the military to disperse the chemicals, " he lamented.

However, the priest observed that neighbors may have been forced by the military coup, which on 28 June overthrew and expelled to Costa Rica the Constitutional President Zelaya Rosales.

The transmission of Radio Progreso, chained up and also anti-coup Radio Progreso, argues that these chemicals have been used by the Israeli army in the territories of Gaza, during the offensive end of the year to expel the Palestinian residents.

"We need to denounce this urgently" asked Father Tamayo, who said that President Zelaya was protected with an anti-gas mask, while the little milk stored in the Brazilian delegation is being supplied to the most affected. http://radioprogresohn.com

I'll update this as I learn more.  It's noteworthy that the UN Security Council is scheduled to hold an emergency meeting on Honduras today.  What are the coup people thinking?  Is this a wild-card military commander making unilateral decisions?

Barack Obama's amazingly consistent smile



Ladies and gentlemen, your President is a robot. Or a wax sculpture. Maybe a cardboard cutout. All I know is no human being has a photo smile this amazingly consistent.

On Wednesday, the Obamas hosted a reception at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, during which they stood for 130 photographs with visiting foreign dignitaries in town for the UN meeting. The President has exactly the same smile in every single shot. See for yourself -- the pictures are up on the State Department's flickr. And, of course, compressed above into 20 seconds for your viewing pleasure.

A Little Justice


Remember that story about how the swim club in Philly kicked out a group of minority kids that had rented the place and then said "racist?" "Who, us?"  
Yes, you.Cost of excluding one kid: $50K (paid to the state).  
It's a shame that the lunacy of Glenn Beck et al so dominates our national discourse, because since the shrub left office it seems like these kinds of stories are becoming more frequent, if underreported.

More on "money-driven medicine"


Dallas sees no relief in health care expenses as competition drives up costs

September 20, 2009, The Dallas Morning News

Medical care in Dallas is delivered in a broken market where doctors, hospitals and other providers shower patients with services of diminishing value but staggering cost.

The spending is rooted in the city's proud entrepreneurial culture. Dallas is home to many competing hospital systems and physician practices. But this competition raises costs rather than lowering them, because it rewards those who do more procedures and tests and offers no incentive to spend less.

Scott & White Healthcare in Temple, by contrast, dominates medical delivery in Central Texas yet provides care for far less money. "Logically, the more competition, the lower the price. It doesn't work that way in health care," said Scott & White president and CEO Alfred Knight. "Competition increases the price."....

 

Read more »

Swords, Shields, and Stupidity


Now it has been revealed that Iran has a second, secret, uranium enrichment plant. Our intelligence analysts missed this apparently until recently. This comes just days after Obama scrapped plans to defend against Iranian long range missiles, because our Intelligence analysts concluded that the greater threat was from medium/short range missiles. Now, assuming that these analysts are suddenly right in this instance, the defense against short range missiles is available now, it involves no new development. So does it make sense to wait until a defense against long range missiles is absolutely needed to start building one? It's too late then, it takes years to build the needed radars and launcher silos. Wouldn't it be prudent to defend against all threats? This is particularly true in light of Obama's stated goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons. If you eliminate the ability to retaliate, you better have the ability to defend. If you give up your sword, you'd better pick up a shield. Obama thinks it wise to give up everything and hope for the best, proving he is too naive to hold the office.

A U.S. president chairing a meeting of the Security Council;


if you're into the United Nations and its history, in itself, this is no small thing, no matter what the topic.

To me it's refreshing to see a president actually use the U.N. (outside rhetoricals on its assembly podium,) rather than treat it as a pain in the butt.

I am expecting an uptick in the foreseeable future in ye olde conspiracy theories about one world orders and black helicopters and such.  It's possible some of those left out of the "G-20" will be joining federalist wingers on that front this time.

Obama is the Star of ACORN Painting


Rep Seve King (R-Iowa) stood beside a painting of Barack Obama as King mumbled some gibberish on the House floor. The painting, with an American flag in the background, was a powerful image of Obama. Anyone know where I can get a copy or a t-shirt version of the painting? Or should I just contact King's office directly to thank him for displaying the patriotic image?

Schock and Awe at the Library of Congress


Illinois Republican Congressman Aaron Schock recently commissioned a research project by the Library of Congress on the constitutionality of the removal of President Manuel Zelaya.  The Report for Congress, Honduras: Constitutional Law Issues, August 2009, concludes that the Honduran Congress acted legally in President Zelaya's removal from office, but concedes his exile was not legal.  As we would expect, the report is being circulated in congress, obviously informing senators and representatives on the constitutional issues involved, but it is also well circulated in Honduras, as it tends to bolster the claim on the de facto government that it was not a Coup d'Etat, but rather a perfectly legal transfer of power.

US msm, always a few days behind, is slowly picking up the story, and the right-wing blogosphere is having some fun - one more bullet to use against President Obama and Secretary Clinton.  For example, this scree from Gary Schmitt @ the American Enterprise Institute's "Enterprise Blog:"

In an earlier post I noted that the Obama administration's description of the Honduran congress and court's decision to remove Honduran President Zelaya from office as a coup d'etat reflected the shallowest understanding of democracy, constitutionalism, and the rule of law.  Since then, the administration has done nothing but turn the screws on Honduras by cutting aid and denying visas to its officials, going so far as to reject Honduras' upcoming, November national elections as illegitimate. Not surprisingly, all of this has fed Honduran instability--especially now that Zelaya has snuck back into the country--and given U.S. adversaries in the region (such as Chavez's Venezuela) even more reason to believe that "populist dictatorships" are once again the wave of the future in Latin America.

The administration's high-handedness in this matter was fueled by its view that the removal of the sitting, elected President Zelaya was unconstitutional.  But apparently the administration didn't actually bother to read the Honduran constitution.  Now, a careful analysis of that document and the actions taken by the Honduran national assembly and high court by the Law Library of Congress (a division of the Library of Congress) indicates that a reasonable case can be made that both the Honduran congress and high court were within their constitutional rights to remove and arrest the president and that the current president, Roberto Micheletti, is not just de facto president, but the proper, constitutional successor.

But the report is fatally flawed

I'm going to cut this blog short because I've just learned that the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa is under gas attack (not tear gas) by the Honduran military.  The argument against the report can be found on RAJ's blog here and here.  Both have good links for citations.  Below is a letter to the Library of Congress from the Chair of the Department of Social Sciences and Anthropology at UC Berkeley, Dr. Rosmary Joyce.  Quotha has another letter from Armando Sariento, former Honduran "IRS" director, which also criticizes the report.

Subject: Serious errors of fact in CRS LL File No. 2009-002965 on Honduras
From: "Rosemary A. Joyce"
Date: Fri, September 25, 2009 12:49 am
To: jbil@loc.gov
crsdirector@crs.loc.gov
Cc: mray@loc.gov
kott@loc.gov
rehlke@crs.loc.gov
kronhovde@crs.loc.gov
lkelley@crs.loc.gov
ccohen@crs.loc.gov
rwhite@crs.loc.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Librarian Billingsley and Director Mulhollan,

I write to bring to your attention serious errors of fact in a
Congressional Research Service report written by Ms. Norma C. Gutierrez.
Given the damage this erroneous report has already done as it circulates
in Honduras and the US, I urge you to immediately issue a public
correction and withdraw the report, notifying members of Congress that it
is unreliable and based on faulty courses and inaccurate information.

Entitled "HONDURAS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ISSUES" and dated August 2009, the
report was released by Congressman Schock of Illinois today.

It has now been established unequivocally that Ms. Gutierrez' produced a
fatally flawed report.

There are four problems with Ms. Gutierrez' analysis:

(1) She cites a single Honduran legal analyst as a source of personal
communications "confirming" conclusions she draws. Her source is a known
supporter of the de facto regime in Honduras, Guillermo Pérez-Cadalso, who
testified on behalf of the de facto regime in July's hearings in the US
Congress

This is not a disinterested source. There are numerous Honduran law
professors, as well as constitutional law authorities in the US and Spain,
on record in writing finding the Honduran Congress exceeded its legal
authority in claiming to remove President Zelaya from office on June 28.
None of these authorities is cited.

(2) Ms. Gutierrez, rather than analyze the arguments made by the Honduran
Congress, as the questions she was asked would require, creates her own
novel theory: that the Honduran Congress used a constitutional
power given it to interpret the Honduran Constitution so as to justify its
removal of President Zelaya.

Specifically, she suggests that the Congress must have interpreted its
Constitutional authority to "disapprove" of the actions of a president,
extending the definition of "disapproval" to include "removal from
office".

Such a claim was not, however, actually made by the Honduran Congress in
its June 28 actions. This is a post-hoc rationalization for their actions
proposed by Ms. Gutierrez, apparently with guidance from Mr.
Pérez-Cadalso, who is cited as confirming this rationalization in a
footnote citing a
phone conversation.

(3) In fact, on May 7, 2003, the Honduran Supreme Court had nullified the
claimed power of the Congress to interpret the Constitution. Thus, it
is not surprising that the Honduran Congress made no such claim on June
28, since they no longer could assert such authority, which the Supreme
Court had rejected.

(4) Even during the period when the Honduran Congress acted under the
belief it had the power to interpret the Constitution, it was bound
by procedures that required it to explicitly note that it was
interpreting the constitution, and to define the circumstances of the
definitions they proposed.

This did not happen on June 28, almost certainly because no such claim was
then being made, because the Congress was aware of the May Supreme Court
ruling invalidating this claimed power.

In addition, the Honduran congressional session on June 28 was not the
kind of ordinary session that had been defined as allowing constitutional
interpretation; it was an "extraordinary session". Honduran Congressional
procedure requires that extraordinary sessions be convened based on a call
that defines the issues to be discussed, and no other issues can legally
be introduced.

Interpreting the constitution was not on the agenda (again, one can
suppose that this was because the Honduran Congress knew on June 28 that
the Supreme Court had nullified their claim to have such power over a
month earlier).

In reading the CRS, I was struck by the reliance on a single source, via
personal communications, to draw such consequential conclusions. There is
no shortage of legal scholarship published and available which would have
helped Ms. Gutierrez avoid these fundamental errors of scholarship; I
mention here only one such source, the widely distributed paper published
online by ASIL (the American Society of Internation Law), written by
invitation by Notre Dame Law Professor Doug Cassell.

There are more points that are disturbing in this CRS report. For example,
footnote 43 offers a characterization of a forged resignation letter
attributed to President Zelaya, backdated to June 24, as being explained
as a true letter written for nefarious purposes; the source for this
claim, again, is the same supporter of the coup, Mr. Pérez-Cadalso. Yet
his claim is widely discredited; the back-dated letter is widely viewed as
a forgery produced when the coup was originally scheduled to happen, an
event delayed in part by US diplomatic action.

In short, in my view, Ms. Gutierrez produced her unreliable report in
large part because she failed to exercise sufficient scholarly caution
about one influential, yet unaccountable, source. She did not seek out
other opinions. Her search of legal opinion was consequently flawed, as
she missed the key Supreme Court decision of May 7, 2003. She went beyond
her mandate, which was to explain whether the claims of constitutionality
made by the Honduran Congress were accurate, and instead provided a
speculative rationalization of their actions.

This report raises serious questions in my mind about the overall
reliability of similar reports from the Congressional Research Service. As
a scholar, I hope that you will take swift action to restore the
credibility of CRS and, by extension, the Library of Congress.

Rosemary A. Joyce
Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Social Sciences

Professor and Chair of Anthropology
University of California, Berkeley

Only PUBLIC wants 'Option' - What is Wrong with this Picture?


Can someone please explain to me why it is that the so-called 'public option' is ALREADY 'DOA'? Without getting too deep into the weeds of polls, it seems fair to say that a clear majority of the overall public supports it, and I see in here today that even a plurality of REPUBLICANS support it. ANYTHING that is continuing to sustain this level broad of public sympathy after months of orchestrated sniping at it,  is something we would expect to pass Congress easily. Why is this so different?

Are we just DUMB? Do a relative handful of self-professed experts, pundits, commentators, Senators, and House Members know everything worth knowing on this issue, while we out here in the broad public can't  be expected to contribute anything useful? I'm trying to think of a recent issue where public sentiment seemed so out of tune with  orthodox conventional wisdom as expressed in the overall commentariat, and I'm having trouble coming up with one.

Is it just possible that the public (while not very smart) is somehow just barely smart enough to KNOW that real reform really IS required, starting NOW? Is is just possible that the public (while not very smart) is barely smart enough to know that REAL reform is NEVER going to take place as long as you're trying to achieve it without getting any private special entity, anywhere, UPSET?  Is it just possible that the public (while not very smart) is barely smart enough to realize that there are some problems that are simply too BIG for the private sector to solve on its own?  That some problems require the united, democratic power of the Federal Government to grab hold, and lead us toward something better?

I don't know about you, but I (and apparently many others) think a public option is a modest but highly critical element of getting that engagement started. I honestly cannot understand why it is so easily dismissed, when so many everyday people seem to favor it..

 

 

 

 

How much H1N1 flu are you seeing?


I ask this because my university (University of Missouri-St. Louis) just sent out a memo saying "We have had one case of H1N1 on our campus." I found this strange because two students in one of my classes have already told me they were diagnosed with it, and a third said she might have the flu and hasn't returned to class yet. This is out of 16 students in the class!

Now, if students don't report it to campus health services, that office won't know the real number, so no criticism of the memo. But the point is that there could be substantial under-reporting of H1N1 incidence in local areas or nationally, if cases don't get notified to the right people. So my question to TPM readers is what you're seeing on the ground.

I also have one policy question related to vaccine priorities. Although people under 24 are one of the main priority groups, university and school staffs, who are surrounded by under-24's on a daily basis, are not on the list at all, which seems strange to me. I think CDC should consider adding university and school staffs to the list.

Stimulus Bypassed Roads?


WASHINGTON -- Nearly $10 billion in stimulus aid to repair the nation's tattered highways has largely bypassed dozens of metropolitan areas where roads are in the worst shape, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

Half of the nation?s worst roads are in counties that will only get about 20% of the stimulus money allocated by state and federal officials for street repairs. Although the worst roads are in just a handful of counties, they account for 11,000 miles of pavement so rough the government has branded them as unacceptable.

The problem is a byproduct of a stimulus package designed to spend as fast as possible to revive the economy. Many roads are in such bad shape that repairs would take too long and cost too much to qualify for funds, says John Barton, head of engineering for Texas' Department of Transportation...

Dallas trails only Los Angeles in miles of bad roads, yet it has received less than 1% of the $530 million that Texas approved for road repairs. "It's a significant issue," Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert says.

Nearly 11,000 miles of road repairs and yet they still complain?  These are probably the same people that complained about President Obama and the Democratic Party passing the stimulus bill to begin with.  Don't ya just love'm?

As for Dallas Texas complaints, isn't this the state that wants to secede from the Nation?  Didn't they also, in the beginning, refuse to accept any stimulus funds?  Just imagine what would happened if they had turned away, they wouldn't have gotten even the road work they've already received (1071 miles of road repairs).

Daily Pulse: Howard Dean (Video Exclusive)


By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium Blogger

Read more »

Questions (and links) on the Ethics of Climate Change


"It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." - David Hume (famous philosopher, economist, and ...crazy person)

 

 

(Note: the following thoughts are not relevant to those who (a) believe exhaustion of natural resources will bring us back to the stone age before we even have to worry about climate change, (b) believe that climate change is not man-made, (c) all God-fearing people will be raptured away before we (or rather, you) need to worry about climate change. If you are in any of these categories, please ignore this blog).

 

Some quick questions on what should be done about climate change. Sorry if some of the formulations are a bit opaque. But here goes:


1. Should developed nations move to reduce greenhouse gases even if developing countries do not do so?


 - The extent of global warming depends on the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If developed nations reduce greenhouse gases by X amount compared to the business-as-usual scenario, that would reduce global warming by a proportional degree. So climate change mitigation policies will still be effective to some degree. The moral argument for inaction seems to be one of fairness, not effectiveness. Which brings us to the further question:

 

1.1. What is the relevant metric of 'fairness' in climate change mitigation policy? Is it each nation's total contribution to climate change, or per-capita contribution, or something completely different?

-  On the one hand, the US and China contribute equivalent amounts of carbon emissions. On the other hand, the US per-capita contribution is four times that of China. Also, Americans have fifteen times the average income of Chinese. Should a 'fair' distribution of sacrifice be proportional to 'ability to pay'?  

- Should the relevant metric be 'something completely different', like energy efficiency: the amount of emissions relative to GDP? Or degree of improvement in energy efficiency over time: eg. Increasing energy efficiency by x% each year?

- To what extent should any country worry about fairness as an argument against taking independent action to mitigate climate change?

 

2. Most measures of the impact of climate change focus on the expected reduction in economic output as compared to the business-as-usual scenario. Is this the correct way to measure it? For instance, it ignores the distribution of impact. If it for instance reduces global output by 2%, but that impact is concentrated in certain developing countries - eg. Reducing their output 50% - does that change the case for climate change? Does it reinforce the imperative to do something about climate change? Does it weaken the imperative (from the point of view of less-impacted developed nations)?

 

3. Most of the impact of climate change is expected to occur beyond our (or most of our) life-time. It will primarily affect future generations. So it raises the question: what is our duty to future generations? If climate change mitigation slows the growth of our expected income by x%, in order to increase the expected income of future generations by y%, what are the values for x and y that fulfills our duty towards them?

 

4. Is this framing of the debate - in terms of expected impact (and distribution) of climate change wrong? Should it rather be framed as a question of the value of insuring against catastrophic climate change rendering civilization unviable? If we estimate the chance of catastrophic climate at, say, 5%, what is the price we are willing to pay to insure against extinction?

 

Some links I found useful:

 

Estimates on climate change are getting very scary. (Via Kurtz on the TPM front page.)

 

Climate change mitigation to cost less than 1% of GDP per year.

 

The US market consequences of climate change - Pew Center.

 

Brad Delong on ethics of Climate Change.

 

Matt Yglesias on Climate change and the distribution of impact question.

 

Lord Stern on China and India's role in climate change mitigation.

 

Jim Manzi - 'Climate change mitigation policy is Socialism'. (included in the interests of bi-partisanship)

 

Interesting stats on US greenhouse gas emissions

 

Myth-busting on climate-change negotiations.

 

RAND study of cost of renewable energy measures.

 

CAP on China's efforts to better itself.

 

Please add useful links (and/or questions) in the comments!

Water on the Moon - How it Forms (rerail)


This started off as a comment on dickday's blog, but I realized it should probably be an entry by itself.  He included this quote:

Scientists suspect that water is created in the soil via a chemical reaction involving solar wind and oxygen atoms already in the soil.

I was interested when I read this:

Water on Mars and water on the moon!!!  If this little nook in the corner of an almost infinite universe has all this life giving liquid, imagine the amount of life out there.
It's definitely cool to find water on the moon, but I think there's a bit of a misconception that water may be rare or hard to find.

Water is way more common in the universe than many people expect.  Wherever you find oxygen, you're probably going to find water, at least in trace amounts like we have on the moon.

The elements with atomic number < 10 are the most common in the universe (descending order).  Oxygen is # 8, and hydrogen-1 makes up ~99% of the universe's matter.  Water is very stable, and its formation is chemically favorable.  Think of water at a valley bottom, while octane is on a hill.  All of these factors contribute to making water both easy to form and stable (long-lived) after it forms.

Oxygen is a major part of many minerals, including those on the moon.  The moon is constantly bathed in solar radiation, a flux of high energy rays and various radioactive nuclear particles moving at relativistic speeds.

It's a lot of energy, with bits of elementary matter mixed in; helium nuclei, electrons, neutrons, positrons.  Free neutrons will decay to form a proton and electron.  The free proton can eventually pick up an electron to form hydrogen.

That's right, there should be hydrogen atoms and molecules in solar radiation.

The moon has no magnetic field or atmosphere to protect it from solar radiation, so free hydrogen gets right down to oxygen-bearing rock, where, on occasion, an oxygen atom can be knocked free and form water.

Obviously, there will be hydrogen in all solar radiation, not just the radiation from our sun.  That means that anywhere you have solar radiation hitting oxygen-bearing rock, you could see this reaction occurring.

It's not enough to make oceans, but it is enough to coat a few layers of molecules of water on the rocks.

The quantity of water increases nearer the poles, where the Apollo missions never reached.

The same solar radiation can also vaporize water molecules that form, giving them enough kinetic energy to leave the soil substrate and be lost.  Near the poles and in areas of shadow, there is more hope that water will accumulate.

Weekly Mulch: Climate Week Gets Lukewarm Response


By Raquel Brown, Media Consortium Blogger

Seventy days before the international climate summit in Copenhagen, hundreds of government officials and business leaders met in New York City on Monday to kick off Climate Week. On Tuesday, President Obama affirmed his commitment to action when he spoke to the United Nations General Assembly at the UN Climate Summit.  Despite delays in passing a cap-and-trade bill, Obama highlighted U.S. efforts to curb climate change over the past year, including stimulus investments in renewable energy and efficiency, extension of tax credits for renewable energy, new automobile emissions standards and partnerships with other major emitters like China and India. Kate Sheppard of Mother Jones reports that Obama pledged to also address climate change with other leaders at G20 meetings later in the week.

Read more »

How many red congressional districts face extinction or revision due to potential census figures?


It's an angle on the census issue that has been evolving for a couple days here at the TPM blogs, based on a theory that some of the vehement dialog emanating from Republican lawmakers against the census, might well be explained by those lawmakers' vulnerability to the results of that census.
So, not knowing where to start for this kind of information, I thought it might be worth challening some of our lurking experts to pitch in with some stats, and links there-to, if they are even available.
There may already be a website somewhere that addresses this very issue, but thus far my google-search word-combinations aren't providing me with anything but obscure references.
I think this evolving "theory" that the loudest census naysayers are identifying themselves as inevitable census victims could be fleshed-out better if we had an idea of just where and how many red districts could see the census axe fall, due to population changes and movement.
Considering that states like Iowa and Minnesota, both facing potential district amalgamation and redistricting due to population loss, are now under Democratic majorities, it is no surprise some red and purple districts are afraid they might be turning blue.
So, what other states or districts may see similar changes, and are those Reps(R) crying the blues already, in the form of criticism of the census itself, like Bachman and King?

Dogs Playing Poker


Ahmadinejad Admits Fear of U.N. -- Use this Fear


PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- The United States, France and Britain have presented "detailed evidence" to the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog that "Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility," President Obama said Friday before the start of the G-20 economic summit.

President Obama told Iran to "take concrete steps" to show it will comply with nuclear regulations.

Iran's newly unveiled uranium enrichment facility "is inconsistent with a peaceful (nuclear) program," Obama said.

"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow," he said....

Iran's admission comes ahead of next week's rare meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, between Iran and the five permanent United Nations Security Council members, plus Germany.

Iran's revelation of a new nuclear site could actually "strengthen their hand" as it heads into next week's talks, according to Paul Ingram, an analyst who studies Iran and nuclear non-proliferation.

"It will be seen as an indication that they are willing to play by the rules," said Ingram, the executive director of the British American Security Information Council in London, England.

He said the timing of Iran's revelation -- in between the U.N. General Assembly sessions and the October 1 meeting -- is deliberate on Iran's part.

"This will make it more difficult to persuade them to abandon enrichment," Ingram said.

In my humble opinion Iran just admitted they fear or at the very least care about what the U.N. can do to them.  Why else would Iran bother to "strengthen their hand" by sending a letter of admission about their second uranium enrichment facility?

A man or nation that fears nothing is more dangerous than one that fears something.  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his administration fear the United Nations.  This backhanded way of admitting to another facility, in my view, proof of this fear.

Instead of saying this "strengthens their hand" I would offer instead the idea that they've now "shown their hand".

The United States and any other nation that are pushing for,

 Iran to "take concrete steps" to demonstrate it will comply with its international obligations to ensure its nuclear program is for civilian use and not a covert weapons program.

Should take the upper hand and give Ahmadinejad something to return home with. 

He should be given a word of warning from the U.N.'s that unless Iran complies with the U.N. demands within so many days -- they will lose whatever prestige they have gained over recent times with the U.N. and be given sanctions beyond any other.  I would also add that if after those sanctions take hold and Iran still does not comply with the U.N. demands, their so-called peaceful facilities  will suffer costly damage by members of the U.N. counsel.


We Went to Afghanistan to Remove Those that Attacked our Nation - Not to Root Out Evil


 

WASHINGTON -- Half of all Americans, and six in 10 Democrats, oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows, underscoring the pressures on President Obama as he re-evaluates his approach to what he calls "a war of necessity."

That's a stark turnaround from February, when 65% of Americans supported Obama's decision to send 17,000 additional servicemembers, according to Gallup. In March, Obama announced what he called "a comprehensive new strategy" for Afghanistan premised on more troops, training the Afghan army and boosting reconstruction efforts.

The public's doubts about the war, shared by some senior congressional Democrats, come as Obama says he is reconsidering that strategy in light of concerns about fraud in last month's Afghan election. Success in counterinsurgency can depend on a government being viewed by the people as legitimate.

"The first question is: Are we pursuing the right strategy?" Obama said last week on CNN.

I think what the President should do, from what I know about the situation, is give the generals enough personnel to protect and defend whatever strong hold we currently enjoy while we increase the Afghanistan military, domestic and political side of the equation. 

Just today it is being reported we lost another 5 of our precious young soldiers.  They apparently don't have enough help to keep this sort of thing from happening.

Without more troops, there is a risk of "mission failure," the commanding general Obama installed in May, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, wrote in a confidential assessment made public this week.

I'm not worried about "mission failure", I'm worried about giving our troops the help they need to stay alive and control what areas we have control over while we finish the job of replacing some of what we destroyed.  Doing this while the Afghanistan troop buildup and political side of the issue is being debated and worked out is the best solution in my view.  Hold the Fort - sort of speak.

Going after new Taliban areas that are not Al Qaeda related is not what we went to Afghanistan for.  Getting rid of the Taliban is not what we sent troops there for.  We went there to root out Osama Bin Laden and remove the Al Qaeda bases.  From what I've read and heard, we've pushed out most if not all the Al Qaeda.  It is the local groups like the Taliban that is now shooting at our troops.  I don't consider this "mission failure", unless you consider our mission was to remove the Taliban as well as the Al Qaeda, which I do not.

While we may not like the Taliban and their way of governing the Afghan people, we cannot and should not be expected to root out all evil across the globe.  It is the job of the local people to remove the evil from within their nation.  If we can help by providing weapons, so be it, but it was not our intention in 2001 to root out the evil in Afghanistan or to control it.  We went there to remove those that attacked our nation.

 I sincerely pray that President Obama and his administration agree.

Fox News Bent on Going after the Obama Administration Instead of Real Stories


Once again the Fox News website's headlines lead today's stories with, "Outrage Over Obama Sing-Along".  Guess where the headline, "5 U.S. Troops Killed in South Afghan Attacks" is located?  In the fine print area below the big headlines.

And the story, "Report American Linked to Terrorist Bombing in Somalia", that too is in their fine print even further down on the website instead of being in the their headlines.

Which of these stories do you consider more important to read about first thing in the morning?

This reporting seems odd for a media outlet that was bent on reporting stories about War, Military, Death, Terrorism, Patriotism, etc... for the past 8 years.

It appears they now seem bent on going after the Obama administration, even if it means ignoring the more important stories in today's society and printing a story about a small group of children learning to sing a song about the President of United States.

Friday News: Fighting Back Crowds the Front Page


This has been a conflict ridden week in politics.  The conflict obscures good governance.  The biggest fight, of course, is that of reforming the health care system.  The coverage of it eclipses almost everything else in the media.  Democratic Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus fought back Thursday against the delaying and obstructing tactics of Republican members of the committee working on health care reform.  And President Barack Obama is remaining very visible as the White House fights against pundit opinions hat he is becoming over-exposed.    But a few other news items are worth noting.

Fighting for 60 --
Massachusetts quickly fought to change the law and fill the vacant seat left by the death of Senator Ted KennedyPaul Kirk, Jr., was then appointed by the governor to be Kennedy's interim replacement.  He will be sworn in Friday.  And Senator Robert Byrd is out of the hospital convalescing at home after a fall at his home that necessitated treatment for "early signs of an infection."  According to a Congressional Quarterly story on Thursday, Senator Byrd said he, "is looking forward to engaging in the upcoming debate and votes on health care reform - one of the most critical issues facing this Congress."

Governor Paterson will not go without a fight -- The more light shed on this story the more it looks like a no-win situation for Democrats.  New York Democrats at both the state and national level were the ones who pushed the Obama White House to urge Governor David Paterson not to run for reelection, according to Politico on Thursday.  They fear the unpopular governor will be a drag on the ticket in the 2010 elections.  And, though it is still a no-win in approval ratings for members of the U.S. House and Senate, a recent poll revealed an increase of approval from 12 percent to 22 percent, as reported by CQ Politics.

ACORN fights back -- A conservative "sting operation," by filmmakers O'Keefe and Giles against the Grass roots organization ACORN, stands a chance and to ruin the reputation and shut off government funding of this network of  longtime liberal neighborhood groups. The offending ACORN staff members have been fired, an internal investigation has begun, and leaders of the organization are mounting a media and congressional lobbying blitz to try to recover, as reported by Politico.  Republicans are, of course ecstatic about the outcomes and continue to offer de-funding bill amendments to keep the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now story in the public eye.

Fighting for net neutrality -- The new chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski was successful in getting Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to hold off in her fight against the FCC's implementation of new rules "prohibiting ISPs from selectively blocking or slowing content and application," as reported by CQ Politics on Wednesday.  Chairman Genachowski promised to "address her concerns," as Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

The mainstream media, of course, loves a good fight.  And observers in the public will often fight for the underdog in a conflict.  What has amazed me is the success that Republicans are having in their perpetual fight against Everything Democrat.  They lost most all the recent elections, remain decidedly in the minority, look awful as the "loyal opposition," and still pull down most of the airtime and word space.  I guess it has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with merely the fight.  And here I am sucked into it myself.


Related articles by Zemanta


Posted via email from Southwest Postings

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

'surgical strikes' so proudly claimed by Netanyahu in his UN defense of Israel's actions against a civilian population included the killing of 300 children. Fact.


It has been substantiated that Israel killed over 300 unarmed children/ young people plus over 100 of their mothers.

They were killed in order to terrorize the civilian population. They were targeted as an integral part of the 'surgical strikes' so proudly claimed by Netanyahu in his UN defense of Israel's actions against a civilian population.

It is clear that these killings were no collateral damage. It is clear that these children and mothers were not responsible for the actions of a few militants who had fired rockets into Israel. It is clear that this was an atrocity and it is clear those Israeli commanders who authorized such war crimes must be brought before the ICC.

Gaza is not Afghanistan and the US has never targeted women and children or any unarmed civilians. To do so is a WAR CRIME,

OMG GOP WTF?! Have fun for a Good Cause


From TrueMajority....
Do you ever think to yourself, "Wow, if I had a dime for every time Glenn Beck said something stupid..."? 

Well, our friends at CREDO, the progressive mobile phone company, have figured out a way to put all those right wing nuts to work for progressive causes. 

They've put together a weekly news quiz called "OMG GOP WTF?!" And this week only, every time you answer a question correctly, TrueMajority gets 10 cents. There are five questions, so that means that if we get 1,000 people to take the quiz and you score okay...we get $500 dollars. Check out the quiz

     http://www.omggopwtf.com

Finally, everything you know about conservative claptrap can be put to good use AND help TrueMajority raise some dough, quickly and easily.

But you'll want to move fast. This week's quiz will benefit TrueMajority, but that's only until September 27. Next week, it will be a new set of questions and a new organization, so don't wait! Check it out right now.

Thanks for turning conservative claptrap into progressive profit.

I got 4 out of 5. Can you beat a chicken?

=D

Chardarah


Pakistan Seizes the Moment, Decriminalizes Corruption


This is amusing, I guess

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- The U.S. Senate approved legislation Thursday to triple civilian financial aid to Pakistan to $7.5 billion over five years, underscoring the country's vital role in the war in Afghanistan and the broader fight against international terrorism.
The legislation had been held up for months amid partisan wrangling, and the breakthrough came as the Friends of Democratic Pakistan assistance forum met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, co-chaired by President Barack Obama.
As the U.S.-led campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan falters, cooperation from neighboring Pakistan is crucial because Pakistan is the headquarters, a refuge and a source of financing and other support for al Qaida, for Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar and for other Afghan insurgent groups......

Separately on Thursday, an anti-bribery watchdog, Transparency International, warned that Pakistan has dismantled its laws against official corruption, a development that's likely to concern Washington and other countries that are pledging billions in additional aid to Pakistan.
No, it isn't going to concern Washington, and Pakistan knows it. As long as the generals ask for more troops and extremists find havens all over their country, we are a perfect way to make that dismantled law pay dividends. The Pakistanis, unlike us, know the virtues of expediency.

TO THOSE 'MATURE ADULTS' WHO RESPONDED


My Lord, My God Almighty!

The truth engenders these kinds of responses - ad hominem attacks without addressing the issues at all!

A child is born from a male sperm cell uniting with a female egg - this is fact, this is reality, this is science, this is logic, this is truth. Man-woman marriage or union is the only logical, scientific, moral, spiritual relationship in the whole universe. All other "relations" are counterfeit, false and immoral.

Homosexual and lesbian so-called "relations" are not self-sufficient but dead-ended - they cannot have children. 

And so they must either contrive some illogical and immoral "reason" for seeking to enthrall "someone else's" children into their web of lies for a so-called "adoption," or connive to engage artificial insemination services with a man's sperm in the equation.

Then, why willfully engage in homosexual sodomy and lesbianism at all?  Reality-check!

The homosexual rejects the woman - but covets her child.  The lesbian rejects the man but covets his sperm cell. So you see, there is no such thing as "two mommies" or "two daddies."  These lies have been perpetrated for too long and it is time that mature adults wake up to face the truth for the good of all concerned!

Morality is based upon scientific sense and Judeo-Christian values, from the Psalms of David to the teachings of the Apostle Paul, are imbued with the most spiritual, objective, scientific, logical, moral Good for Humanity.

Anal sex or sodomy, and lesbianism lead to dead-ends, for the practitioners and other human beings. Evils from those behaviors are beyond words.

I pray all of you wake up and come to your good sense so that you can benefit from all the good God has for you in Christ Jesus!

Human beings are created either male or female - and there is nothing in between except in the fictional imagination. Look between your legs and you know the truth that sets you free - you will witness either a vagina or a penis, but not both. 

May God open your inner eyes for your own benefit and the good of your neighbors! 

America is much too much a great nation for it to go down the drain like all the petty empires that have bludgeoned the course of human history - where homosexual sodomy, and lesbianism had held sway over the current of society, like ancient Rome and ancient Greece, hence destroying all civility, ordered living and lawful jurisprudence.

 

How to sell your house or business for more than twice its value


Easy. Just become a health industry-friendly Blue Dog congressman!

ProPublica, Rachel Maddow, Politico and others, have been reporting that two years ago, "Blue Dog" congressman Mike Ross (D-AR) was paid $420,000 for a property worth $198,000. That's more than twice its real value. The buyer was a big pharmacy chain (USA Health). Makes you wonder why this pharmacy overpaid Ross.

Was the buyer expecting Ross to legislate in a favorable way toward the health care industry, and by extension to themselves?

Ross is a strong opponent of progressive-style health reform.

The ethics watchdog CREW smells a rat and has now called for an investigation on the matter.

The New Hard Times


The New York Times offers some worthwhile videos (mostly reader submitted) by folk that lived through the Great Depression.

92 yo Peter Holden tells how blacks and whites had to help each other or starve to death.

John Davis remembers working in the garden, picking cotton and his mother feeding the endless line of hobos.

93 yo Ben O'Brien remembers men in the boxcars hunting for work and working as a janitor under Roosevelt's NYA.

78 yo Robert Tobine advises you to save all you can. Don't use credit.

96 yo Prof Ernest Kurnow remembers students not talking about the bad economy until 1933, when they couldn't ignore it.

88 yo Dr Alvin Warnick came home to find his mother in tears over bank losses. They struggled for four years to pay taxes.

84 yo Dr Michael Homa remembers his Dad selling fruits and vegetables. He thinks this generation is dependent and will be angry.

95 yo Mary Boyce lost her father three years before the depression. They lived off the pension.

81 yo Viola Di Palo, her son and granddaughter put their efforts into the family business.

99 yo Francis Stroup realized there was a depression when his salary was cut from $75 to $30/month.

Gladys Shingobe Ray was raised in a traditional Ojibwe family and never felt deprived.

76 yo Patricia Addis remembers eating dandelions for supper. Her 25 yo granddaughter has applied to 283 jobs, but can't find work.

Descendants show sketches and read excerpts of letters between Jackson Pollock and his brothers.

82 yo June Reistroffer Hamer gets teary-eyed answering questions from her grandson. "Streetcar was 7 cents ... so you walked."

83 yo Norman and 85 yo Josephine Brown remember food lines, radio, oil lamps and coal stoves.

86 yo Patricia Cleere recalls her father supporting all his siblings during the depression, the Wizard of Oz and people living under bridges.

They are still accepting videos from readers.

My Dad has told us about his parents sending him to their friend Johnny's restaurant when they had no food.

I got a bit teary-eyed myself today. I was driving after a meeting, and there's always some beggar man on the corner of Northern Parkway and Falls Road. Today there was a thin, sad-eyed woman with a sign, "mom has 2 kids - no job - please help."

Health care and our fear of mortality II...the sequal


The story is told that one of the elders lay dying in
Scete, and the brethren surrounded his bed, dressed him
in the shroud and began to weep. But the elder opened
his eyes and laughed. He laughed another time, and then
a third time. When the brethren saw this, they asked
him, saying: "Tell us, Father, why are you laughing
while we weep?" He said to them: "I laughed the first
time because you fear death. I laughed the second time
because you are not ready for death. And the third time
I laughed because from my labors I go to my rest." As
soon as he had said this, he closed his eyes and died.

~Desert Hermit Zen~

When you were born, you cried
and the world rejoiced.
Live your life
so that when you die,
the world cries and you rejoice.

~White Elk~

We most certainly do no rejoice at our own death. In fact it is
quite unimaginable.
Our own death is indeed quite unimaginable, and
whenever we make the attempt to imagine it we . . .
really survive as spectators. . . . At bottom nobody
believes in his own death, or to put the same thing in
a different way, in the unconscious every one of us is
convinced of his own immortality.
(Freud 1953, pp.
304-305)
Our own mortality has become such a fearsome boggy man
that it nearly controls all our lives whether we are aware of
it or not.
According to Becker, "everything that man does in his
symbolic world is an attempt to deny and overcome his
grotesque fate. He literally drives himself into a
blind obliviousness with social games, psychological
tricks, personal preoccupations so far removed from the
reality of his situation that they are forms of
madness." Even our character-traits are an example of
this, because they provide an automatic response to
situations. These sedimented habits are a necessary
protection, for without them the e can only be "full
and open psychosis"; to see the world as it really is
"devastating and terrifying" "it makes routine,
automatic, secure, self-confident activity
impossible... It places a trembling animal at the mercy
of the entire cosmos and the problem of the meaning of
it." Thus the bite in Pascal's aphorism: "Human beings
are so necessarily mad that not to be mad would amount
to another form of madness." For Becker this is
literally true: what we regard as normality is our
collective, protective madness, in which we repress the
grim truth about the human condition. Those who have
difficulty playing this game are the ones we call
mentally ill. Schizophrenics are suffering from the
truth. Psychoanalysis reveals the high price of denying
this truth about the human condition, "what we might
call the costs of pretending not to be mad."

And we ten to lead our lives this way. We have even come
to expect the medical establishment to be able to extend our
lives nearly indefinitely.
The old truism was more readily apparent in societies
unexposed to the chemistry of birth-control pills and
the mechanics of a triple coronary bypass. Even an
extended stay in an American hospital during the first
half of the twentieth century didn't hold out a higher
chance of recovery, and for most illnesses the
treatments were therapeutic, not diagnostic; doctors
relied on common sense, on the natural resilience of
the human body, and the hope that by tomorrow morning
the patient would show signs of improvement. A medical
practice was likely to consist of five or six doctors
who answered weekend and late-night telephone calls,
knew the names and ailments of their patients, tended
to think of their profession as a public service.
Doctors making rounds in public-hospital wards adopted
the attitude that Rudyard Kipling describes in his
lecture to the students of Middlesex Hospital's medical
school. It was understood that sooner or later even the
most artful physician must acknowledge the presence of
death, "the senior practitioner," whose opinion brings
with it the fall of the capital city. In the face of
the inevitable defeat, nobody was in the business of
performing miracles; what they did perform, the
patients as well as the doctors, were the acts of
kindness tempered with courage, knowing, as did Seneca,
that the strength to confront suffering was to be found
in the thought that "you will not die because you are
sick but because you are alive."

The consolations of philosophy were no match for the
wonders of medical science raked from the ashes of
World War II. Newly armed with antibiotics known to the
trade as magic bullets, among them sulfa and
penicillin, a new generation of physicians found itself
capable of cures for syphilis and tuberculosis as well
as for typhoid and scarlet fever. Surgical skills
acquired to address battlefield wounds led to further
development of the means with which to repair,
rehabilitate, and reformulate the human body.
Infirmities that John Donne regarded as "perplexed
decompositions" and "riddling distempers" began to be
seen as factory errors subject to recall in the manner
of a malformed Ford Explorer.

Affiliated with the several theories of American
exceptionalism and entitlement, the great expectations
also were a product of World War II. Prior to the
advent of the atomic bomb, answers to the question,
"Why do I have to die?" were looked for in the
teachings of religion and the languages of art, in
Plato's discourses and the music of J. S. Bach. The
experiments conducted at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
referred the question to the politicians in charge of
the nuclear weapons and to the research scientists
clearly destined to discover that death is a
preventable disease. America's military and economic
command of the world stage fostered the belief that
America was therefore exempt from the laws of nature,
held harmless against the evils inflicted on the lesser
nations of the earth. For the last sixty years, the
intimations of immortality have supported the habits of
magical thinking that enable the country's codependence
on both its military-industrial and its
medical-industrial complex. As America's
enemy-in-chief, disease serves as a body double for
godless Communism, the doctrine of mutually assured
salvation as a stand-in for the doctrine of mutually
assured destruction.
Yet disease is part of the human condition and death the
epilogue.  Our response to it to to deny and delay at what
ever cost.

We have now diagnostic techniques, surgical procedures,
pharmaceuticals and life sustaining machines that seemed
like something from a science fiction novel when I was young.
We even have emergency paramedics - some with what
amounts of a mini trauma center on wheels to treat you
at the scene and transport you immediately to a bevy
of trauma specialists who will do nearly anything to keep
you alive.

Is it any wonder that we have nearly considered ourselves
as immortal ?

But happens when all the medical magic can no longer keep
death at bay ?
A physician friend recently shared an insight he gained
from a 68-year-old woman. Four years ago she was
diagnosed with leukemia and initially responded to
chemotherapy, which gave her some good years. Then she
stopped responding to drugs, and finally underwent a
bone marrow transplantation after total body
irradiation. Unfortunately, she never recovered from
the transplant, and with no more options for a cure,
she was having repeated infections and other
increasingly severe symptoms.

One day, when my friend visited her, she looked at him
and said, "You got me into this mess, now get me out of
it. Please help me die."

"It made me realize," my friend said, that we
physicians and our technology had put her in a
condition unknown just 50 years ago. We gave her some
good extra life, but now she is in a medically induced
state of extended suffering. And, he added, "she's
right, we are the ones who are responsible for her
present condition, and for how she is dying."

Today, most people die under medical management. Except
for those who die suddenly, as from trauma, stroke or
heart attack, most of us have life extended beyond the
time we would have died naturally. Although we would
rather die at home, most of us die in hospitals or
other medical facilities.

And, after a series of medical decisions have changed
our course over months or years, the great majority of
us die following a specific medical decision, such as
stopping a mechanical ventilator or antibiotics, or
increasing a painkiller or sedative.

Few of us will die naturally. Medical decisions,
commonly made by physicians in consultation with the
patient and family, determine when and how we die. No
one wants to revert to a state of nature without
prolonging life when we first encounter our last
illness, but in this bargain with modern medicine we
have to understand that someone -- a human person(s) --
makes the final decisions about when and how we die.

Why shouldn't that someone be the person who is dying?
Why must a dying person's final weeks or months be
subject to decisions made by medical treatment
protocols, the personal beliefs of individual doctors
or the dictates of ideologies?
Or we lock them away in a nursing home or some other
facility. Maybe paying cursory visits when not inconvenient.
It reminds us too much of our own fatality. And we cannot
handle it.
 
As I pointed out in my previous post on this subject
Fear may be exacerbated by the way death unfolds in
modern America. Over the last several generations,
death's place in society has changed radically.

"Death was always public," wrote Philippe Aries in "The
Hour of Our Death," his landmark 1981 history of
Western civilization's changing attitudes over the last
thousand years. "Death was not a personal drama but an
ordeal for the community."

For centuries, friends, family and even passersby would
gather in the bedroom while the dying person said final
goodbyes, asked forgiveness and received sacraments.
After death, bodies were laid out in parlors while
people visited.

In the 19th Century, that began to change in the United
States.

The modern hospital came into being. Caring for the
dying at home began to seem dirty and unpleasant.

In prosperous Western societies, medicine and hygiene
largely eliminated childhood death, once mankind's most
common encounter with mortality. Death disappeared into
medical institutions.

As far as the community is concerned, "You don't see
anything," said Daniel Callahan, director of the
International Program at The Hastings Center, a
bioethics think tank.
We have hidden it away and treated it like a malady in and of
itself. That if you die, it's you own fault for not taking car of
yourself.  It's the consequence of being poor or stupid or
self indulgent. Regardless of you age, gender or race.

Referring back to Lapham again.
Iain Bamforth's essay finds a foreshadowing of the
attitude in Thomas Mann's novel The Magic Mountain. The
precious invalids assembled in the sanatorium high up
on a Swiss Alp look upon their therapies as stations of
the cross, enduring their sorrows, as did the
soon-to-be-ascending Christ, "with a sense of
exaltation and even elation." To the degree that the
affluent American society as a whole imitates their
refined example, "The magic mountain is no longer a
retreat or social height; it is our everyday."

Which isn't to suggest that our doctors forswear the
Hippocratic Oath, or that our politicians abandon hope
of squeezing the pus out of the healthcare system. But
where is the blessing to be found in the wish to live
forever? A substantial fraction of the annual tithe
collected by the medical-industrial complex is the
invoice submitted ($528 billion) to payees in the last,
often wretched, year of their lives. The corpses in
waiting serve as sacrificial offerings placed on the
altars of the god in the ATM. Plato thought it
"shameful" to provide medical help "not for wounds or
some seasonal illnesses" but because one "is filled
with gases and phlegm, like a stagnant swamp, so that
sophisticated Asclepiad doctors are forced to come up
with names like 'flatulence' and 'catarrh' to describe
one's diseases." Socrates in the dialogue with Glaucon
compounds the argument with the observation that it is
wrong to prolong lives no longer "profitable either to
themselves or anyone else." Medicine, he says, isn't
intended for such people, "not even if they are richer
than Midas."

I know that dying is un-American and nowhere mentioned
in our contractual agreement with Providence, but
absent some sort of renegotiation of the country's
arms-control treaty with death, I don't know how we
avoid dismembering the American body politic with the
electromagnetic scalpels of our computer-generated
fear. Any system that construes medical care as
profit-bearing merchandise is by definition
dysfunctional. The attempt to mark down the gifts of
the human spirit to the measure of their weight in gold
is an idiocy along the lines of the nineteenth-century
attempt to cure tuberculosis by removing one lobe of an
infected lung and filling the vacancy with ping-pong
balls.
I fear that in pursuit of nearly eternal life that humanity is
becoming as cold, impersonal and robotic as the machines
that will keep our bodily functions going even as our minds
have long since ceased to.

And any attempt to interfere with this promise of life at any
price
...scares people to death.

 
C

WATER ON THE MOON


http://timm84.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/flying_pig.jpg


I do not know exactly why, but this little bit of info from BBC News and The Daily Beast really got to me:


A fine film of water coats the particles that make up dirt on the Moon, and though the quantity of water is small, it's generating great excitement. BBC News reports that data from three spacecraft, including India's Chandrayaan probe, have confirmed the presence of water, although it would take a cubic meter of lunar dirt to squeeze out a liter of water. The U.S.' earlier Apollo missions found lunar soil that was "damp" but couldn't rule out the possibility that water got into the samples after they returned to Earth. The quantity of water increases nearer the poles, where the Apollo missions never reached. Scientists suspect that water is created in the soil via a chemical reaction involving solar wind and oxygen atoms already in the soil. Next month, a NASA probe will bomb the moon in order to see if the dust that is kicked up includes water vapor.  


Read more »

The elephant in the room, real cost controls missing in healthcare bills


For anyone not interested in slogging through the debate on the 500-odd amendments to the Baucus bill, it has become increasingly and painfully apparent that the healthcare legislation soon to emerge from at least the Senate will fall far short in reigning in out of control health care costs.

That lapse is especially ironic in that "affordability" is perhaps the only goal that seems to top everyone's to do list, from President Obama to the "keep the government hands off my (government-financed) Medicare" crowd.

But as long as our policy makers refuse to throw the elephant out of the room, the insurance company pirates and their predatory pricing practices, all their subsidies and tweaking will amount to little more than an umbrella in a hurricane.

First some ugly reminders as to why this is such a critical issue.

Annual family premiums now average $13,375. If current trends continue, by some accounts the average family plan is expected to hit $30,083 in just 10 years.

Over the past decade, premiums have increased by 138 percent, about three and a half times greater than inflation or incomes.

That, of course is just premiums. Most people now also have unsightly co-pays on office visits and other transactions, deductibles you must pay before your insurance pays anything, and co-insurance, such as a 20 percent charge on lab tests, outpatient procedures, and other medical services.

Those fees are especially large in high deductible plans, increasingly pushed by employers who face their own financial woes with rising premiums, and families juggling mortgage, food, and health insurance costs. Average deductibles for employer-sponsored high deductible plans were $1,973 for individuals and $3,883 for family policies in 2007.

Add it all up, and the results are tragic, if not predictable.

* The number of uninsured is up to 46 million; millions more are under-insured (people with limited plans that leave them vulnerable in the event of unexpected health emergencies).
* More employers are shifting costs to employees, or dropping coverage entirely.
* Medical bills are now the principle factor in 62 percent of personal bankruptcies.
* More than half of Americans, the majority of them people with insurance, are skipping needed care due to high out-of-pocket costs.
* Business is booming in emergency rooms for those who forgo needed primary care, increasing overall healthcare costs, not to mention the added pain and suffering.

A few examples of the self-rationing. The Los Angeles Times reported in April, mammography screenings among women in the vulnerable age group of 50-64 have declined 7 percent and dental business in Southern California is down 15 to 30 percent. The New York Times reported in March a drop in elective surgeries of nearly 50 percent in New Jersey and Georgia, and a drop in cataract surgeries of 5 percent in Ohio.

With their super majority now restored in the Senate, following the appointment today in Massachusetts, and a similar margin in the House, the Obama administration and Congress could have taken the strongest step to reverse these disastrous trends.

By eliminating the middle man role of the private insurance industry (as they are proposing to do with banks and student loans), and the insurers built-in incentive to continually raise prices and fees to increase profits and waste up to 30 cents of every healthcare dollar, much of it on paperwork to avoid paying claims for care that cut into those profits.

But, since our elected leaders decided not to pursue the most effective and efficient way to control costs through a single-payer system such as expanding Medicare to cover everyone, they have had to come up with some other convoluted and far less effective approaches, and ones with some ominous consequences.

1. Individual mandate.

Everyone not presently covered will be required to buy insurance under the dubious theory that giving the insurers a larger risk pool in which everyone has a health policy, the insurers will no longer have to continually raise premiums to cover the costs for the uninsured.

That assumes insurers will act conscientiously to limit price gouging. They won't; in fact, under federal law, for-profit insurance companies have a fiduciary obligation to maximize profits for their shareholders.

While mandating everyone to buy insurance, Congress and the administration are not mandating insurers to stop price gouging or proposing price controls. To see how that will turn out, look at Massachusetts today, which has the model for this idea.

In Massachusetts, the number of uninsured is again rising, after it initially fell when the law was passed, as more people are opting to pay the penalty rather than pay the rising premiums they can't afford. Some 42 percent of those buying policies through the state exchange (the same model proposed by Congress and Obama) are choosing plans with higher cost sharing requirements.

Moreover, Massachusetts lets insurers charge the 50 somethings, the pre-Medicare age group, more than younger people, with the result that demographic is gobbling up the bare bones, least comprehensive coverage just when they need medical care more; the Congressional bills repeat this disastrous flaw. Baucus initially wanted to let insurers charge this age bracket five times more, but has since relented and reduced it to four times more.

Further, without effective cost controls, Massachusetts has found the subsidies for low and moderate income are bankrupting the budget. To adjust, they have reduced covered services and groups eligible people, such as legal immigrants (for anyone who thinks the right wing will be satisfied with just eliminating coverage for the undocumented).

In sum, the entire individual mandate scam is a huge windfall for the insurance industry, tens of millions of new customers forced by the government to buy private policies, and public subsidies for some sub-section of the moderate income, another government bailout to a big industry.

Though a final bill is expected to include caps on what people will be expected to pay in out-of-pocket costs, and exemptions in co-pays for preventive care, both laudable ideas, the failure to stop the insurers pricing practices on the front end spells long term trouble, and probably failure for the "affordability" of the mandated insurance.

2. Taxing "Cadillac" plans.

A centerpiece of the Baucus bill, taxing more expensive health policies under the again questionable thesis that a- insurers will lower overall charges if not selling policies that offer more coverage (who thought that up, Sponge Bob?) and b- patients will be more selective in seeking supposedly unnecessary medical care when they have cheaper plans that force them to spend more out of pocket.

Some in the media have already done a good job deconstructing this fiasco.

Columbia Journalism Review's Trudy Lieberman noted that more workers will have "less coverage for medical care which will mean they could be underinsured when serious illness strikes" and the looming prospect of medical bankruptcy "when the stack of bills gets too high."

Some, and not just the nutters at Fox News, aren't apparently troubled by this. Rightwing policy wonks have long cited over utilization of medical care as the reason why health costs are so much higher in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world, as if we can't wait for those colonoscopies and dental work and so abuse our "gold plated" insurance plans to get them more often.

Far too many liberals and progressives are in this camp as well, missing the point which is not to shift costs around but to actually control them.

Reed Abelson of the New York Times pointed out another major flaw. The tax penalizes small employers who she noted:

"tend to pay more for their insurance than bigger employers that can negotiate better premiums. And because they do not have large pools of workers to help spread the risk, small employers tend to pay even higher amounts if they have older or sicker workers."

Additionally, without strong price controls, premiums will continue to rise, pushing the cost of more plans every year into the bracket that will be taxed. The labor movement has, to their credit, understood the many flaws with this scam and led the attacks on it.

3. A variety of gimmicks to stop the dreaded overutilization and reduce costs through comparable research, information technology, best practices, and other lingo.

Some technology promotes better care when it complements and assists the work of care delivery, not replace it. A lot of it doesn't. What has yet to be proven is that it is effective in substantially reducing overall healthcare costs.

Would enactment of a robust public option be sufficient to address all these myriad shortcomings? Perhaps. But not if all its levers, such as the ability to negotiate lower rates or open its doors to all comers, are stripped out, as several proposals do.

In any event, the larger question is will the reforms now proposed actually solve this healthcare crisis, even on the critical issue of cost? Four years from now, our policy makers, and those who say pass a bill no matter what it contains can't say they haven't been told.

9/11Truthers Are Not Liberals


Over the hot August recess, while organizations, corporations, and partisans on the Right unleashed their fact-challenged rage at Democratic town hall meetings, the conventional wisdom coalesced: The Left can be as extreme as the Right. The evidence? The existence of the 9/11 Truth movement, falsely fused with general progressive suspicion of the George W. Bush Administration.

For instance, on July 31, MSNBC

aired a segment
exploring the "birther" phenomenon, moderated by anchors Tamaron Hall and Donny Deutsch. David Freddoso
, formerly of the National Review Online, and now at The Washington Examiner, quickly made the comparison between a recent poll showing a shocking percentage of Republicans believing the birther conspiracy, and a 2007 poll showing that a majority of Democrats believed that George W. Bush had "advance warning" of 9/11.

As Media Matters

reported, Chris Matthews followed up the hype, by characterizing the polling question as accusing Bush of having "deliberately sat back" and allowing 9/11 to happen. Only the poll didn't ask what Matthews claimed it asked. As Media Matters pointed out, the Democratic respondents were likely thinking of the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, which did warn that bin Laden was determined to strike within the U.S.

Even before the volatile town hall meetings, conservatives seized on the Holocaust Museum shooter as an example of left-wing extremism, due to his criticism of "neo-cons" and belief in 9/11 truth conspiracy theories. This claim was thoroughly and effectively

debunked by Keith Olbermann, along with his guests Mark Potok and Eugene Robinson, on June 11.

But the misreading of poll questions aside, the equating of right wing conspiracy theories with 9/11 truthers, clearly has an agenda: to suggest that the left of center is as extreme as the right of center. This rests on the assumption that - since they were critical of the Bush Administration - the 9/11 Truth movement is left of center. However, that assumption misses the fact that the movement has more in common with right wing anti-government militia movements that took aim at the Clinton Administration, than with liberals or leftists.

Any perusal of the movement's beliefs - which tend to veer far from the topic of 9/11 - will reveal a familiar list of right wing anti-government positions. A prime example of this comes from the guru of many 9/11 Truthers, radio talk show host Alex Jones. In addition to pushing the idea that 911 was a Bush Administration conspiracy, Jones' websites and radio show tout an amalgam of anti-government positions, from gun rights advocacy to fear of mandatory vaccinations. In fact, his infowars.com website features an article that repeats the very accusation that birthers, deathers, and tea-partiers are so fond of:

that the Obama health care plan is a eugenics program. Media Matters for America has chronicled Jones' recent history, including touting himself as a founding father of the 911 Truth movement. They also document his promulgation of the Obama-as-secret-Muslim lie, saying on the air that Obama should not be allowed to be President, as that would lead to "infiltration."

I became aware of the conservative nature of so many of the beliefs of 9/11 Truthers, when a relative of mine became an ardent 9/11 Truther and Alex Jones follower. I've been watching a life-long liberal slowly turn into a right-winger, ever since. Suddenly, being a conspiracy theorist was less and less about 9/11, and more about age-old conservative canards. The real turning point was when my relative explained to me that "man-made" global warming didn't exist, and was merely a ruse by the federal government to bring about a carbon tax. My relative hardly makes enough money to worry about taxes. Alex Jones'

website similarly claims that global warming is an excuse to raise taxes and bring about "one world government."

When conservatives try to use these conspiracy communities to excuse the extremists in their midst, it's dishonest. When liberals, such as my relative, are manipulated into metamorphosing into right-wingers, it's sad.

 

Harold Meyerson on the Truth about ACORN


Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post has a great article today on how badly the media has done on the ACORN controversy. You can find it here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/23/AR2009092303679.html?referrer=emailarticle

And if you want to go direct to the study he references, it's here: http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/acornstudy/

Thamail Morgan: His Running Game Includes an Ethics Seminar


Wonderful to read.

Indiana Voter ID Law Found Unconstitutional and Disenfranchising


Cross-posted to Project Voting Matters Blog

One of the country's most contentious voting rights issues came back into the spotlight last Thursday when an Indiana court struck down the state's strict photo voter ID law as unconstitutional. The law, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008, was found be in violation of the Indiana Constitution because it treated voters unequally.

Read more »

Political Paralysis: what would Jesus do?



Christ Carrying the Cross
Hieronymous Bosch
1485-1490
Oil on panel
76.7 x 83.5 cm
Musee des Beaux-Arts, Ghent

Obama, budget director Peter Orszag and health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle grasp the intricacies of the health-care system as well as any three humans, and they could write a law to make it far more efficient. But now it is in the hands of legislators and lobbyists who care much less about the rationality of the system than they do about the way the bill will affect their particular part of it. Everyone has a parochial agenda. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, for example, wants to be sure a new cancer treatment center in Nevada has favored status. Democracy and representative government are a lot messier than the progressives and their heirs, including Obama, want to admit. No wonder they are so often frustrated.
David S. Broder - Washington Post

Given the slow progress of cap and trade legislation in the Senate, Europeans are beginning to understand why the UN might be an easier forum for Mr Obama than Capitol Hill. In this, Mr Obama is accused of not trying hard enough, rather than trying to do the wrong things. "Europeans no longer see President Obama as merely an innocent victim of what they regard as rightwing nuttiness in the American political wars," says Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution. "They are beginning to worry that the president has contributed to the paralysis of the system by playing too much defence."
Edward Luce - Financial Times

 
Wingnuts are always framing any question that comes into their heads with a  "what would Jesus do", so I thought I would approach the subject of America's political paralysis in the same terms.

What would Jesus do it he were elected president of the USA? 

Well of course, if the right wanted to actually run Jesus for president they would have to procure him an American birth certificate, but I suppose if they took the part where it says "place of birth: Bethlehem, Palestine" and rubbed out the (shudder) "Palestine" and substituted "Pennsylvania" that would do the trick. Of course the only president ever born in Pennsylvania was James Buchanan, considered to be in the running with George W. Bush as the worst president in US history. But what the heck, wouldbe birthers would have to be satisfied with Pennsylvania.

American politics being what it is Jesus would have to get a shave and a blowdry haircut and learn to drink beer and boilermakers and eat hotdogs and tacos and bagels and be a regular guy so as not to look effete and elitist... and to read what his handlers wrote for him off a teleprompter, but I suppose if John Edwards could manage all that, God could too.

Of course the wingnuts would have to be crazy to run Jesus for president, it's obvious to me that they have never really studied his programs and policies in any detail; with  his love for the poor and driving money lenders from the Temple and encouraging his followers to pay taxes and all of that. And who is going to be First Lady? His mom? 

Well, so suppose he finally got elected, he would for sure run into trouble from day one.

Imagine that at the inaugural ball he changed water into wine: he's in trouble right then and there with special interest groups like the Winegrape Growers of America. You don't think California's Nancy Pelosi would let something like that pass, do you? Not with her state going broke.

Now, of course, a salient part of Jesus's program was always healing the sick, for which he never charged a shekel, but if he continued to do that while in office the American Medical Association would be all over him and the big pharma lobbies too... You can imagine the smear campaigns... I prefer not to.

And of course then there is the Holy Land, "Terra Sancta" as old Yasser Arafat used to call it. You can imagine how much slack AIPAC is going to cut Jesus, of all people, on that one, can't you?

Finally, I think that one day, after his morning run on the Potomac, he might just up and drown both houses of congress and all of K-street in the reflecting pool of the Washington monument like he did with the Gaderene Swine... to general applause both in America and beyond her shores. 

The moral of the story of course is that the problem is systemic and not really about personalities. As the Spanish say, "esto no lo arregla ni Díos", not even God can fix this paralysis.

Fuller's "Grunch of Giants"


http://www.bfi.org/?q=node/406

I just wanted to post this link to one of my favorite works. It is available to read for free online, but I would also reccomend purchasing a print copy or making some contribution to the Buckminster Fuller Institute.

Over the next few months, I will occasionally post other online works of interest, from General Smedley Butler to Hakim Bey, from Albert Schweitzer to Aga Khan IV.

There are resources online that reveal the precise nature of the problems facing humanity and what we can do about them on a microcosmic and macrocosmic level.

Love,

Zip

Genuine overstuffed naugahyde reality


Oil cans are so five minutes ago. These days, squeaky wheels get Fox News contracts and book deals.

Jay Taplin wrote Tuesday:

Now Beck makes $23 million per year and Limbaugh makes even more. As they ride around the country in their private jets they may be laughing at how they are able to get the poor crackers all riled up about an imminent invasion of martians or socialists or Nazis while they take it to the bank.

But they have help: The Left, this site included, plays into their acts by reacting with kneejerk fury to everything said by these second-rate clowns, participating in burlesque that elevates trivia to crisis, inflates "nanostory" to crucial-issue proportion. For every jackass prattling about "death panels" or packing heat to a political meeting, there's a whole slew of sanctimonious denunciations of racist teabaggers and updates on Orly Taitz. Secretly, I think, we love it all (and I'm as guilty as any).

Perhaps we should remind ourselves, however, that beneath all the cheap-shot self-indulgence, the most important questions of the day, the most critical decisions facing this country, wither in neglect.

Read more »

Wondering why Kent Conrad may not want to stall longer?


I guess it didn't make the national news because there were no tea partyers involved, but this past Tuesday, 800 people demonstrated in Fargo, North Dakota, outside Blue Cross/Blue Shield, protesting the role that big insurance corporations are playing in trying to prevent health care reform and preventing people from getting affordable health care.
Yes, that's 800 people in Fargo, North Dakota.  (Total population of ND = 641,481; population of Fargo = 90,599.)
The local news media did sit up and notice, and here's a link to some video http://ndpeople.org/

Weekly Immigration Wire: These Are American Stories


By Nezua, Media Consortium Blogger

As the immigration debate grows increasingly tense and intertwined with economic worries, cultural anxiety, and deep-seated racism and xenophobia, it is important to be clear about what's at stake. This debate is about our humanity; about our most fundamental legal precepts concerning a human rights; about refusing to exploit the weak. Put simply: Human beings have rights that cannot be taken away by the stroke of a pen, rap of a gavel, or by angry pundits who demonize the disadvantaged.

Read more »

MARS ATTACKS: President Zelaya attacked with DEATH RAY


Thank you Tim Burton for handing me this appropriate vocabulary.  President Mel's enemies are having a hay day with this story from the Miami Herald:

TEGUCIGALPA -- It's been 89 days since Manuel Zelaya was booted from power. He's sleeping on chairs, and he claims his throat is sore from toxic gases and "Israeli mercenaries'' are torturing him with high-frequency radiation.

"We are being threatened with death,'' he said in an interview with The Miami Herald, adding that mercenaries were likely to storm the embassy where he has been holed up since Monday and assassinate him.

For example, Ed Morrisby @ Hot Air thinks Zelaya is a nut and uses this great insight to attack Obama:

The man that Barack Obama insists the Hondurans should restore to power now claims that Israelis are torturing him with mind rays and toxic gasses while holding out in the Brazilian embassy in Tegulcigalpa.  Manuel Zelaya, removed from office by order of the Honduran parliament and Supreme Court but still recognized as president by the Obama administration, says the current interim government has hired Israeli mercenaries, who beam radiation at his head from outside the embassy: [block quote here from the Herald story above]

So this is the calm, rational leadership that Barack Obama envisions for Honduras!  Obama much prefers a president given to tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories and knee-jerk anti-Semitism.  At least this makes sense of the Van Jones appointment.

But the Herald story contains an interesting sentence on down the story:

Witnesses said that for a short time Tuesday morning, soldiers used a device that looked like a large satellite dish to emit a loud shrill noise.

"What?" thought I. I already knew the soldiers were blasting the embassy with loud speakers playing the Honduran National Anthem  (read the comments below if you are interested in how this music affects the human nervous system). But mind rays?  I think I would go midly batty at about the fourth repeat in loud volume of this tune, or at least I would start believing that I am inside the reels of Battle of Algiers. I thought Mel might be losing it myself, but that sentence about the satellite dish intrigued me.  Poking around Google I found this:

A variety of nonlethal acoustical weapons have been proposed and evaluated. Some of these are little more than fancy loud-speakers, while others involve more subtle or sophisticated processes and truely deserve the designation of acoustic weapon.

Simple high-intensity sound causes the inner ear to generate nerve impulses that register as sound. Since the inner ear also regulates spatial orientation, saturation of the inner ear by high-intensity sound may cause spatial disorientation. For example, loud music was used by American forces to drive Manual Norriega from the Vatican Embassy in Panama in 1990.

High-intensity low-frequency sound may cause other organs to resonate, causing a number of physiological results, possibly including death. Acoustic weapons pose the hazard of being indiscriminate weapons, potentially imposing the same damage on friendly forces and noncombatants as on enemy combatants or other targets.

Hmmm, but Global Security does say such weapons have been deployed.  Some more Googling and information that they are deployed. Here's a video of them being used against protesters in Tbilisi, Georgia. LRAD - Long range acoustic device.  Here's how it works.

American Technology Corporation developed the LRAD after the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Its original purpose was to help enforce the safe zones around United States military vessels. Using the LRAD's default settings, a ship's crew can warn a craft that it is approaching a military ship and must change course. This message can be up to 120 dB, so it's loud and clear but not usually painful. But if the craft doesn't change course, the ship's crew can override the LRAD's default settings. It can then produce a loud, irritating, potentially painful noise of up to 151 dB. Ideally, the craft would then leave the area without the ship having to use lethal force.

Police and land-based military units have found uses for the LRAD. Using the same principles, authorities can give warnings and instructions that are audible to a large group of people up to 300 meters away. Some police and other non-military personnel also use a smaller version of the LRAD, called the MRAD or the LRAD500.

However, human rights groups and hearing specialists alike have raised concerns about the LRAD. According to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, any sound over 90 dB can damage a person's hearing [ref]. So the LRAD can threaten the hearing of anyone in its path, regardless of whether there is any wrongdoing, even when used only for communication.

Like stun guns, tear gas and less-lethal ammunition, LRAD can be used in crowd control and other situations as a non-lethal weapon. Non-lethal weapons are somewhat controversial. Human rights groups stress that even though they are less lethal, they are still weapons and have caused deaths in some circumstances. The LRAD in particular has drawn criticism since its effects can be permanent, and non-lethal weapons' effects are supposed to be temporary.

Mel Zelaya seems less of a crackpot, then.  But is use of LRAD torture?  I would say there's a good argument there, especially how it was allegedly used at the Brazilian embassy.  It is worthwhile noting, also, that at the time of its alleged use, there were several children inside the embassy, 6 yrs. old and up. (They have now been evacuated).

The toxic gasses Mel complains about is a no-brainer, IMO.  Tear gas is toxic, and even low level exposure to it over time will make your throat raw.

But what about Israeli commandos?  This story has been floating around since August, at least.  It comes from an audio interview on La Journada, Mx, with Andrés Pavón, president of the Honduran Human Rights Commission (CODEH):

Dick Emanuelsson (DE):  Yesterday CODEH put out a news release denouncing a variety of things, among them that Micheletti's de facto government has contracted with Israeli commandos or people to train the Honduran military/police forces.  What we know from the civil war in Colombia is that these commandos have also been advising the Colombian military forces.  What are the Israelis doing here?

Andrés Pavón (AP): Until now what we know is that their mission is to prepare the Armed Forces and the police to aggressively and violently dissuade the demonstrations, by committing crimes of a selective nature in order to build fear, staged terror, and achieve a dismantling of the resistance.  Other actions they are undertaking involve certain employees of private security firms putting on police uniforms and acting aggressively against the demonstrators.  The police have already sort of been trained to dissuade demonstrations and are a bit fearful about attacking the demonstrators so that it's as if a bit of their human rights training lingers.  On the other hand, the security guards are being paid double and their immunity is guaranteed.  These are the practices that they are developing, using the experience of the conflict in Palestine and after having put into practice some of these actions in Colombia.

The story should be taken cautiously, I think, as there's no real proof at this point.  However, it does tell us that Zelaya's claim is not the ravings of a mad man.  Many people in Honduras believe it is true.

Radio Globo reported this morning that all the houses around the Brazilian embassy have been cleared of their residents by the military during the night, and some are occupied by the military.  This raises the fear on the streets that the embassy will be invaded.  And the rumors persist that a pro-coup rally of the "perfumed ones" will take place as a pretext for breaching the embassy.  This, from RAJ @  Honduran Coup 2009:

Reading between the lines the "pro democracy" (your tax dollars at work here) march organized to support the de facto government by the UCD (Union Civica Democratica) may have fizzled. The La Tribuna article mentions the organizers expected 500,000 people to join them from across the country. It then goes on to say that "hundreds" arrived at 10 am for the march.

Radio Globo has fielded numerous calls from workers who were being "ordered" to attend the march as part of their job. Unlike the marches of the resistance, busloads of supporters in white shirts were being allowed past the military checkpoints into Tegucigalpa this morning.

The UCD is an organization funded, in part, by the US State Department. It receives funds designated to groups that promote democracy in Latin America.

More information on this march as it becomes available.

UPDATE 10:42 AM PDT: La Prensa describes the march as consisting of "thousands" and they have posted pictures of the demonstraters outside the UN building in Tegucigalpa here.

Looking at the two pics, the Golpistas (Coupsters) may have run out of white T-shirts.

Police shot to death a teenager on his bicycle who yelled "Golpistas" at them (El Tiempo link not working).



Obamacare in 4 minutes


Now this is a step in the right direction!


The Obama Plan in 4 Minutes from White House on Vimeo.

Democrats Should Use Tax Cuts against Republicans in 2010 (Just as GOP would against Dems)


The DCCC is on the air with a new TV ad in the NY-23 special election, a Republican-held swing seat that opened up when Rep. John McHugh was appointed Secretary of the Army by President Obama. The new ad goes after the GOP nominee, state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, for voting for higher taxes -- the sort of attack we typically see Republicans launching against the Dems....

Actually this just might be a good idea for the rest of the Democrats running for office in 2010.

Guess who voted NO on the Stimulus package?  ALL REPUBLICANS but three.  Guess what that package included?  The highest amount of tax cuts in history.  A payroll tax cut $212 billion for 97% of all Americans.  The CBO estimate said between 1 and 3 million jobs would be created.

It also consisted of a patch to protect middle- and upper-middle-income families from having to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax; and expansions of the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit for low-income families.  The economic recovery plan contained a host of tax cuts for small business as well.

The bill authorizes the Small Business Administration to temporarily eliminate or reduce fees for participation in its flagship loan-guarantee programs, which insure banks against default by small business borrowers. The stimulus bill also increases to 90% the percentage of qualifying loans that the SBA can guarantee.

Can't you just see the commercials showing THESE PARTS OF THE (legislation) Recovery and Reinvestment Act bill only, in an Ad across the airwaves --along with the names of the Republicans that voted NO to those tax cuts?

That ad might also include the fact that the Republican being discussed by voting NO to the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also voted NO to an $8000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers, a tax deduction for sales tax if you bought a new car, rebates for buying a new appliance and for buying a new furnace or air conditioner. It also include...

$120 billion for infrastructure -- new projects repairing bridges, roads, government buildings and the like -- more than $100 billion for education and $30 billion on energy-related projects.

$2,500 tuition tax credit for students

People who receive Social Security will get a one-time payment of $250.

The overall package was estimated to be 35 percent tax cuts.

Lastly, after it is calculated in 2010 by the CBO, the Democrats can claim that by voting NO to the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, those same Republicans would have allowed the loss of ??? Jobs.

I love it!  Bring it ON!!!

Proof positive that Republicans are just making it up as they go along


As if there were ever any doubt...wherever in the world did they pick up THAT habit?

Playboy makes you gay, and as an extra special side benefit, being gay makes you socialist.

More Right-Wing Violence? Census Worker Hung With "FED" Scrawled on Body


I always find it frustrating and ironic that people think right-wing violence "may" happen soon, unless things are toned down.

The simple fact is right-wing violence has claimed 5 lives this past year alone, and this article (and this report on Maddow) may indicate another victim.

While it would be silly to make assumptions about this new case, what we know about the previous cases is very clear. It also runs counter to people like John Boener's lack of worry over right-wing agitation.

Here's a quick recap:

1) George Tiller was shot and killed in his church by a man with (in addition to hardcore anti-abortion group association) alleged membership in The Freemen, a 90's-born quasi-militia with anti-federal leanings.

2) James Von Brun stormed the Holocaust Museum in Washington, fatally shooting one guard before being shot in the face (he has survived to stand trial). He was a vocal and well known figure in racist and white supremacist groups, had served time in federal prison for attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve, and had ties to the far-right British National Party. His "suicide" note read like a placard from any Tea Party rally, with some anti-Semitism thrown in:

"You want my weapons -- this is how you'll get them. The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what his Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America's money. Jews control the mass media."

(My emphasis)

3) Finally we have Richard Andrew Poplawski; a young man with virtually identical beliefs, who shot and killed 3 police officers in Pittsburg; convinced (like Von Brun), that Obama wanted to "take his guns away."

The last round of Tea Party pics from Sept 12 shows the exact same expression on many signs: (picture of an AK-47) "Try Taking It", etc.

My question is simple: why is (current) right-wing violence still seen as hypothetical?

If this last killing turns out to be motivated by anti-federal furor (and it looks like that's a distinct possibility here), that makes SIX murders.

The Bill O'Reillys ("Tiller the Baby Killer") of the world won't back off of their rhetoric, but does the right mainstream even KNOW about this stuff? Sean Hannity, for example, only mentioned the Holocaust shooting in passing on his show, once, to make a "point" about Rev. Wright.

At what point is right-wing violence seen as real by media, and, most importantly to everyone's saftey, by the RIGHT?

David (Paterson) versus Goliath (Barack Obama) on Broadway


Why didn't Obama just mind his own business and not ask David Paterson to step down? Did Rahm Emanuel just have nothing better to do than to interfere in New York politics? It turns out that New Yorkers asked the Presdent and Rahm to intervene. the administration was asked to intervene by members of Congress and state legislators who raised serious alarms about a potential Paterson drag on the ticket in 2010. As Politico notes:

The issue is no small matter in a state with an appointed senator running statewide for the first time in 2010 and more than a half-dozen vulnerable House Democrats-- including five freshmen.

According to interviews with New York Democrats, the request for intervention came from both Albany and Washington, where Paterson's precarious political standing unnerved many officeholders who are worried about the prospect of running in a midterm election with a deeply unpopular incumbent at the top of the ballot.

"Clearly, the situation in New York is unusual and requires leadership at a greater level than anyone in New York can provide," said Rep Dan Maffei, a first-term Democrat who occupies a seat in upstate New York. "I, for one, welcome the president's involvement."

The request for Paterson to step aside and not seek a full term, multiple sources said, has been in the works for weeks.

"It's hard to argue that he can excite a lot of voters at this point," said one New York House member.

Two senior Democratic officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said members of the House delegation had sent a strong message to White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel in closed-door meetings that it was time for Paterson to move on.

These Democrats said their chief concern was that with Paterson on the ballot, the party would see a sharp drop-off in turnout across the state. 

"I think that the role that Paterson plays in all of this is that he can affect turnout," said Lee Miringoff of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion. "When you have the top of the ticket not running well, that affects everyone."

Freshman Democratic Rep. Mike McMahon, who won a Republican-leaning Staten Island-based seat in 2008, agreed with that assessment.

"I think, as a quintessential down-ballot candidate, as a freshman seeking reelection, I am, of course, concerned about the top of the ticket because the top of the ticket determines turnout," he said. "I am pleased that the White House is concerned about the issue."

"It's important that we as a Democratic team have the best team up and down the ticket, and that's what we're doing," said McMahon.

Tuesday brought more bad news for Paterson, with the release of a Siena College poll showing his favorability rating at just 29 percent and only 14 percent in favor of reelecting him.

Paterson isn't the only prominent Democratic officeholder whose election prospects are clouded. Polling on the reelection prospects of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) regularly generates highly unfavorable data. New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick are also in jeopardy of losing their seats.

But the rationale for intervening in New York is different. The fear among some legislators is that Paterson stands to affect the party up and down the line in a state with an unusually high number of recently elected members who have not yet locked down their seats. The list begins with Kirsten Gillibrand, the Democratic senator he appointed in January to fill Hillary Clinton's vacant seat.

Gillibrand's own poll ratings have been weak -- only 26 percent of voters participating in Marist's September survey approved of her job performance -- and there is concern in some Democratic circles that former Republican Gov. George Pataki could challenge her in 2010.

"The White House would consider it a huge disappointment losing a Senate seat in New York," said Miringoff. "It's not what you want as a party."

Gillibrand declined to discuss Paterson when approached by POLITICO off the Senate floor Tuesday evening. Her spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

Aside from Gillibrand, there are seven House Democrats who face potentially competitive reelection bids, including Rep. Scott Murphy, who won Gillibrand's old House seat in a special election earlier this year by roughly 700 votes.

"In New York, in as challenging a year as 2010 inevitably will be because of historical trends, you want to make sure that you are strong ... and that you don't have to focus on [it]," said Maffei.

"If the leader of the party, the president, has to worry about New York House seats, New York Senate seats -- not to mention the governor's seat itself -- then it will be a lot of resources ... that can't be used in other places where we will face a challenge in 2010," he said.

And there is also significant concern within the party that, should Democrats lose a host of state legislative seats next fall, it would significantly weaken their position in the upcoming fight over redistricting.

"If you have a weak top of the ticket, not only would we lose some of our House members, we would lose some of the state Senate seats, and if we lose the Senate, we lose control of redistricting," said the House member.

Publicly and privately, Paterson has resisted the calls from the White House to stand down. On Tuesday, he told reporters defiantly, "You don't give up."

Rep. Steve Israel, a Long Island Democrat, said he came away from a five-minute phone conversation with Paterson with the feeling that Paterson was "steadfast" in his determination not to back down in the face of pressure.

"He didn't give me any indication that he is packing his bags," said Israel.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=E96F9377-18FE-70B2-A8218ECC24EDEEC0

It seems that concerned New Yorkers asked Obama for aid.



Libertarians and Immigration


A question that's been eating at me for a while:

Why do libertarians object to illegal immigrants?

Perhaps there are libertarians who do not, who extend their principles to encompass newcomers and their liberty to live and work where they please, without government interference. But my experience of libertarian pundits and of my own libertarian friends is that generally, they do not. The most anti-big-government libertarian of my friends also takes it as a given that illegal immigrants are a social ill.

Now, maybe some of these folks (my personal friend excepted, naturally) are merely using "libertarianism" as cover for another set of policy objectives. In that case, the explanation is that they're not sincerely libertarians. But what am I not grasping about the sincere ones?

If governments have no right to interfere in private economic activity and the pursuit of happiness, why can a government restrict the flow of labor from one place to another by erecting a border or, more intrusively still, by regulating how many immigrants are allowed to find jobs here? Immigration quotas don't seem to make any libertarian sense at all. And if not for the quotas, no one would be illegal. The "law" being broken is the law that government bureaucrats get to decided who can come in and who can't, while the government gets to set arbitrary numbers of immigrants from each group. ("Sorry, we've had all the Norwegians we can take for the year. Try us again in January.") The immigrants are only "illegal" because the very government authority that libertarians purport to despise labels those people as illegal.

Why shouldn't someone be able to get a job where there are jobs to be had? Why should someone be prevented from taking a job because too many other people from country X or Y have entered the country? (Talk about your identity politics....) Why shouldn't farmers be allowed to hire the people who want the harvest jobs? And why shouldn't an internet startup be free to hire a bunch of hotshots from IIT?

Seriously, I'd love any thoughts on this.

Crossposted at http://dagblog.com

Fox News Reporting from YouTube Videos?


A video posted on YouTube appears to show a New Jersey elementary school class being taught to sing praises of the "great accomplishments" of President Obama.

The video shows nearly 20 young children taught a song overflowing with campaign slogans and praise for "Barack Hussein Obama," repeatedly chanting the president's name and celebrating his accomplishments, including his "great plans" to "make this country's economy No. 1 again.

The video identifies the kids as students at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, N.J., with taping taking place last June (posted Sept 6th just before Obama's Education speech - doesn't that raise questions for you Fox?)

The author of the full lyrics is unknown, but a woman -- possibly a teacher -- can be heard in the beginning of the video correcting and helping a student who has forgotten the words.

Excuse me?  Americans are suppose to believe everything that is done on YouTube is done by the President's request, better yet, we're suppose to believe that because it's on YouTube that it is true and possibly a trend across America?  

With this kind of reporting, Americans will finally see how you are bias against the President of United States.

This is your Fair and Balanced view of what a HEADLINE is suppose to be about Fox News?

Give us a break Fox News.  Go do some actual reporting instead of relying on the Internet, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for your news and having your producers cheering on the angry folks at a rally against the government.

New Study finds that you are absolutely correct


WASHINGTON - A new study from the prestigious Wolfrum Alpha Research Squad has confirmed what most people already believe - that they are absolutely correct on all issues and would be foolish to listen to opposing viewpoints.

"After years of intense research, we believe our conclusions are faultless," said lead researcher William "Buzz" Wolfrum. "Just like everyone's opinions."

The research used by the group was "all-encompassing" and used biorhythms, charts, algorithms, graphs and a slide show. The end result confirmed what most already believed to be true - that they are absolutely correct.

"This is fantastic news and shows that, yes, we've been right all along," said film reviewer and political pundit Michael Medved. "And it proves that listening to each other is a stupid concept."

While the Wolfrum Alpha team has published its findings and feels confident in the results ("Of course, we're right," said Wolfrum) there has been some confusion regarding thought conflict. How could two or more conflicting thoughts be correct? Wolfrum said the answer is simple.

"It's like that 'Seinfeld' episode where George said the trick to get through a lie-detector test was to 'believe your lie was true.'" said Wolfrum. "It's the exact same principle."

The research team also pointed to newspaper reporting, where all theories are given equal credibility even when one side seems spectacularly incorrect. This phenomena, known as "Just Type, Don't Think," has helped many Americans accept the fact that whatever it is they believe, it's more than likely true, regardless of reality. Wolfrum added that the research proved that the United States was on the correct path.

"Right now in the U.S., there are millions and millions of people who are positive that they are correct, whether it be about religion, sports or politics," said Wolfrum. "And they all are correct and shouldn't have to listen to other equally correct opinions.

"Take Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly, for example," added Wolfrum. "One day they'll say one thing, the next day they'll say the complete opposite. And yet you see they never abandon their overall correctness. It's not just the American way, it's science."

-WKW

President Lincoln is Confronted by the Republicans from the Present Day Congress - A Short Play


The Scene: Caught in a time warp of their own lies, the Republicans in Congress are transported back to the evening when President Lincoln is about to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. 

Lincoln: "Gentlemen, who are you?"

Republicans: "Mr. President, we're your Party from the future."

Lincoln: "Why then, you are most welcome."  (Aside: "Am I dreaming?")

Republicans: "Thank you, Mr. President."

Lincoln: "You are welcome.  Please be seated."  (To himself: "Those of whom can find a place to sit.")

Republicans: "Thank you again, Mr. President."

Lincoln: "I was about to sign a most important document, Gentlemen."

Republicans: "What is that, Mr. President?"

Lincoln: "It is a document that will emancipate all the slaves.  I will call it, 'The Emancipation Proclamation'."

Republicans: "Perhaps we arrived just in time, Mr. President."

Lincoln: "Why is that?"

Republicans: "It might be better if you wait."

Lincoln: "Why should I wait, Gentlemen?  Does not the Document fulfill its Destiny?"

Republicans: "It does that, Mr. President."

Lincoln: "Well, then is there a problem?"

Republicans: "It works too well."

Lincoln: "How is that?"

Republicans: "Well, just as we said, it works a little too good."

Lincoln: "I don't understand."

Republicans: "Look at this way, Mr. President.  What if we have 'African-Americans' (that's what we call them in the future) voting and one of them ran for President?  And he won.  You wouldn't want that, would you?"

Lincoln: "An American Negro. For President.  I never had thought about that possibility..."

Republicans: "See what we're talking about..."

Lincoln: "...I guess that could be a logical possibility?  Interesting..."

Republicans: "...and he was hell bent on turning everything upside down."

Lincoln: "Doing what, if I might inquire?"

Republicans: "Well, you know, things."

Lincoln: "What things?  Really Gentlemen, it can not be all that bad in the future, can it?"

Republicans: "He's just doing stuff that he shouldn't be doing..."

Lincoln: "Is he intelligent?  I mean by that Gentlemen, is he an educated man.  Does he read the Bible?  Shakespeare?  Does he have a family?  Children, a loving wife?"

Republicans:  "He has daughters.  And yes, he's educated.  Real smart in fact.  Harvard and places like that.  A lawyer like you, Sir.  Pretty wife too."

Lincoln: "Gentlemen, I really can't see the problem.  He sounds like a fine human being."

Republicans: "You see, Mr. President, that's just the problem.  He is.  And you started it.  Right here.  By signing that piece of paper there on your desk.  Now, if you didn't.  We just waited a while.  Say, let us handle things in the future..."

Lincoln: "You mean, deny him the right to be free, to find his own destiny?"

Republicans: "Mr. President, as the future members of your Party, we..."

Lincoln: "What about all the brave Negro soldiers who have fought and are fighting to end this terrible conflict?  Their care and well being and the future care of their health?"

Republicans: "Necessary casualties, Sir.  You have to fight any war with what you have.  They'll be fine.  They've always been so.  Health care.  No problem.  We have hospitals and big corporations that handle all our health needs nicely in the future."

Lincoln: "...I even entertain the dream that one day even women can have the same rights as men."

Republicans: "Mr. President, that happens.  But it ain't working too good either.  The family, well, the family is all changed when women...  Some of us in your Party have even written scholarly papers about this.  This gentleman here..  About women and the family.  In the future, that is..."

Lincoln: "I see you have women present.  There are women in our Party?  Ladies..."

Republicans: "Well, Sir, they're really like us.  Members of the 'Men's Club,' if you follow our train of thought...hint, hint."

Lincoln: "So, if I understand you, you wish me not to sign this."

Republicans: "Yes, Sir, we do."

Lincoln: "...and deny this man in the future his rightful place in history?"

Republicans: "It isn't exactly like that, Sir.  You'd have to be there to understand.  He lies.  And we're not even sure he was born in America.  And there are other things..."

Lincoln: "Gentlemen, and Ladies, my question still remains, why should I deny this man his birthright?  Or any man, woman or child because of the color of his, or her skin or his or her birth?"

Republicans: "The bottom line, Mr. President, he's killin' the Party.  We're trying everything we can think of to destroy him.  We've even got people callin' him the 'AntiChrist' and things like that.  Nothing works.  So right now, with that little old document there on your desk, we can stop him cold."

Lincoln: "You mean, alter history."

Republicans: "Exactly."

Lincoln: "Sacrifice this man on the altar of history for the sake of the future, at least the future as you want it?"

Republicans: "Good, Sir, you understand."

Lincoln: "But then, if I alter history, you all might not be here too?"

Republicans: "Hum...  We hadn't thought of thought."

Lincoln: "Does my Party grasp the role of the intellect in the future?  Do you collectively have a sense of morality, of goodness, or honesty?"

Republicans: "Why, Mr. President, we're honest as the day is long..."

Lincoln: "I fear for my Party's future..."

Republicans: "We doing just fine Mr. President.  We just finished eight great years.  Then, this, this, man who inherits the whirlwind you could unleash tonight by signing..."

Lincoln: "Be gone foul spirits of the Night...do not trouble my soul with your dark words." 

Republicans: "But, Mr. President..."

Lincoln: "My heart is indeed heavy with fear for the Nation.  But, by signing, if I can bring this man into this House that I now inhabit...  Then, with the strength of the Almighty, I will invoke that Power and my power as the President of these United States and affix my name now to this Proclamation."  [Signs the Emancipation Proclamation.]

Republicans: "Help!  We're fading...we've failed....help us...we've lost to our future..."

 

End.

 


The Senate Finance Gets Hot Over the PhRMA Deal, Medicare & The Donut Hole



image  What's a dollar here and a dollar there ?


From Florida Senator Bill Nelson Senate site:

Democrats Spar Among Themselves Over PhRMA Deal

It appears the that the PhRMA folks (read lobbyist Billy Tauzin) cut themselves a pretty fine sweet-heart deal back in August with that NYT: $80B in cost rebates over 10 years that actually saved them about $86B in the long run.

From that NYT link August 6, 2009. .

Mr. Tauzin said the administration had approached him to negotiate. "They wanted a big player to come in and set the bar for everybody else," he said. He said the White House had directed him to negotiate with Senator Max Baucus, the business-friendly Montana Democrat who leads the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. Tauzin said the White House had tracked the negotiations throughout, assenting to decisions to move away from ideas like the government negotiation of prices or the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. The $80 billion in savings would be over a 10-year period. "80 billion is the max, no more or less," he said. "Adding other stuff changes the deal."

After reaching an agreement with Mr. Baucus, Mr. Tauzin said, he met twice at the White House with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff; Mr. Messina, his deputy; and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the aide overseeing the health care overhaul, to confirm the administration's support for the terms.


At $168B savings (read the first link) it would completely close the "donut hole" and there would be an additional $50B to spread to other Medicare savings needs. And this wouldn't even take into consideration the proposed amendments doing away with the Medicare Advantage Part-C ... See:

NYT: Medicare Advantage: Suddenly a Battle With Three Fronts

Fun and games at the cost of the country . . .

~OGD~

Why is the Corporate Media Ignoring Sibel Edmonds? Do we need a VIRTUAL CONGRESS to protect our lawmakers from outside influence?


Why is the Corporate Media Ignoring Sibel Edmonds?
Everyday Citizen is asking that very question today.  

I saw their Facebook link about it this morning and added this comment, which I'm blogging here.  
Sibel Edmonds may be the Bush Era's Pandora.

The American Conservative has opened Pandora's blog with a startling interview of Sibel Edmonds, whose story should be exploding in big headlines and feature stories across the country, but it is being summarily ignored by every mainstream media outlet.

Brad Friedman's been covering it in depth on BRADBLOG 

And Sibel's got her own blog up and running, where she interacts very personally with her readers and commenters.

I sincerely hope TPM picks up on it and helps disseminate this tale of espionage, intrigue and the dark side of politics.


Here's a quote from Sibel's deposition about foreign agents and how they gained access and control over some of our lawmakers;

"and this information would include all their sexual preference, how much they owed on their homes, if they have gambling issues,"

How many etceteras might one add to that short list?

The fact we put all our lawmakers together in one city makes it too easy for either K-Street or foreign agents to access them all in one spot.

I say lets bring em' all home, make them live with their constituents and do their debating and voting online, publicly.

The horse and buggy technology during the writing of the Federalist Papers is obsolete, to say the least, we don't drive horse-drawn carriages any more, so why do we send our lawmakers to one easily accessible spot as if that arcane model still existed?

"VIRTUAL CONGRESS!" should be the battle cry of the new Netroots. Our lawmakers are too accessible to these dangerous influences of intrigue and international espionage when they are all clustered together in one place.

Get them out of DC and back home with their constituents! Let them debate and vote online, PUBLICLY!


Viva la blogs!

Health insurance in my company store is limited


The company where I work has been overhauling their employee health benefits. In the past, they had several plans to choose. Recently they began offering us a new plan that was based heavily around co-insurance instead of co-pays. They have been heavily pushing us to buy this plan, but it hasn't gained wide spread acceptance.

The idea is that if the health consumer pays a portion of the cost, they will shop for the best deals. The co-insurance can be much larger than co-pays, but they cap yearly expenses. They also have a fund that can transfer from year to year that acts as a deductible. It gets used up before any out of pocket expenses are incurred and the company I work for puts a modest amount into the fund the first year so you don't immediately get screwed if you get sick the first year after selecting it. You also pay more to see an out-of-network doctor or to use a name brand medicine.

The overall effect is that if you are really healthy or really sick, you pay less. Those that get mildly sick tend to pay more under this plan than the old ones, but not enough to bankrupt you. These changes would be fine, if the premiums were lower. After all, if we're saving the insurance company money by shopping for the best price, we should be charged less for our yearly premiums. Unfortunately it has been one of the more expensive plans.

This year however, my company has dropped all other plans and is instead only allowing this one for next year. They haven't released the cost of premiums for next year, but they will likely be higher than the current plan I have.

Let me repeat. I will have NO CHOICE but to purchase this plan since it's the only employer based plan available to me. Trying to purchase a private plan without going through my employer is so expensive, it's a false choice.

It's at this point I would like to make the case for the Public Option, but I can't since I would likely not be able to get it due to the proposed firewall. Senator Wyden (D-OR) has proposed amendments that would change that. Under his plan, my company would have to offer a voucher worth 70% of the average of the three lowest plans in the exchange. I could also pick the public option or another private insurer using that voucher.

I really, really want this to happen. It will save me and people like me so much money. It will open up competition to make health insurance companies accountable to their consumers. It does a lot of really good things and it needs to happen.

Where Do Bikes Fit In?


The video above is standard fare for safe and legal cycling. Note the narrator's advice to maintain Lane Control by riding in the center of a marked lane. In 1978 I was riding my bike home from work in the right lane of University Boulevard. My route was mostly bike paths and small back roads like Forest Glen, but I had no choice but to take Colesville and University, major streets with center islands and two lanes in each direction, for a few blocks to get to my neighborhood.

An irate, business-clad fellow in a full-size pickup truck pulled next to me, scowling and sputtering. Finally he choked out, "Use The Sidewalk!" and sped off. Although there were some designated, paved bike paths in my area, I hadn't ridden sidewalks since I was a kid.

In my childhood neighborhood, we exited and entered the sidewalks at driveway cuts and mostly stayed on our own block. Many of us rode Sting Ray or Wheelie bikes with banana seats and 20" wheels. These bikes were popular because it was easy to pull wheelies. At that time few sidewalks had sloped curb cuts at the corners. To cross a road from the sidewalk, we launched our bikes off the curb at one end, then yanked the front wheel up by the handlebars to climb the next curb and jumped up off the pedals to lift the back wheels. We were cool.

That maneuver was more difficult on English Racers, and as I grew older, I learned that cyclists are supposed to ride to the far right of the road. Automobile traffic leaves a messy collection of gravel, broken glass and litter in the shoulder, so the best place to ride is just on or to the left of the rightmost painted line.

But riding the line has gotten more risky. I used to deal with the occasional thrown bottle or shout as a pair of jerks drove by, but now there are SUVs and drivers who talk and text on their cell phones to worry about.

Embedding is disabled but these videos show a more realistic situation for cyclists on the road:

First

Second

and the Third one isn't disabled:

A big problem is the driver who forgets you exist once they've pulled their head ahead of your head. They immediately return to the center of the right lane, which forces the cyclist into the shoulder, guardrail, etc. or they make a right turn, which knocks the cyclist down. All of that has happened to me. It even happens when I run.

A bigger problem is the driver that doesn't notice you at all, or that doesn't want you on the road at all, like that good old boy on University, or this maniac. Every day I see more bike riders leaving the road to use the sidewalk. Curb cuts were intended for wheelchairs and older pedestrians, but make riding sidewalks much easier for cyclists. But there are sidewalks that are virtually deserted, and there are sidewalks that are choked with pedestrians. I eventually came to use some mostly deserted sidewalks in my commuting, but riding among walkers simply transfers the risk to the pedestrians.

As I've learned over the last few years, people walk just as inconsiderately as they drive or bike. A group of people will move apart to fill the entire width of a sidewalk. People will burst out of shop doors without looking either way. People will stop short to pay full attention to their cell phone. Mothers with strollers are completely unpredictable. You can't ride a bike around them.

So there's more of a push for dedicated bike lanes. Still there was a time when autos, cyclists and pedestrians managed to share the road.

Memo to NYT headline writers


When your reporters write a story about how the status of Medicare Advantage plans--privately operated Medicare that uses large extra subsidies, running about 30% over regular Medicare--whose operators are fiercely defending their plump extra profits by threatening seniors with benefit cuts, think twice about what you headline the story.

Perhaps: "Nelson supports insurance company efforts to defend subsidies"?
Or: "Nelson plays along with insurance industry scare tactics"?

But please: who in Heavens' name came up with "Senator Tries to Allay Fears on Health Overhaul"

It's true that Advantage plans offer meager extra benefits, dangled before beneficiaries while most of the extra covers insurance company operating costs and profits. And it's certainly true that the insurance companies have used those profits not just to lobby Nelson and other directly with abundant campaign contributions, but also to whip up fear among their clients. But eliminating Advantage would not cut Medicare benefits a bit: it would rather remove an inefficient middleman.

Federal gov't must investigate NOM's finances


Guest post by Danielle Truszkovsky.

BEFORE WRITING THIS column, I sat and stared at my computer screen for what seemed like ages trying to figure out a way to make the topic of IRS regulations seem a bit more interesting.

Let’s face it, most people just don’t want to read about a subject as dry as tax law. Unfortunately, one of the only ways to detect questionable practices by organizations like the National Organization for Marriage is to first acquire the group’s tax return, research it in detail, and make public the findings. Not surprisingly, NOM’s initial return generated more questions than answers.

Read more »

The Ghost of Pontius Pilate


William Sparkman, 51, was a substitute teacher for Laurel County Kentucky.   He was an Eagle Scout.    He was well liked in the community.   He moved to Kentucky when he was transferred by his employer, The Boy Scouts of America.  He became interested in teaching and several years ago decided to switch careers.  He went back to school to become an elementary school teacher.   He loved to teach and was scheduled to graduate college with his teaching certificate in 2007.  Unfortunately he was diagnosed with Stage 3 Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma before he completed his degree.   He balanced chemotherapy with school work and managed to graduate on time.   He was even the key note speaker at his own graduation, where he told his fellow graduates, "I'd been knocked down, but I refused to be knocked out.  Those brick walls will appear from time to time in your career. Do not let them stop you. There are no failures, just teaching moments."

Bill Sparkman was also a part-time Census worker.  

On September 12th, the decomposing body of Bill Sparkman was found hanging from a tree next to a cemetery near the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural, south east Kentucky.   The word "FED" was written on his chest.  His truck and the laptop he used for his census work was found nearby.

We don't know much more than that at this time.   We don't know how he died.   We don't know for sure that it was murder, although the local Census Director says she was told that it was an "apparent homicide".  

We do know that a week and a half after the body was found, federal agents have been unable to rule out his connection with the Census as a contributing factor.  We know that Census interviews for that area have been put on hold indefinitely.  

This summer, I attended the Kansas City Ethnic Festival.   It was filled with booths representing the food & crafts of most of the different immigrant groups found in Kansas City.  It also had a booth set up for the Census Bureau.    I jokingly asked the woman manning the booth if she was one of "those ACORN people" expecting her to laugh in exasperation at the number of times she had been asked that question.   Instead she looked at me with a mix of fear and anger.  "Not today I haven't", she told me.   I immediately apologized for upsetting her and as she calmed down she explained that it was becoming very scary to work for the Census.   There were lots of threats made to Census workers this summer and lots of hatred directed at them.  She was even reconsidering her job.   I felt bad for her but thought she was probably over-reacting.   Now I'm not so sure.

We don't know that Mr. Sparkman was killed because he was a census taker.   We do know that the following has been said about the census this year.  Media Matters.com lists the following examples of Conservative Media discussing the Census.

----------------------------------------------------

On July 23, 2009, Glenn Beck tells radio listeners that people going "door to door collecting information" would be helping to create a "modern day slave state".

------------------------------------------------------

 During a June 25 interview with Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) on his Fox News show, Glenn Beck stated that "there's a lot of people that are concerned" with the census "because they don't want to fill it out. They're not comfortable with ACORN members coming to find out all this information. They don't want to give the government all this kind of information."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

On the June 22 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose, Co-host Rose Tennent stated that Bachmann reportedly said that she does not intend to complete the census and stated: "ACORN being recruited by Obama for a mission -- that is so frightening." After listing several questions included in the census, she added that "it's just so intrusive. And you're right. I mean, there's the risk of identity theft and all kinds of things. I'm just -- it scares me to think that these thugs are getting this information from us."

---------------------------------------------------------------

On June 18, using the headline "What Kind of Info Is ACORN Gathering for Census?" The Fox Nation linked to a June 18 Washington Times article reporting that Bachmann stated "she will not fill out anything more than the number of people in her household" for the 2010 census because "the questions have become 'very intricate, very personal' " and because "she feared ACORN."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

On the May 20 edition of his radio show, Neal Boortz told a caller, "I received a census form the other day asking me a whole bunch of questions about my small business. I threw it in the trash. I'm not going to answer it. None of their damn business." He later added that "the federal government and the state government, they have a legitimate reason for knowing how many people live where. They have no legitimate reason for knowing anything else. The rest of the information is -- most of the rest of the information is designed to help the government steal from you in order to pass off your property to the moochers. They're looters."

------------------------------------------------------

On May 20, Neal Boortz said, "My advice to you -- and to all of my listeners -- is always: Obey the law. And the law says you have to answer this stuff. OK? But, if I have received the American Community Survey and I ref-- I personally refuse to respond to it, and once every 10 years I will respond to the census, but the only information I will give them is the number of adults who live in my household and that -- or the number of people -- doesn't, you know -- the number of people who live in my household, and that is it.

And they've knocked on my door. And they've come to my door with badges. And they've come to my door and told me I could be fined. They've come to my door and they've told me that I am breaking the law. And I look at them and I say, "Two adults live here. That is all the information I will voluntarily give you. Waterboard me if you want to learn any more." But that's it.

--------------------------------------------------------------

We don't KNOW that comments like these and others made by the Right were the cause of Mr. Sparkman's death.  We don't know that a Glenn Beck fan scrawled the word "FED" across the chest of Mr. Sparkman's body.   But anyone with any kind of a sense of morality would at least wonder.

We can however predict the response of Mr. Beck and his fellow harbingers of Socialistic Doom.   They will all sigh and explain how they are merely doing their jobs as "journalists".   They are innocent!  And much like Pontius Pilate, they will wash their hands of the whole affair and continue on in their eternal search for ratings gold.   Spreading hatred and fear through lies and exaggeration.   They will be oblivious to the consequences of their speech and they will ignore the blood on their hands.

I hope that late at night in the privacy of their home, they hear the ghost of Pontius Pilate whispering, "Remember Bill Sparkman."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"He was such an innocent person, I hate to say that he was naive, but he saw the world as all good, and there's a lot of bad in the world."

Gilbert Acciardo, retired Kentucky State Trooper & co-worker of  Bill Sparkman

A.Q. Khan Professes Innocence In Smuggled Letter


A tale of money, intrigue, & espionage from Sunday's London Times & Simon Henderson.


NYT Points Out the 'Frustrating Paradox' in Afghanistan


Here it is:

the more the administration wrestles publicly with how substantial and lasting a military commitment to make to Afghanistan, the more the ISI is likely to strengthen bonds to the Taliban as Pakistan hedges its bets.





Bachman and Beck have their first victim


Census worker becomes the first casualty of the extreme right!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/census-worker-hanged-with_n_297114.html


Did Zazi's Lawyer Sell Him Out to the FBI?


This story begins with two lawyers, one of the best and one of the worst, and we might as well begin the beginning with one of the best.

Jeralyn E. Merritt is a distinguished Colorado lawyer who created TalkLeft, a website devoted to discussing "the politics of crime." Ms. Merritt was one of the principal trial lawyers for Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City Bombing Case, and she has served as Secretary, Treasurer and member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as well as on the ABA Criminal Justice Section Council and the Board of Governors of the American Board of Criminal Lawyers. Nobody questions her outstanding integrity and professional competence.

She has closely followed the case of Najibullah Zazi, who is now charged with knowingly making false statments to the FBI in a matter involving terrorism, and these charges arise entirely from statements Mr. Zazi made during a series of free-wheeling interviews with the FBI, arranged by his attorney, Arthur Folsom.

Read more »

Running for US Senate from Iowa


Hi!
I'm Bob Krause.  I  announced my candidacy for the Democratic nomination against Charles Grassley in the 2010 election at the end of March 2009.  My web site is http://www.krauseforiowa.com, and I am also on Face Book and Twitter. 

If you feel that the health care debate has not been going the way you would like, please know that I have been a strong voice for the public option, and have been putting pressure on Senator Grassley.  If you want to get in touch with me, go to my web site and send me a note!!

Thanks!
Bob Krause

THE DESPERATE LEFT-TRUTHS FOR MATURE ADULTS


THE DESPERATE LEFT - TRUTHS FOR MATURE ADULTS

   It is to our amazement that the leftist liberal democrats in this nation continue to assault traditional values and America's Judeo-Christian foundation in order to attempt to achieve their long coveted agenda. They try to infuse every aspect of American living with a "gay flavor," from medical care to public education, as if promoting the homosexual agenda was a necessary ingredient of all societal activities and programs.

    Since when, that, catering to homosexual affiliation was necessary for "success" in America?  Hard work, earned merit, lawful achievement, and the right to prosper from one's own efforts and qualities, among other factors, contribute to the achievement of success.  But leftist demagogues proceeded to equate homosexuals and lesbians with "people of color" or "minorities," as if being born Black was the equivalent of choosing to engage in anal sex.  The liberal leftist democrats are on a bent to enlist radical homosexuals as "allies" due to their own perceived "disadvantaged status." 

    There is no such thing as a "disadvantaged" or "disenfranchised" homosexual requiring special legal protection apart from all other Americans.  It is a choice, like drinking liquor or injecting cocaine into one's veins.  The vagina is made for the penis, not the anus.  The anus is created for the excretion of human waste.

    The choice to engage in anal sex is not a ticket to social privileges or special status.  We need more public servants like Senator Jesse Helms who understood the dangers of catering to the homosexual lobby's abominable advocacy. "People of color" should rise in righteous indignation to protest this pretense of equivalency that only aims at reducing all people to the same lowest level or to the same depth of depravity at which homosexuals and lesbians are operating.

    Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was a respectable minister of Christian faith, who adhered to God-ordained commandments, anchored in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and could never have been found to equate the civil rights aspirations of Black Americans with the demagogical diatribes of homosexual advocates who are wallowing in the filthiness of anal sex.

    There is no equivalency between being born Black and deliberately choosing the homosexual lifestyle.  Sodomy is a choice, not a birth-based characteristic.  Sodomy is willful rebellion against Nature, God and society--it has no genetic basis.

    The natural, and also God-ordained genetic determinants of man-woman relationships are that the man has a penis and the woman has a vagina--two penises are a useless abomination leading to a dead-end; likewise, two vaginas are a fruitless abomination leading to a dead-end.

    Homosexuality means the death of every thing - religion, the nuclear family, and civilized society, and therefore, the destruction of all beneficent sentiments towards God, Family and Country. 

    The godless media networks fail to uncover the hidden costs of practicing anal sex, including short lifespan, physical violence, disease, illness, dishonor, lack of self-respect and self-esteem. 

    Homosexuals came out of the closet, so that they do not commit suicide in the closet.

They literally cannot live with themselves, knowing fully well they are committing a grievous sin against God and perpetrating an eternal wrong against all the living.

    They are engaged in "perpetual advocacy"--targeting even children in kindergarten--in their attempts to enlist "approval" or "validation" from the general public while aggressively attempting to transmogrify government into fascistic "keepers of sheep" who promise altering our systems of laws to accommodate that abominable advocacy.

    We would entreat homosexuals and lesbians to seek help from concerned organizations and individuals who would assist them in understanding the gravity of their abnormal behaviors and the destructiveness of their advocacy for the sake of their own wellbeing and health, and for the sake of America's children whose general welfare they could never fathom as homosexual "relations" always lead to dead-ends.

 

McCain hearts Qadhafi


The media goes nuts every time Obama shakes hands with or receives praise from a dictator. But they stared into space last month as John McCain gushed about Lybian dictator Moammar Qadhafi:

"Late evening with Col. Qadhafi at his "ranch" in Libya - interesting meeting with an interesting man."

What's with the double standard? I can't even begin to imagine the uproar if this had been Obama and not McCain

A PERFECT 60


Babe Ruth



George Herman (The Babe) Ruth, what a guy. The Sultan of Swat; in my mind the greatest baseball player who ever lived. Why?

Well, first the only performance enhancing drugs he ever used were beer, whiskey, cigars and cigarettes. So screw all those with over 714 home runs except for my hero Hank Aaron.      

And of course no one with The Babe's healthy regimen ever got 60 home runs in a season. So he trumps my hero Hank Aaron.

Over a period of 22 years, The Babe appeared in over 2500 games, stood at the plate almost 8400 times; had a total of almost 2900 hits, and of course hit 714 home runs. 

Hank Aaron batted 305 over his  lifetime. The Babe had him by almost 40 points.  There are other strange changes in calculating statistic for baseball such as the fact that in The Babe's day, when you walked, it hurt your average. It was put down as a walk and as an at bat.

But I am absolutely sure that the Babe was in fact the greatest ball player of all time. And that is because of what people choose not to recall.

What people forget is that the Babe started out as a pitcher.  And what a pitcher he was. Take a look at some of the stats.




Read more »

Boxer appears ready for 2010 re-election battle


It's official. Republican and ex-Hewlett-Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina, will try to oust Democrat and former long-time Marin resident, Sen. Barbara Boxer, from the seat she has occupied since 1992 without a serious challenge.

Fiorina has her work cut out for her. In 2004, Boxer collected nearly 7 million popular votes - still the record in California for a statewide contested election.

Boxer, a former Greenbrae resident and former Marin supervisor, served five terms in the House of Representatives before she won the senate seat. Her tussles with the Pentagon as a member of the House Armed Services Committee over runaway defense spending are legendary.

Boxer charts in at 4-foot-11, making her, along with Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, one of the senate's two shortest members. But her diminutive stature belies her formidable political skills.

A fierce competitive spirit and strong liberal convictions, from which she rarely wavers, have enabled her to build a loyal constituency that has befuddled every opponent the Republicans have thrown at her.

Her senior colleague from California, Dianne Feinstein, attracts a more moderate following and has parted with Boxer on some key issues. Feinstein often serves as a go-between with GOP members - a posture the take-no-prisoners Boxer tends to shun.

Despite some critical differences (Boxer voted against the Iraq invasion and Feinstein supported it), and while not close friends, both women have worked effectively together and have given California significant clout while carving out their separate political turfs.

Boxer has styled herself as an unabashed feminist willing to take on Washington's male establishment when she sees fit. Who can forget her storming the Senate Judiciary hearings in 1991 as she led a group of embattled House members into its chambers to protest the dismissive treatment of Anita Hill by the all-white, all-male committee after Hill had accused Supreme Court nominee and now justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment?

As chair of the powerful Environment and Public Works Committee, and now arguably the top environmentalist in the senate, Boxer has taken on the most challenging task of her career - guiding a controversial energy- reform bill to final passage.

Her handling of this measure, the centerpiece of the Obama Administration's anti-global warming initiatives, is already ruffling feathers among the climate-change skeptics and within large segments of the business community, which sees it as just another big-government giveaway that will raise taxes and kill jobs.

If the administration fails to get a version of health reform legislation through acceptable to the millions who voted for the president, it will embolden opponents to weaken the energy bill as well and even try to derail it completely. That's a prospect which Boxer has probably considered and one which Fiorina's minions would be sure to exploit.

Boxer, a 69-year-old former journalist and mother of two, moved to Oakland with husband, Stewart, a labor lawyer in 2006. Their son, Doug, also an attorney, is on the Oakland Planning Commission appointed by then-mayor, and all-but-certain gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Brown.

In each race since her first senate victory, which Boxer won by a razor-thin 4.9 percentage points, she has faced Republican men. She has shattered early projections that she is "unreelectable."

This time she could face a woman with millions of her own to spend.

But if Boxer is worried she is not yet showing it.

Snowe's trigger Lock, it can't be pulled


For anyone who things Senator Snowe's lock is a real trigger, I'm posting something I posted a couple days ago on a different site.

****************************************************************************

I just read that Senator Baucus is going back to the drawing board to increase the subsidies for premiums in his plan.  I then read the Snowe trigger and noticed that the numbers in the Baucus subsidies and the Snowe trigger are the same.  After reading it several times, it appears that the Snowe trigger could NEVER get pulled!

Am I reading this wrong?  What do you think?

1st lets look at the Baucus proposal to provide subsidies for premiums to individuals with lower and middle incomes.  I've bolded some key points.

"Beginning in 2013, tax credits would be available on a sliding scale basis for individuals and families between 134-300 percent of FPL to help offset the cost of private health insurance premiums. Beginning in 2014, the credits are also available to individuals and families between 100-133 percent of FPL. However, individuals subject to a five-year waiting period under Medicaid or CHIP are eligible for the tax credit beginning in 2013. The credits would be based on the percentage of income the cost of premiums represents, <strong>rising from three percent of income for those at 100 percent of poverty to 13 percent of income for those at 300 percent of poverty.</strong> Individuals between 300-400 percent of FPL would be eligible for a premium credit based on capping an individual's share of the premium at a flat 13 percent of income. For purposes of calculating household size, illegal immigrants will not be included in FPL. Liability for premiums would be capped at 13 percent of income for the purchase of a silver plan."

<a href="http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/17/4324475.html">Baucus subsidy</a>

Now the Snowe Amendment:

"This amendment establishes a non-profit government corporation through which a "safety net" plan would be provided in any state in which affordable coverage was not available in the Exchange to at least 95% of state residents. An individual would be deemed to have affordable access if either of two conditions is met. First, two or more plans are offered with premiums - the cost of which does not exceed a specified percentage of the individual's adjusted gross income (AGI), after deducting any available tax credit or employer subsidy from the cost of such premium. The percentage contribution shall range from 3 percent of AGI at 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, to 13 percent at 300 percent and above. ..."

So in order for the Snowe Amendment to trigger the public option, 5% of a states population has to not be able to afford private insurance premiums "after deducting any available tax credit".  But if the Baucus proposal provides a "tax credit" to everyone, at the same level that Snowe defines as affordable, how can anyone fall below the affordable level defined by Senator Snowe?

Maybe I'm reading this wrong.  Can someone explain how anyone could fall below the Snowe affordable criteria when the Baucus tax credit would make sure you're above it?



truther =/= birther


I'm surprised to see Josh giving credence to the birther/truther false equivalence.  Truthers, however misinformed or misguided, are not marching in the streets demanding a special prosecutor for Bush and Cheney.  Truthers are not advocating taking up arms against the government, or a vigilante court for Condoleeza Rice.  Believing 9/11 was intentionally allowed to happen by GWB is no crazier than believing the moon landing was filmed in Burbank, or that alien spacecraft landed in Roswell, or that Elvis is alive.  It's a little crazy, but it's 99% harmless, garden-variety, American crazy, with no socio-political ramifications. 

Birthers are declaring the President an illegal imposter and asking the rest of us, variously, to disown him, impeach him, investigate him, and ignore federal laws and agents.

Truthers, if they advocate for anything, want more information about the September 11th attacks.  Birthers want to subvert democracy.  There's no comparison.

Glenn Greenwald mocks new State Secrets rule


Slate (9-23-09): "The White House will announce a new policy today requiring career prosecutors and the attorney general to approve any requests to keep information hidden only if its release would significantly harm "national defense or foreign relations."

Glenn Greenwald (9-23-09): ""Checks and balances" in Washington: approvals from Executive branch officials are required for the Executive Branch to assert power."

Thank You Michele Bachmann


http://nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/23/us/politics/AP-US-Census-Worker-Hanged.html


I Hope Michele Bachmann is proud of herself. remember her spreading lies and fear about the Census. (Bachmann Warns Of Link Between Census, Japanese Internment | TPMDC)


Don't leave Glenn Beck and his anti government rants out of the picture.


Or the GOP leadership who have spent 30 years promoting fear of the government based upon lies ( i.e. addled ronnie rayguns "gov. is the problem") 


Now this cynical destructive political; strategy is leading to more and more deaths.


If Rush Limbaugh can claim that Obama led to a fight on a school bus incited by shoving the "victim" shoving the other students books onto the floor then we can safely lay this resurgence of "Strange Fruit" (Strange Fruit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) in the so called Bible Belt best known for murder ( 355 Lynchings between 1865 and 1940), bigotry, ignorance (Home of the Creation "Museum"), and home to at least 11 hate groups ( SPLC) plus several self styled "militias"  on the hate mongers that are the G.O.P. , Faux news and right wing bloviators.


In this rancid stew of ignorance and hate it should be of no surprise that the anti government paranoia has been ratcheted up to level of murdering Government workers in response to the delusions promoted by the G.O.P., Faux news and associated nutcases. (i.e. Beck, Limbaugh, OLielly)


One has to wonder if lynching of Government workers is one of the principles promoted in private discussions at the recent "Value Voters Summit" with subjects such as "THUGOCRACY - FIGHTING THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY" or maybe this was just  an expression of the "New Masculinity" promoted at that recent hatefest.


Either way the paranoia based upon lies feeding ignorance and appealing to bigotry is coming home to roost with the ambush of Police by people worried about the loss of weapons they were obviously to stupid to own, the murder of Doctors by nutcases with Operation Rescue phone numbers on their dashboard, and now Census workers.


Thank You Michele Bachmann. I'm sure you'll send flowers.



A Brilliant Idea on How To Lobby For Healthcare Reform


http://susiemadrak.com/2009/09/23/11/28/a-scathingly-brilliant-idea-on-how-to-lobby-for-healthcare-reform/

This idea is great. From http://susiemadrak.com/
"I want every uninsured man and woman who comes down with swine flu to go sit in the waiting rooms of their elected representatives.

That's it. Just sit there - coughing. Throwing your used Kleenex in their trash receptacles. If they want us to suffer, they should have to look at at the logical consequences of their inaction. Tell them you're going to keep coming back until they manage to pass something that's actually going to help people instead of lining the pockets of the insurance companies.

If the weather gets cold, set up a tent in the parking lot, put a sign on it that says "Waiting Room: Waiting for Affordable Health Care" and call your local media."

The only thing I would add to it is to add the offices of Health Care Insurance Companies and Lobbyist to the places to visit.

Just walk in and state that you are interested in Health insurance and drag the conversation on as long as possible. That should be easy just imagine that you are a rethuglican in the Senate Finance committee and channel the obstructionalist in yourself.
For the Lobbyist just start asking questions.

We are ALL 'sons of Africa'


Oops...well, about half of us, anyway.

Anyone with the least bit of education knows that much. Unless you still think the Earth is only 5000 years old, and Jesus rode dinosaurs.

Just a Little Something to Share


Warning!  This entry contains nothing about health care, global warming, Michael Savage, Chris Mathews (or any other talking head, for that matter).  It is barely political.  It's about a musical discovery...all good music is political, MHO.  So read or not:  it just something I wanted to share with a anyone who's interested.

I'm a Pandora addict, and I have been for several years now.  The music genome project seems to work, at least for me.  I have about a dozen stations seeded with this, that or the other artist who appeals to me--everything from Oscar Peterson to The Weavers to J. S. Bach.  The stations present music which shares attributes with the seeds, and often I'm introduced to performers I've not heard before.

I may have been about the last person around who hadn't heard of Ben Harper.  Pandora introduced me to his music and I became an instant fan; not of all his stuff--he's practically uncategorizable, but enough to go hunting for more.  Pandora plays what Pandora chooses to play, so to get my Ben Harper fix I went prowling to YouTube, where I found lots of stuff, including the song which hooked me in the first place, Picture of Jesus, which popped up on my Ladysmith Black Mambazo station. 

There were many versions, mostly mashups with soppy sentimental pictures of the kind which do not decorate my house.

And then there was this one;



I was simply blown away by the video--I've watched it over and over.  To me, the match is perfect, and my appreciation probably explains a lot about me, including why I favor open borders and human diversity.  I think I would rather know any one of the persons in this video than any CEO of any financial institution with a hyphenated name.  I would rather have them for neighbors.  So I wanted to introduce them to you along with Ben Harper's music, if you haven't heard it before. 

(I might say also that I would answer "I use music" to the question What do you Do to Curb the Anger?)

Perils are relative, y'know


            Passing another car on the highway ain't what it used to be.

For whatever reason, this random thought flashed through Marvin's mind as he tapped the cruise control up a notch or two from 73 to 75.  With fingertip commanding a sedate roar of defossilated power, he eased on past the guy in the right lane, both of them gliding along in the same direction, and Bono on the radio. A few seconds later, he's back in the right lane, like slicing butter.

"And I still haven't found. . . what I'm looking for. . ."

            It wasn't very far from here that he had regularly undertaken a similar maneuver in the '57 Chevy.  Maybe it was even the same spot. The old county road had run along this same route. But back in the day, passing another car on the two-lane was actually a matter of life and death, although you certainly didn't think of it that way; it was just the way automobiles interacted at that time, like ships passing in the night, or in the day.

            But if you do think about it--sixty miles an hour stoked up, for passing purposes,  to seventy or more, and the oncoming car whizzing at probably the same speed--that's a hundred and twenty mph of massive steel and chrome Newtonian force--barreling  down in space and time directly at each other. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure that if the aggressor (the passer) doesn't accurately judge spatial relationships and relative velocities and overtake the passee so as to get back in his lane at the appropriate moment, there could be hell to pay--like the big one, the  that's all she wrote moment and then silence except for, like, Damocles' radio antenna flopping, and no more signals conducting through the warp of black hole space from some distant infinity of the universe.

            I'm damned lucky to be alive, thought Marvin, although there had no doubt been a million and one close calls that he was never even aware of in the intervening fifty years. And to tell the truth, the supposed danger in such an unseemly perilous passing highway encounter didn't hold a candle to what he had lucked out of on D-day at Normandy thirteen years before he even had the Chevy.  Now that... was a bona fide miracle.

            Damn Nazis, what a hell of a mess they inflicted on us. Nevertheless, passing another vehicle these days on the freeway is much safer than what it once was, or so it seems. 

             

CIA Videotape Investigation - How's That Going?


Back on August 25, 2009, Attorney General Holder named John H. Durham to investigate alleged CIA interrogation abuses, including episodes that resulted in prisoner deaths.

Durham was selected in part because of his role as prosecutor in an ongoing investigation of the destruction of CIA videotapes in late 2005, expanding his mandate to cover additional agency conduct. Durham has appeared in Alexandria's federal courthouse about once a month to present evidence to a grand jury that is probing the incident. The tapes allegedly depicted brutal scenes of waterboarding involving high-value al-Qaeda suspects. That investigation was in its 19th month then.  Even at that point it some cast doubt on whether criminal charges would be filed.

He is now about to begin his 21st month in that investigation.  One has to wonder why it's taking so long to handle just one investigation.  Why is it taking nearly 2 years to resolve that case? 

Has anybody heard any news on this case?  I haven't.

Can you just imagine how soon we'll hear the results of the CIA interrogation abuses?  I'm sure most Americans will have forgotten those cases by that time - sadly.  At this rate, I'm pretty sure I won't be around when the results finally get released. 

Someday, this abuse will be used once again (if it's not already) I'm afraid, because American's turned the other cheek and ignored the Bush administration war crimes (and by doing so-- made them our own).

Honduras: Will the Brazilian Embassy be Breached


In an unexpected move, the coup has suspended the curfew in Honduras between 10am and 5pm.

Both Radio Globo and La Tribuna are reporting that the curfew will be lifted this morning at 10 am until 4 pm today. There has been no official announcement yet, but its widely expected.

A rumor spreading in Honduras is that the de facto government is lifting the curfew so that the pro-Micheletti group, the Unión Civica Democrática (UCD) can stage a pro-Micheletti protest this morning at 10 am.

UPDATE 7:56 AM PDT: Its official, the curfew is temporarily lifted 10 am to 5 pm. Supermarkets have announced they will open at 10 am, as will banks, gas stations, and pharmacies.

Adrienne Pine posted a comment from a journalist in the street in Honduras:

Wed, 09/23/2009 - 13:38 -- AP

Journalist Gilberto Ríos, on site, reports that members of the "blancos" march (so named for their white t-shirts) have been armed, and the de facto gov't is trying to use them to enter the Brazilian embassy. Of course, the other possibility is that they are merely military dressed as "blancos." Awaiting more information...

Interesting, if this is true.  Michelleti would claim that his gang wasn't responsible, and did not violate Brazilian sovereignty.  But would anyone believe him?

Brazil yesterday called for an emergency Security Council meeting at the UN, and I believe the request was granted.  We shall see...


Am Con Mag Interview - Who's Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?


Sibel Edmonds has been interviewed by former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi for The American Conservative magazine. Edmonds was twice gagged under the State Secrets Act by John Ashcroft, and called 'credible' by Sens. Patrick Leahy and Charles Grassley, as well as DOJ IG Glenn Fine. She alleges members of Congress, top Defense and State Dept officials, and RAND employees have colluded with Turkish, Israeli, Pakistani and Saudi agents. Crimes, many of which amount to treason, include espionage, blackmail, bribery, trading political favors, laundering money, trafficking in drugs, arms and nuclear secrets and weapons technology. Edmonds also says there were pre-9/11 discussions with Turkish officials on invading and dividing up Iraq, and that the CIA was aiding and abetting 'bin Ladens' and Mujahideen (now called Al Qaeda) right up to 9/11.

Who's Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

Sibel Edmonds has a story to tell. She went to work as a Turkish and Farsi translator for the FBI five days after 9/11. Part of her job was to translate and transcribe recordings of conversations between suspected Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts. She was fired from the FBI in April 2002 after she raised concerns that one of the translators in her section was a member of a Turkish organization that was under investigation for bribing senior government officials and members of Congress, drug trafficking, illegal weapons sales, money laundering, and nuclear proliferation. She appealed her termination, but was more alarmed that no effort was being made to address the corruption that she had been monitoring.

A Department of Justice inspector general's report called Edmonds's allegations "credible," "serious," and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI." Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee members Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have backed her publicly. "60 Minutes" launched an investigation of her claims and found them believable. No one has ever disproved any of Edmonds's revelations, which she says can be verified by FBI investigative files.

John Ashcroft's Justice Department confirmed Edmonds's veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. The ACLU has called her "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America."

But on Aug. 8, she was finally able to testify under oath in a court case filed in Ohio and agreed to an interview with The American Conservative based on that testimony. What follows is her own account of what some consider the most incredible tale of corruption and influence peddling in recent times. As Sibel herself puts it, "If this were written up as a novel, no one would believe it."

Other people's homework: healthcare and women


Using a simple search phrase:

disparity in health care for women

at that thing called Google

Read more »

How does health care work? ("Bump" of previous post & discussion)


I don't know if this is cricket (although it used to be done) but I'm going link to a previous post and thread I found very interesting.  It's now gone off the main page and thanks to some spammers, off the first page of "All Reader Posts" as well.  

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wwstaebler/2009/09/gender-discrimination-in-healt.php

It was a great post on gender discrimination in health care by wwstaebler that evolved into a more general discussion about how private health insurance works.   Thought those who missed it might want to see - and possibly continue - the discussion. Some good links there also. 

I was particularly fascinated to learn what vast differences there are in the cost (and possibly quality) of health coverage that various ones of us are paying for right now, from the individually-purchased plan to the huge employer plans.  Really shocking - and (to me) absolutely impossible to justify!!  (Tell me, would you rather pay $932 a month or $30 a month????? and, I'm willing to bet, get better, more hassle-free coverage for $30 a month?)

One Small Step for Civil Liberties


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department is poised to announce a new policy on using claims of state secrecy to block the release of information about controversial counterterrorism strategies such as rendition and warrantless wiretapping...

Under the new approach, an agency trying to hide such information would have to convince Attorney General Eric Holder and a panel of Justice Department lawyers that its release would compromise national security.

Such claims of state secrecy previously have required a lower standard of proof that the information was dangerous, as well as the approval of fewer officials...

Although I don't agree with who gets to decide whether the release of information would compromise national security, I do think this is a step in the right direction.  Requiring more 'proof 'has been needed for the past 8 years.

There should be a special commission however, perhaps previous Senators and Representatives or perhaps previous Attorney Generals, appointed for a specified amount of time, that are not currently in office, nor running for one, thereby not subject to political campaign pressures would be a better group to look at this information and decide whether it should be kept secret or not.

A Better Public Option


Let's call their bluff.

There's a lot of willful confusion over a Public Option, painting it as a public takeover of American healthcare.  Kyl, e.g.: "A stunning assault on liberty."

It seems that the fallback position is a trigger, which is commonly acknowledged among the left to be a fig leaf for capitulation.  It bounces the idea down the road to a point where we're more likely to fail in getting it passed.  The trigger can be overridden with ease and is therefore not much of a trigger at all.

Governors are complaining loudly that their states would not benefit.  So why not give them what they want -- let states opt out?

States could set up their own devices -- triggers, co-ops, whatever.  The reason we need to have universal buy-in is to avoid the adverse selection problem.  Let's say 40 (or even 30) states do not choose to opt out -- this would still be an adequate size to largely solve that problem.

Sure, we'd have marginally higher premiums due to states with particularly high heart disease rates remaining under the plan and some of the healthiest states opting out.  But this difference pales in comparison to the adverse selection problem of only covering those who statistically require the most care (e.g., 50-year-old heart patients who buy versus healthy 18-year-olds who don't).

Let them opt out.  Give them the "liberty" of our current health system.  The harm to the Public Option would be relatively light; their choice would show quite vividly the difference between states with a strong public option and those without.  When offered the actual choice, rather than the rhetorical farce, many teabaggers might choose the very thing they screamed against.

It would accomplish the goal of providing decent health insurance while making the right actually deal with the consequences of their rhetoric, which would be all kinds of fun.  So why wouldn't this work?

Whistles and firebells in the night...


Those immune to dogmatic allergies owe themselves a traipse over to The American Conservative magazine, and it's cover interview of whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, by former CIA case officer Philip Giraldi. Edmonds has spent the last several years muzzled by various cabinet regimes, and has some real dirt on folks real dirty:

John Ashcroft's Justice Department confirmed Edmonds's veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. The ACLU has called her "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America."

Read more »