]]>
]]>
2) The gerrymandering of political districts means politicians of each party can now choose their own voters and never have to appeal to the center.
3) The cable TV culture encourages shouting and segregating people into their own political echo chambers.
4) A permanent presidential campaign leaves little time for governing.
5) The Internet, which, at its best, provides a check on elites and establishments and opens the way for new voices and, which, at its worst provides a home for every extreme view and spawns digital lynch mobs from across the political spectrum that attack anyone who departs from their specific orthodoxy.
6) A U.S. business community that has become so globalized that it only comes to Washington to lobby for its own narrow interests; it rarely speaks out anymore in defense of national issues like health care, education and open markets.
These six factors are pushing our system, which was designed to have divided powers and to force compromises, into the realm of paralysis. To get anything big done now, we have to generate so many compromises -- couched in 1,000-plus-page bills -- with so many different interest groups that the solutions are totally suboptimal. We just get the sum of all interest groups.
He goes on to make some suggestions:
So what do we do?
The standard answer is that we need better leaders. The real answer is that we need better citizens. We need citizens who will convey to their leaders that they are ready to sacrifice, even pay, yes, higher taxes, and will not punish politicians who ask them to do the hard things. Otherwise, folks, we're in trouble. A great power that can only produce suboptimal responses to its biggest challenges will, in time, fade from being a great power -- no matter how much imagination it generates.
A friend/family member wants your opinon....
He/She has $100.00 to donate to either:
a.) a candidate's campaign for political office or
b.) the political party he/she supports or
c.) to the local foodbank or
d.) OR purchase a warm coat and mittens for a needy child.
What would be your advice and why? (And yes, these are your only options!)
I discovered the most informative time line regarding the history of tobacco litigation in this country. http://www.tobacco.org/resources/history/Tobacco_History20-2.html
In 1951 studies began to come to the fore demonstrating that smoking may be hazardous to your health. After a couple years following publication of these epiphanies, the tobacco companies got together and attempted to stem the tide, so to speak.
]]> At the time this was all taking place 3-5 % of humanity smoked. Tobacco was king again with increasing tobacco use the rule of the day. An awful lot of money was involved.We, that is most of today's senior citizens, recall physicians appearing on our black & whites declared their favorite brand of smokes to millions of viewers.· 53-12-15: BUSINESS: Tobacco Execs Plan Counterattack on Smoking Studies. Plaza Hotel, New York City: Tobacco executives meet to find a way to deal with recent scientific data pointing to the health hazards of cigarettes. Participants included John Hill of Hill & Knowlton, his key aides, and the following tobacco company presidents: Paul D. Hahn (ATC), O. Parker McComas (PM), Joseph F. Cullman (B&H), J. Whitney Peterson, U.S. Tobacco Co. Here's the text of BACKGROUND MATERIAL ON THE CIGARETTE INDUSTRY CLIENT, the H&K memo covering the meeting, and here's the document in .pdf format, Minnesota Trial Exhibit 18905
· 1953-12-28: BUSINESS: Hill meets again with tobacco execs to report on his initial study of the smoking and health problem.
In the 1950's, a series of cases came down that appeared to solve big tobacco's problem. Decisions were based upon a number of factors but in my mind there was one serious bar that made it difficult for a plaintiff who was harmed by tobacco use to succeed against big tobacco. This defense was based upon an old tenet in the law called contributory negligence. In those days, if the victim was deemed to be even ten percent responsible for his own injuries, he was SOL.
Just to give you an idea how bad this contributory negligence rule was, insurance companies would spend millions in trial just to get a jury to find that the victim in a car accident caused by a drunk was in the least bit negligent prior to the collision. Comparative negligence replaced this old defense over time.
Thirty years or so later, attorneys began bringing cases against the tobacco companies and hired experts to testify as to the many perils of smoking cigarettes. Tobacco companies hired their own experts. After all, the capitalists had a lot of money to spend and there never, ever is a problem finding some expert to buttress your position on some issue. No matter how ridiculous that position might seem to the consensus of experts in the field.
I came across on site where even in this day and age, you can hire your own expert for tobacco litigation. http://www.intota.com/expert-consultant.asp?bioID=777460&perID=727023
Expert is board certified in Toxicology by the American Board of Toxicology, the Academy of Toxicological Sciences and is a recognized expert in toxicology in France and the European Community. He is also certified in regulatory affairs and sits on Editorial Boards of major Toxicology publications and has over one hundred peer reviewed publications. He has a Masters of Science from Northeastern University and a PhD from Rutgers University. His expertise includes over 40 years of experience as a research chemist and/or a consulting toxicologist for numerous prestigious institutions and laboratories in the nation. http://www.intota.com/expert-consultant.asp?bioID=777460&perID=727023
There are hundreds of experts to choose from. And I do not
wish to just pick one expert for ridicule, but you will notice this one does
not care which side you are on. He will testify for either side. Neat huh?
Well global warming has its own host of experts. And take one company like Exxon; it mean money would be no object. And there is really a market out there. You know what I mean?
One of my favorite hypocrites of all time, Senator Inhofe, loves to pontificate about the myth of global warming. When nothing is happening on the Senate Floor (and these lapses in the normal Senate agenda are becoming more and more rare with the Dems in control) CSPAN will show this ratfuck preaching over and over again about the perils of liberal thinking. He is such a picture of courtesy:
INHOFE TELLS BOXER TO GET OVER IT:
Sen. James Inhofe has won the battle against global warming -- or so he thinks.
"I proudly declare 2009 as the 'Year of the Skeptic,' the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard,'' the Oklahoma Republican said in a long speech Tuesday during a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works meeting.
"Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked.'' "Today, I have been vindicated," he said.
The reason for Inhofe's glee? Not any scientific shift, merely the news that a binding international agreement on climate change will likely be put off until 2010. President Obama has been hobbled by Congress in his attempts to lead the way for the global pact. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/20/inhofe-to-boxer-we-won-yo_n_365465.html
Where do Imhofe and his minions and constituents get their fuel? Why from experts.
Andrew C. Revkin at the NYT reported a lapse in expert management by polluters last week:
Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change
The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments -- in some cases derisive -- about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.
In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical "trick" in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as "idiots."
The cache of e-mail messages also includes references to journalists, including this reporter, and queries from journalists related to articles they were reporting.
Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach. They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&hp
Now if a poor 20 year old girl rents out her body from time to time to help support her drug habit or even her children or even to beat the high cost of tuition, she is labeled a whore. Surely we can come up with a better term to label experts who sell their honor and their souls for Exxon monies.
This gets trickier, the selling of souls in this day and age. I mean a doctor who took money from Lucky Strike could not be prosecuted for appearing on TV and reading from a script. It was not like they were under oath or signing formal papers directed to governmental officials.
But what if studies are prepared and sent to governmental agencies? What
happens if the expert appears in court or a congressional hearing and a few
emails appear that might indicate larceny in the heart of the witness?
Study after study shows that juries put a great deal of faith in the testimony of expert witnesses. A good expert witness can often swing a verdict one way or another. But what happens when the expert lies? What happens when the expert thinks his job is to support the case theory espoused by the side that employs him, regardless of the results of the tests conducted?
Fred Zain was a West Virginia State Police forensics expert who testified in hundreds of criminal cases. He presented himself well. He appeared to know his subject so well that judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys didn't question the laboratory results Zain said he obtained. Juries believed him. They convicted the defendants when Zain testified that his laboratory conjuring showed they were guilty, even when other evidence conflicted with his testimony, and especially when no other incriminating evidence existed. Fred Zain became something of a forensics "star," sought after by prosecutors who wanted to win convictions in difficult cases. His stature in West Virginia led to a better job offer, chief of physical evidence for the medical examiner in Bexar County, Texas, and he did for Texas what he had done for West Virginia. He lied.
From all appearances, Fred Zain didn't set out to repeatedly, almost routinely, commit perjury, and thereby send innocent people to prison for crimes they didn't commit. In his own defense, Zain has pointed to inadequate facilities, conflicting duties and an overwhelming caseload. All those factors were present. What Zain doesn't mention is the fact that he was never qualified to be doing forensic lab work in the first place. His college transcripts reveal that Zain was a mediocre scholar who had failed organic chemistry. Apparently no one reviewed Zain's transcripts before putting him on the job, or before qualifying him as an expert witness. No one looked at his transcripts until the house of cards he had built came tumbling down.
Fred Zain is the victim of his own success. Over the years, Zain rose to the position of Chief of Serology at the West Virginia Department of Public Safety (crime laboratory). What he couldn't establish in the laboratory was arrived at through a unique form of logic called "backwards reasoning." If the defendant is guilty, it is likely that ... is the predicate for such reasoning. It presumes the defendant's guilt, and bases its findings on that presumption. But when you add to that presumptive base inadequate facilities, conflicting duties, an overwhelming caseload, and put them in the hands of an unqualified "expert," you have the prescription for disaster.
The disaster came in the form of Glen Woodall, convicted in 1987 of multiple felonies, including two counts of sexual assault, and sentenced to a prison term of 203 to 335 years. At Woodall's trial, Zain testified that, based upon his scientific analysis of semen recovered from the victims, "[t]he assailant's blood types ... were identical to Mr. Woodall's." Woodall's conviction was affirmed on appeal, but DNA testing done in a subsequent habeas corpus proceeding established that Woodall could not have been the perpetrator. His conviction was overturned in 1992 and Woodall was freed. Woodall sued the State of West Virginia for false imprisonment, and received $1 million in settlement. This ultimately led to an extraordinary investigation of the entire body of Zain's work ordered by the West Virginia Supreme Court. The report concluded that the actual guilt of 134 people was substantively in doubt because the convictions were based on inculpatory reports and/or testimony by Zain. Nine men have been freed because the remaining evidence offered against them was insufficient for conviction ~ the expert testimony of Fred Zain alone had put them in prison. [Click HERE to read the investigative report and its recommendations.] http://truthinjustice.org/expertslie.htm
Sometimes truth wins out, even in the case of experts. Really, when you get down to it, Yoo and Bybee are being attacked for lying in their 'expert' testimony. This is really a tough nut to crack.
Folks, money will always win out. In the end, I mean. Not much we can do
about it except to pass around the hat and make sure that the side of truth,
justice and the American Way
have war chests to purchase their own experts.
In the meantime, smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbKQklwNScA
The place that was the TPM Cafe site
Where we could meet both day and night
A place for all to gather
Before it was so full of spam ads and noxious blather
We came together to laugh and vent
A haven for us all to connect
Politics, personal musings and even music was here
Always, we all knew a friend was near
But now it seems the Cafe's proprietors no longer care
If we converge here or elsewhere
When it was but a small, unknown cafe
They wanted us to stay
Now it appears we no longer matter
Where shall we go now to chatter?
Oh Josh, will you miss us when we are gone?
Or will you just be glad when this site is done?
It won't matter whether we go left or right
But doubt we will go quietly into the night!
Last week the Consortium News posted a blog here at the Cafe; it got no attention, possibly because many readers dislike cross-posts. I found it really interesting.
Grit TV's Laura Flanders interviewed John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and Hoodwinked!) and Russ Baker, journalist and contributor to The Nation, Vanity A recent Café Blog by the Consortium News garnered no recommends or comments. Fair, the Washington Post, New York Times, Village Voice, The New Yorker, and Esquire. He is the founder of WhoWhatWhenWhy.com, and author of Family Secrets, about the Bush Dynasty.
They discuss, among other subjects, the limitations to Presidents by the military, the CIA, FBI, and corporatocracy, global financial interests: resources, arms, and oil. I've spent some time tracking down corroborating articles and books as well as documentary evidence obtained by the National Archives as the result of their lawsuit against the CIA for documents in 1999, as well as Top Secret documents accidentally discovered in unlikely places.
]]> There is general discomfort in this country that unseen players exert enormous influence over our lives, national policy, war, elections, and finance. As I listened to Perkins and Baker, I was reminded of various historical revisions to generally accepted modern historical accounts that most Americans have come to accept. In economic pressures, they don't claim "conspiracy;" they point out that the Players don't agree to agendas, they just happen to agree on agendas. It is the Military/CIA shadow agendas that most intrigue and worry me.Baker named the modern Presidents who worked relatively well with the Pentagon and CIA: Johnson, both Bushes, and Reagan, all of whom embraces covert ops and expanded wars; Clinton, he said, avoided confrontation, and focused mainly on domestic issues.
FDR experienced a failed coup in 1933 led largely the by DuPont and Morgan banking inner circles; it was stymied by General Smedley Butler, whom they invited to lead the effort. Instead, Butler blew the whistle on the plot, and testified about it to the McCormack-Dickstein Committee, which later became the House Un-American Activities Committee. The Committee failed to call to the stand any of the plotters except Gerald MacGuire, who had tried to recruit Butler, and the committee's final report was an utter whitewash. But Butler's testimony was vindicated in 1967 by journalist John Spivak, who unearthed the committee's internal reports, and wrote about them.
Truman faced military insubordination, and when Eisenhower left office his final words warned of the danger of the Military Industrial Complex. Eugene Jarecki's fine film, Why We Fight, explores our wars by way of Ike's warning as a springboard theory.
Russ Baker writes of Nixon's skirmishes with the Pentagon and CIA on several fronts, and while researching for Family Secrets, found many ties to Nixon and George H.W. Bush that are not recorded elsewhere. It is Baker's belief that Poppy Bush helped bring down Nixon during Watergate, and that Nixon was well aware that there were moles and direct bugs in the White House funneling conversations to the Pentagon and CIA. They apparently did not like Nixon negotiating an end to the Viet Nam war on his own.
In the 1950s, the late Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, a high-ranking Pentagon official, was assigned by CIA Director Allen Dulles to help place Dulles's officers under military cover throughout the federal government. As a result, Dulles not only knew what was happening before the president did, but had essentially infiltrated every corner of the president's domain. One Nixon-era Republican Party official told me that in the early 1970s, there were intelligence officers everywhere, including the White House. Nixon was unaware of the true background of many of his trusted aides, particularly those who helped drive him from office. Remember Alexander Butterfield, the so-called "military liaison," who told Congress about the White House taping system? Years later, Butterfield admitted to CIA connections.
In December 1971, Nixon learned of a military spy ring, the so-called Moorer-Radford operation, that was piping White House documents back to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Chiefs were wary of secret negotiations the president and Henry Kissinger were conducting with America's enemies, including North Vietnam, China and the USSR, and decided to keep tabs on this intrusion upon their domain. Jimmy Carter came into office as revelations of CIA abuses made headlines. He tried to dismantle the agency's dirty tricks office, but wound up instead a victim of it -- and a one-term president.
JFK was surrounded by Generals and CIA who hated him; he was often at war with CIA head Allen Dulles, and he finally fired him after the Bay of Pigs debacle and the attempts on Castro's life.
But the most relevant story is the recently uncovered documentation about Jimmy Carter, Ronal Reagan, and the October Surprise.
Still furious with Britain and America for meddling in Iranian affairs in order to secure rights to Iranian oil, and the CIA overthrow of popular Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1979 student demonstrators stormed the American Embassy and took hostage 52 Americans. Carter hoped to have them freed in October 1980, before the Presidential election. He and Reagan were in a fierce battle. Unbeknown to him, Reagan had loyalists (the October Surprise Group) within the CIA, through Reagan's choice for V.P. George H.W. Bush and the Pentagon. They wanted Carter OUT; Carter, still angry with the CIA and the Shah of Iran episode, fired many of their ranks in the Middle East, and tried to reign in their power.)
As a result of the focused OS intelligence effort, Reagan had informants at the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Council and in the White House Situation Room. This intelligence apparatus enabled Reagan to receive the "Top Secret - Eyes Only" documents regarding President Carter's negotiations with Iran. When Reagan was asked how these Top Secret documents were found in his personal campaign file he answered "he didn't know how they got there." Reagan's intelligence apparatus also explains why former Congressman David Stockman was able to boast on October 28, 1980 that he used a stolen copy of Carter's briefing book to coach Reagan for a televised debate. The most important "Eyes Only" document Reagan's network provided was on October 15, 1980, when classified information revealed Carter was about to have the hostages released. Reagan obtained this information from campaign strategist Richard Allen, future Reagan National Security Advisor. Allen said he obtained the information from reporter John Wallach, who obtained his information from Secretary of State Edmund Muskie.
The group moved swiftly to make sure the hostages were not released, holding meetings with Iranians, and promising a wealth of arms to reward them.
From teachpeace.com:
Robert Parry's book Secrecy and Privilege was published in 2004. Parry's interview with Ari Ben-Menashe (Israeli military intelligence officer 1977-1987) for PBS Frontline and subsequently in testimony to Congress revealed that the now Secretary of Defense Gates was a key October Surprise operative. Ben-Menashe also revealed he and Gates attended a 1986 meeting with a Chilean arms manufacturer (Cardoen) who was supplying chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. Ben-Menashe's book, Profits of War, describes the Paris Ritz Hotel meeting that followed the October 15th Carter administration leak. At that meeting Gates, McFarlane, [William] Casey, and George H. W. Bush met with Iranian cleric Karrubi. French investigative reporter Claude Angeli confirmed the French secret service provided "cover" for this meeting between the Republicans and Iranians on the weekend of October 18-19. This meeting, by delaying the hostage release, effectively determined that Ronald Reagan would become the president of the United States.
The fact that Reagan insiders had arranged for Iran to keep the hostages an additional 76 days served to successfully shape the Iran Contra scandal investigations with the false perception that US weapons were shipped to Iran starting in 1985. Reagan initiated Iranian weapon shipments actually started in 1981. During the Iran Contra investigations, to explore Reagan's pre-1985 conduct would have revealed to the American people that acts of treason successfully enabled Reagan to seize power.
In 1993 a House Task Force on the October Surprise concluded that there was no "credible evidence" over allegations of Republican sabotage if the Iranian hostage release. The Commission (of which I had never even heard) Head Lee Hamilton (of the white-washed 9/11 Commission) was accepted by the media, thus written in stone. Subsequently, leaks from foreign leaders began surfacing that disputed the Commission's findings. Robert Parry began a search for documentary evidence, and requested them from the House International Relations Committee; they agreed, and pointed to their location in the basement of the Rayburn Office Building. In a remodeled Ladies Room, he found dusty boxes of related papers "under a broken tampon dispenser." They corroborated international reports of the Republican filthy tricks, and made a lie of the Commission's findings. Included were Secret and Top Secret reports, which he concludes were accidentally hastily boxed up at the end of the investigation.
That now Secretary of Defense Bob Gates was a key conspirator in the October Surprise treason is chilling. If President Obama is treading carefully as Russ Baker claims, it may be a small wonder:
Obama seems to understand his narrow range of movement, and to be carefully picking his fights. He retained many of Bush's top military brass, and even Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who himself had served as a CIA director for Bush's father. He has trod very carefully with the spy agency and has declined to aggressively investigate Bush administration wrongdoing on torture and wiretapping. Obama's campaign rhetoric about disengaging from Iraq seems a long time ago, and the war in Afghanistan is taking on the hues of permanency.
The old boys' network is very much in place, and it is hard at work to force Obama's hand, a la Vietnam. Witness the leaking of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's supposedly "confidential report" calling for escalation in Afghanistan. The leak was, not surprisingly, to the reliable Bob Woodward. The reporter was himself in Naval Intelligence shortly before he went to work at the Washington Post, where he soon built a career around leaks from the military and spy establishment.* The White House was furious at the McChrystal release. But what could it do? Presidents come and go, and the security folks have ways to hasten the latter.
* It makes you wonder if Mark Felt really were Deepthroat, doesn't it? And remember Bob Woodward's full access to Bush for his biography?
I have imagine what forces and plots have been at work on this President, and will he be a willing or unwilling participant in them, or buck them as several others have attempted.
]]>
Thanks, Grouch.
There was a historic vote this weekend, and I for one am fed up with the lack of coverage by our so-called news stations. Do they not have an obligation to the public? When do you plan on enforcing those obligations?
The lot of them deserve to lose their licenses unless they commit to keeping us informed. I find out more about important matters by listening to the BBC, and that is UNACCEPTABLE.
It is YOUR responsibility to see that the best interests of the public are served. Get busy and get to it. Did you miss that people think a comedian does a better job of informing the American people than the so-called News Stations? Didn't that set off a few red flags?
Fines would be a good start. If they don't start acting responsibly, yank their licenses. There are plenty of small local operators that will take their responsibility seriously. Maybe it's time to put these corporations out of business, their model doesn't work, and they are letting us all down.
Thank you.
Seconds after the vote, the dead began rising from their graves and started walking amongst the living, meeting at Capitol Hill for an impromptu protest. When interviewed, the Zombies said they believed health care reform would lead to a New World Order, create "Death Panels," and force both men and women to have abortions.
"Braaaiiinnnsss," said one Zombie.
"We know that Americans oppose this bill," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, referring to a Washington Post-Los Angeles Times poll which found Americans split on the bill, and a CBS News Poll that found that Americans overwhelmingly support a health care reform bill with a public option. "We think the Zombies prove it."
Despite their grandiose reputation as unstoppable brain-eaters, however, the Zombies seemed confused, stalking in circles and fighting amongst each other. Many of the Zombies held signs demanding that President Barack Obama release his real birth certificate, while others seemed more interesting in a first-strike nuclear assault on Iran. The vast majority of the Zombies apparently showed up for the reported Free Brain Buffet and round-trip transportation, and seemed to have no non-brain opinions.
Lobbyist Dick Armey, whose non-profit FreedomWorks organization sponsored the Zombie rally, said that it was yet more proof that Americans - both dead and alive - want less government control in their lives and don't want to pay any taxes whatsoever for any reason outside of war.
"Braaaiiinnss," said Armey.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that - while the Zombies were clearly an annoyance - he didn't anticipate that they would be able to stop the push for health care reform.
"We've been dealing with zombies for a while, we're sort of immune to them by now," said Reid. "Ironically, the vast majority of these Zombies would benefit from true health care reform."
-WKW
]]>Starting in the "Just Say NO" division, Tea Party candidate for Orlando City Council, Ezell Harris gets the nod for LOSER by campaigning on a platform that calls for stricter oversight of prescription drugs. Said Harris when he announced his candidacy at a Tea Party Rally earlier this year, "Prescription drugs have replaced cocaine and other illicit substances as the leading cause of drug abuse deaths in Florida, a new study says. Despite this, the state has no prescription drug monitoring program". Mr. Harris was arrested this week for trafficking in hydrocodone, dispensing illegal drugs without a license, unlawful use of a two-way radio, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Anyone want to bet he got an endorsement from Rush Limbaugh?
And since we're talking Florida Tea Parties, let's also nominate the Florida chapter of ACT NOW to STOP WAR AND END RACISM (ANSWER). During a Ft. Lauderdale Tea Party, two members of the Tea Party walked through the counter protest being held by ANSWER. They started a verbal argument with ANSWER members, one of whom hit a 62 year old Tea Partier over the head with his sign. It then degenerated into a street brawl! Now some would say that these two got what they deserve for walking through a counter protest, but the fact remains that before you "STOP WAR" you should first learn NOT to hit old men over the head in the street no matter how obnoxious they seem to be.
Former Vice-President Dick Cheney makes the LOSER list for saying that President Obama was showing "weakness" by bowing to the Japanese Emperor during his recent trip to Asia. Mr. Cheney needs to understand that you can't call out a seated president as weak for bowing when your former boss has been photographed kissing a Saudi King on the mouth and walking hand-in-hand with him on the Crawford ranch afterward.
Almost-Vice-President Sarah Palin started her book tour this week. It brought out the LOSER in a lot of people. We start with MSNBC News host, Dylan Ratigan, who showed photo-shopped images of the former governor without telling viewers that they were photo-shopped. (Bad enough to show them at all on a news show, but to let people think they're real? LOSER!) Then there was Newsweek Magazine which did a serious story on Palin but put a picture originally taken for Runners World of Palin in VERY short running shorts and pig tails on the cover. (Will next week's cover feature a shot of Levi Johnston taken for his recent Playgirl shoot?) But the biggest media LOSER in covering the Palin book tour was FOX NEWS. They not only showed video footage of McCain/Palin rallies from earlier this year and tried to pass them off as the book tour, but they also showed the book, GOING ROUGE (a collection of essays critical of Palin that came out on the same day as her book, GOING ROGUE) twice while talking about her ghost-written best seller. (Somebody needs to learn to read at Fox!)
And Palin herself gets named LOSER for her treatment of fans during a book signing stop in Nobelsville, Indiana. Hundreds of people waited for hours in lousy weather after purchasing a copy of her book from Borders Books. Each was told that as long as they had the book, the receipt for the book and a wristband given them when they bought the book, that Ms. Palin would personally autograph the book for them. Instead, she stopped signing halfway through and gave the other half of the crowd a pre-printed autograph sticker that could be affixed to the inside cover of their book. The crowd was NOT happy! Palin issued a statement later that said "It had been brought to her attention" that these people didn't get their promised autograph. Considering how vocal the crowd was, if it had to be "brought to her attention", she needs to get a hearing aid! So who was the biggest LOSER? Always eager to quit, Sarah Palin? Or the crowd that paid full price for a book that's already 30% off in most stores?
The Obama administration makes the LOSER list for their website, recovery.org. Designed to track job gains and stimulus spending by state, it was discovered by ABC News that some of the districts listed DIDN'T exist! The administration explained that the errors were caused by the individual districts reporting the information incorrectly and I find that believable, but the fact remains...if it's your website, you're responsible for its accuracy! Perhaps the administration could put a few more people to work by fact checking their own information.
ACORN related LOSERS include Tea Party candidate from NY-23, Doug Hoffman who is threatening to challenge the results because "ACORN workers stole the election". Now ACORN had NO workers on the ground in NY-23 and even local Republican officials laugh at Hoffman's claims of "vote tampering".
And right wing activist and would-be "pimp" James O'Keefe finally released the tape of his visit to LA's ACORN office. Previously his partner had insisted that NO ACORN office had refused to help her & O'Keefe obtain a house to run a prostitution ring from. Now we have a tape from LA proving that to be a lie and we know that at least two other offices called the police after they had left. It seems strange that FOX News hasn't spent much time covering this considering their 24/7 coverage of the initial story. (And we still wonder if the ACORN workers were helping them because they wanted the "business" as O'Keefe alleges or because they thought it was a big joke? And if you've seen the video of O'Keefe dressed as a pimp, you will understand why that is a question. O'Keefe looked like a college student dressed for a frat Halloween party who had watched too many SuperFly films!)
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) gets recognition for his about face on a proposed amendment that would require an audit of the Federal Reserve Bank. First he was for it and then he was against it! It seems strange in this supposed era of "transparency in government" that Congressman Frank would oppose such a move.
And also in the category of "about faced LOSERS", we have Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) who voted last month in support of a bill that would allow Obama to move the Guantanamo Bay detainees to the US and now that Thomson, Illinois is one of the proposed sites to move them to...he's against it! "Not-In-My-Backyard" Kirk makes the LOSER list.
]]>That it is nothing new is evident in an article in the WSJ in December of last year:
Americans will not put up with such limits, nor will our elected representatives. Mr. Daschle himself proves this. He punts the hard decisions about rationing to an unelected board. Yet his main proposals are not only about expanding subsidized programs to cover more people but about adding the massively expensive benefit categories of mental health, which has a strong lobby behind it, and long-term care, which is important to the broad middle class. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123060332638041525.html
The article was attacking Senator Daschle who was spear heading the health care reform front for the incoming White House crew. I found this new take on the same crap in a conservative blog today:
For those who are hoping that Congress will deliver health care reform that includes a government run option, be careful what you wish for.
Despite the constant drum beat from Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Democrats who declare that a government run health care option would not result in a rationing of services, this notion simply seems to defy logic.
Why would anyone believe that it is possible to provide quality health care coverage to an additional 31 million people, without an increase to the number of doctors and while decreasing the cost of health care? The most logical conclusion that can be reached is that the government must begin to ration services, and the quality of our health care will be impacted in a very negative way.
In fact, this is exactly what has happened in other countries that have already been down this road. Rationing of health care has been well documented in Great Britain and in Canada. long waits to receive vaccinations and some have even been turned away.
As the Chicago Tribune put it a couple months ago:
Left unsaid by those who raise
fears of rationing by any "government-run" or government-related
health care is how much rationing the insurance industry does now.
For decades, experts writing in The New England Journal of Medicine and
elsewhere have concluded that we do "ration" health care. We just do
it through gross disparities in race, sex, age, regions, income and education. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/aug/09/health/chi-oped0809pageaug09
You can google and discover stories of individuals denied proper medical care after they had paid premiums for health insurance coverage individually or through their employer. http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
You can find hundreds upon hundreds of links. Or you can read blogs right here at TPM.
The death panels have been operating in this country forever. Haley Barber or some other repub asshole opined recently that if Congress wanted to get rid of pre-existing condition clauses in insurance contracts the bill would pass 400 to 35 in the House with a similar percentage voting for the provision in the Senate.
This is a goddamn lie and it enrages me because the repubs would have done it nine years ago. It is a statement made that is false and that the speaker knows is false as he makes the statement and it is done with one purpose in mind: Derail the health care package and help insurance companies make more money than ever.
There have been times in our country when we came close to egalitarianism. But the possibility of a true democratic republic embodying the promises contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution never came as close to becoming a reality as it did during World War II.
It was a time when the American People were looking for fairness.
With the Masters of War making money hands over fists and millionaires like Joe Kennedy strutting in suits that cost as much as a working man could make in a year, Roosevelt actually proposed a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000.00. Probably about half a million dollars today.
Many controls were put on the economy. The most important were price controls, imposed on most products and monitored by the Office of Price Administration. Wages were also controlled. In addition, the military imposed priorities that largely shaped industrial production.[1][2] wiki
There has never been enough of anything in this country to 'go around', never. The percentage of people who have certain commodities available to them shifts depending upon whether or not the repubs are in control or not.
But rationing was instituted in WWII in order to 'equal things out' so to speak:
Rationing is often instituted during wartime for civilians as well. For example, each person may be given "ration coupons" allowing him or her to purchase a certain amount of a product each month. Rationing often includes food and other necessities for which there is a shortage, including materials needed for the war effort such as rubber tires, leather shoes, clothing and gasoline. Towards the end of the First World War, panic buying in the United Kingdom prompted rationing of first sugar, then meat, for the rest of the war. During World War II rationing existed in many countries including the United Kingdom and the United States.
With the onset of World War II, numerous challenges confronted the American people. The government found it necessary to ration food, gas, and even clothing during that time. Americans were asked to conserve on everything. With not a single person unaffected by the war, rationing meant sacrifices for all. In the spring of 1942, the Food Rationing Program was set into motion. Rationing would deeply affect the American way of life for most. The federal government needed to control supply and demand. Rationing was introduced to avoid public anger with shortages and not to allow only the wealthy to purchase commodities
While industry and commerce were affected, individuals felt the effects more intensely. People were often required to give up many material goods, but there also was an increase in employment. Individual efforts evolved into clubs and organizations coming to terms with the immediate circumstances. Joining together to support and maintain supply levels for the troops abroad meant making daily adjustments. Their efforts also included scrap drives, taking factory jobs, goods donations and other similar projects to assist those on the front. Government-sponsored ads, radio shows, posters and pamphlet campaigns urged the American people to comply. With a sense of urgency, the campaigns appealed to America to contribute by whatever means they had, without complaint. The propaganda was a highly effective tool in reaching the masses.
Rationing regulated the amount of commodities that consumers could obtain. Sugar rationing took effect in May 1943 with the distribution of "Sugar Buying Cards." Registration usually took place in local schools. Each family was asked to send only one member for registration and be prepared to describe all other family members. Coupons were distributed based on family size, and the coupon book allowed the holder to buy a specified amount. Possession of a coupon book did not guarantee that sugar would be available. Americans learned to utilize what they had during rationing time.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1674.html
The only downside to all of this was the black market. Big deal. The percentages of abuse were small and never compared to say prohibition.
But there has always been and will always be rationing of health care services in one form or another. That is a fact of life.
If you are in need of a kidney transplant, you are put on a list by the hospital. The death panel decides whether or not you are going to die.
I pointed out before the terrible case of Mickey Mantle when he received a liver transplant. A no good drunk people screamed at the time. He was, after all, put at the top of some list. Personally, I would have put that man at the top of just about any list. The point here is that there will always be arguments, petty or otherwise, that someone received a life giving organ and someone else did not. Priorities are set on the basis of age, relative health, etc.http://www.unos.org/
Right now, insurance companies decide who will live and who will die just considering the needs OF THEIR OWN INSUREDS.
And as the Chicago Tribune article points out, 45 million people are told to do the best they can waiting in line at ER;s across the country.
We were a different country when we fought World War II, fighting two fronts simultaneously. There was no unemployment. There was under employment. Did you know that we actually used POW's to help us take up the slack in parts of our economy including agriculture?
We came together as a country. We sacrificed together. We shared what we had.
Sometimes I do not much like the country I live in today.
Reading the preceding, I realized that Dickday had passed a wealth of wisdom to each of us readers. Yet,he forced me to further consider our health care quandary:
What "IS" rational when we speak of illness or the terminally ill?
For the health insurance provider: It's get well fast or die quickly --
minimize losses.
For hospitals: Treat the patient, utilize as many of the hi-tech medical
devices as can be justified and release said patient within the number of days
specified by the treatment payee.
Doctors: Must manage the the case and attempt to heal or help the patient plus... do no harm.
Follow-up visits to principle physicians are, usually, required. Let us not
forget Big Pharma as our patient progresses or digresses, as the case may be.
Every step of the healing process is closely monitored by the payee...Before or
after the fact. Each entity is acting in a manner that appears to be rational
in relationship to the patient.
Under the microscope, the system is actually a tug-of-war for revenue! In this
game there is only one looser -- if those directly involved can not come to an
agreement, the patient owes the difference!
I have read that 50% of an individuals' health care costs are spent in the last
two years of a persons' life.
Under the present health care system, the patients' recovery is implied to be
the ultimate goal. Rationally speaking, the ultimate goal is the desire to maximize
profit.
Yes, we do have our death panels. Check into the organ transplant systems.
Someone is prioritizing those lists. How many hours do doctors spend writing
letters of justification to health insurance companies in order to get
authorization for procedures they wish to perform?
One act that can bring some rationality into this health vs. profit fiasco is
what the Republicans call the "Kill Grandma" clause...I call it the
Living Will. This document should be mandatory for all citizens over the age of
21.
There are hundreds of various Advanced Directive forms available at clinics, hospitals and doctors' offices. I copied and pasted this information fro the Mayo Clinic informational URL.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/living-wills/HA00014
Advance directives: More than just living wills
Advance directives are written instructions regarding your medical care
preferences. Your family and doctors will consult your advance directives if
you're unable to make your own health care decisions. Having written
instructions can help reduce confusion or disagreement. Anyone age 18 or older
may prepare advance directives.
Advance directives include:
· Living will. This written, legal document spells out the types of medical
treatments and life-sustaining measures you do and don't want, such as
mechanical breathing (respiration and ventilation), tube feeding or
resuscitation. In some states, living wills may be called health care declarations
or health care directives.
· Medical power of attorney (POA). The medical POA is a legal document that
designates an individual -- referred to as your health care agent or proxy -- to
make medical decisions for you in the event that you're unable to do so. A
medical POA is sometimes called a durable power of attorney for health care.
However, it is different from a power of attorney authorizing someone to make
financial transactions for you.
· Do not resuscitate (DNR) order. This is a request to not have cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) if your heart stops or if you stop breathing. Advance
directives do not have to include a DNR order, and you don't have to have an
advance directive to have a DNR order. Your doctor can put a DNR order in your
medical chart.
How to plan for end-of-life issues
Injury, illness and death aren't easy subjects to talk about, but by planning
ahead you can ensure that you receive the type of medical care you want, to
take the burden off your family of trying to guess at what you'd want done.
Start by having a conversation with your loved ones. Let them know you're
creating advance directives and explain your feelings about medical care and
what you'd want done in specific instances.
If you want to encourage parents or other family members to create advance
directives, explain that it's important for you and the family to know how they
would want to be treated. It's generally best to approach the subject in a
matter-of-fact and reassuring manner.
Keep in mind that a living will cannot cover every possible situation.
Therefore, you may also want a medical POA to designate someone to be your
health care agent. This person will be guided by your living will but has the
authority to interpret your wishes in situations that aren't described in your
living will. A medical POA may also be a good idea if your family is opposed to
some of your wishes or is divided about them.
Choosing a health care agent
Choosing a person to act as your health care agent is possibly the most
important part of your planning. You need to trust that this person has your
interests at heart, understands your wishes and will act accordingly. He or she
should also be mature and levelheaded, and comfortable with candid
conversations. Don't pick someone out of feelings of guilt or obligation.
Your health care agent doesn't necessarily have to be a family member. You may
want your health care decision maker be different from the person you choose to
handle your financial matters. It may be helpful, but it's not necessary, if
the person lives in the same city or state as you do.
What treatments would you want?
In determining your wishes, think about your values, such as the importance to
you of being independent and self-sufficient, and what you feel would make your
life not worth living. Would you want treatment to extend life in any
situation? Would you want treatment only if a cure is possible? Would you want
palliative care to ease pain and discomfort if you were terminally ill?
Although you can't predict what medical situations will arise, be sure to
discuss the following treatments. It may help to talk with your doctor about
these, especially if you have questions.
· Resuscitation. Restarts the heart when it has stopped beating (cardiac
death). Determine if and when you would want to be resuscitated by
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or by a device that delivers an electric
shock to stimulate the heart.
· Mechanical ventilation. Takes over your breathing if you're unable to do so.
Consider if, when and for how long you would want to be placed on a mechanical
ventilator.
· Nutritional and hydration assistance. Supplies the body with nutrients and
fluids intravenously or via a tube in the stomach. Decide if, when and for how
long you would want to be fed in this manner.
· Dialysis. Removes waste from your blood and manages fluid levels if your
kidneys no longer function. Determine if, when and for how long you would want
to receive this treatment.
]]>
The first thing I did this morning when I got up was check the web for news about the health care bill in The Senate.
I use Safari, which shows small images of my "favorite pages," that are periodically updated to reflect the content on each page.
The tiny image of the New York Times page had a nice headline, readable even at postage-stamp size:
Whew. So I went to read the article. But the page now had it's current headline, not the one cached from earlier:
Top story! (It has already been replaced by another if you go looking for it... it's still on the home page, just not the featured main story)
Naturally I thought "Ha, some "liberal media," as I'm sure most socialists do. But there was even more!
The Palin article was pretty much what you'd expect from The Times, more or less: just the facts.
I'm sure I'm missing the subtle subtext here, somehow "undermining" or "attacking" her greatness. It was filed under "Politcs" (we'll get to that).
But today was a twofer in liberal media denial!
ANOTHER front-page article featured GLEN BECK! I had to put down my latté for fear of spitting some on my lentil sprouts. This was awesome!
What sort of coddling was Mr. Beck going to get from the Grey Lady? And how much fun will I get to have rubbing it in the faces of conservatives?
I have to admit that this article disturbed me.
Not because it was easy on Beck, mind you, that's what I wanted to see. Liberal media, schmiberal schmedia. Take THAT, conservatives!!
No, I was disturbed for journalism itself.
The article on Glen Beck's "activism" NEVER MENTIONS his "9/12 Project" or the anti-healthcare reform rallies he promoted on (and organized through) Fox News. This would be sloppy for NewsMax, but The Times?
All jokes aside, what the hell is this?
An even cursory look at Beck's site has articles like this:
A protest is "activism" isn't it? Calling it a "Glen" protest would imply authorship, no? This one is dated from September 29th.
(I'd provide a permalink but the site is so poorly designed there is no way to do so; search for the article title)
Has Brain Stelter been so conditioned to not appear critical to people on the right that he ignores basic facts about his subject matter? Does he just not know? More importantly, how does an article like this even get by the editors? (this one's under "Media & Advertsing," BTW)
"Mr. Beck, having used his television and radio pulpit to lay out his list of the country's impending problems -- deficit spending, health care legislation that will "destroy" the economy, a dearth of "personal responsibility" -- says he now wants to also provide solutions.
(my emphasis)
OK, so your "reporting" is, in effect: here is what Glen Beck SAYS.
No fact-checking, and more oddly, no apparent knowledge of recent Beck history. Either that, or a DECISION to ignore it.
Which is it Brian?
Later he elaborates on what Beck is "already" doing:
"Already, Mr. Beck's page on FoxNews.com features what it calls "In or Out 2010," a "simple challenge" for lawmakers. It includes a pledge to back a freeze in government spending; oppose all tax increases "until our economy has rebounded"; and support stricter immigration enforcement."
Wow, good to know you are on top of his "activism." And Amy's doing a great job too.
Unfortunately, it's all too clear what the authors know and what they are choosing to ignore in this little snippet:
"The media figures' roles may exacerbate the ideological feuds that are already roiling the party. For the diffuse tea party movement that taps into anti-government sentiments, "the media guys are the closest things we even have to a leader," said Adam Brandon, the vice president for communications at FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy group."
(my emphasis)
So Beck's role as a leader is passive, by default, not of his choosing. Or at least it WAS, until I wrote this article. The tea party movement is grass-roots, evolving naturally with no help from Fox or Beck or Hannity; any "leadership" is merely an ideological ACCIDENT.
That every shred of factual information indicates otherwise, in fact Beck's OWN declarations indicate otherwise, is dispatched by a quote from a conservative advocacy group (they don't have an agenda!!).
This "article" is a glorified press release.
There is NOTHING "biased" or partisan about honestly reporting what he has DONE ALREADY in an article about Beck's "activism."
I'd submit that ignoring it is MORE SO.
------------------------------
PS. The article on the Senate vote is in the "Money & Policy" section. God help us all.
]]>