President Obama,

Sir, it's time you went into complete campaign mode.  You need to visit the television circuit again.  You need to visit those kind of shows where you have time to actually get your points across about health care and the economy.  You could tell your side of what you want from health care and point out the lies that are being told.  It would also give you a chance to tell Americans the good points about the economy.  It's time to sell the package again sir!

You need to go onto Charlie Rose's show, David Letterman, Conan O'Brien, Jamie Fallon's Late Night, Larry King, The View, The Ellen show and lastly, Oprah.

I would also recommend having Rachel Maddow interview you or Keith Olbermann.

Instead of getting 10 second clips of you at townhall meetings on television every other night, you can get at least 10-20 minutes of free airtime to speak your mind. 

Go live sir.  You are your one best seller of any product.

Meanwhile sir, make up your mind; you are either FOR a public option or you are AGAINST one.  Once you've made up YOUR mind -- then fight for it like hell.

Lying Robots:  Maybe they can Help

With the development of killer drones, it seems like everyone is worrying about killer robots. Now, as if that wasn't bad enough, we need to start worrying about lying, cheating robots as well.

In an experiment run at the Laboratory of Intelligent Systems in the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale of Lausanne, Switzerland*, robots that were designed to cooperate in searching out a beneficial resource and avoiding a poisonous one learned to lie to each other in an attempt to hoard the resource.

The experiment involved 1,000 robots divided into 10 different groups. Each robot had a sensor, a blue light, and its own 264-bit binary code "genome" that governed how it reacted to different stimuli. The first generation robots were programmed to turn the light on when they found the good resource, helping the other robots in the group find it.

This is just what we need -- more liars in the world...LOL

Seriously though, this could lead to better benefits in our national and international security during our online cruising.  In fact, thinking of the new money that Vice President Biden just announced that is going to be disbursed soon to automate our health care systems, I can envision each health origination being required to have this logic installed on its computers.  As medical records are requested from different locations, this software (robots, in case you didn't realize it, are ran by computer software programs) could kick in and ask the question, "Are you a safe Resource?" from each site that tries to access the information and if it gets caught lying - the request is revoked.

News Corp.

The media giant, advocating a model that would charge for news distributed online and on portable devices, has met recently with major publishers.

As newspapers across the country struggle with declining readership and advertising revenue, News Corp. executives have been meeting in recent weeks with publishers about forming a consortium that would charge for news distributed online and on portable devices -- and potentially stem the rising tide of red ink.

Chief Digital Officer Jonathan Miller has positioned News Corp. as a logical leader in the effort to start collecting fees from online readers because of its success with the Wall Street Journal Online, which boasts more than 1 million paying subscribers. He is believed to have met with major news publishers including New York Times Co., Washington Post Co., Hearst Corp. and Tribune Co., publisher of the Los Angeles Times.

"The reality is that unless a lot of people who produce news act in unison to start charging for content, then individually they will fail," said Alan D. Mutter, a former newspaper columnist and editor and consultant on new media ventures.

As I predicted, Rupert Murdoch is spreading the idea around.  Soon we'll all be paying for our news from places we love visiting.

Newspapers will soon be a thing of the past.  You'll be lucky if you even see your own hometown newspaper show up at your door.

I wrote the following to my Senator.  I hope you agree.

 

Dear Senator XXXXXXXX,

 

It's been recently reported that former Governor and Director of Homeland Defense Tom Ridge, is reporting in his book due out in September that he felt he was pressured into announcing false terror alerts to the American public.

 

 "Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was "blindsided" by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over."

 

This proves two things.  One, that the Bush administration used TERROR against United States citizens -- for political gain.  Secondly, it proves that Tom Ridge is a hypocrite and a liar.  He denied this accusation previously on August 3, 2004 when he raised the alert,

 

"I wish I could give them all Top Secret clearances and let them review the information that some of us have the responsibility to review. We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security."

 

 

Congress passed the Patriot Act back in October 26, 2001.

Wikipedia has it described as:

 

"The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury's authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act's expanded law enforcement powers can be applied."

 

Wikipedia also describes Title VIII Terrorism Criminal Law

 

"Title VIII alters the definitions of terrorism, and establishes or re-defines rules with which to deal with it. It redefined the term "domestic terrorism" to broadly include mass destruction as well as assassination or kidnapping as a terrorist activity. The definition also encompasses activities that are "dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" <strong>and are intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population,"</strong> <strong>"influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,"</strong> or are undertaken "to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping" while in the jurisdiction of the United States."

 

In lieu of this information from Tom Ridge and previous reports of political abuse of power by President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and others during their two terms in office, it is time to add an amendment to the Patriot Act.

 

While I am by no means a lawyer, I'm sure something to the effect of the following could be added to the Act.

 

TITLE VIII--STRENGTHENING THE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST TERRORISM

 

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

 

''(B)  appear to be intended--

''(i)  to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

''(ii) to influence the policy of a government by

       intimidation or coercion,

All of the above actions include abuses of power by any and all persons in governmental positions within the U.S. government; this includes those governmental positions at the local, state, federal, congressional, judicial and executive levels of government

 

While I'm sure someone else could write this amended statement much better than I, I'm sure you understand my goal.

 

The Bush administration used its powers within government to enhance their positions in office and to accomplish their own political agendas; these acts are acts of terrorism.  They used intimation and coercion against a civilian population in doing so.

I would also add that this amendment be written in such a way to have the law retroactive to the beginning of the Patriot Act being written in October of 2001.

 

Unites States Attorney Eric Holder should then proceed to prosecute any and all officials that committed these horrific acts of terrorism.

Tonight on Keith Olbermann's Countdown on MSNBC, Keith and MSNBC Contributor Howard Fineman were discussing what they called the confusing answers President Obama is giving Americans.

In some respects I have to agree.  President Obama needs to make up his 'own mind' first, as to what he demands to see in a health care reform bill, then he needs to 'stop at nothing' to get those things in a bill and passed so that he can sign it before the holiday break in November.

But going back to my title, no matter which way the President turns, he can't seem to please the pundits. 

When he was telling Americans what he wanted 'in' the health care reform bill back in late July and early August, he was criticized by people like Howard Finemen for not standing up to those (GOP placed) people at townhall meetings telling lies about what was in the Democrats plans for health care reform.  He needs to tell Americans that's not true! 

Now that the President is doing just that, telling Americans what is NOT in the bill, Fineman now says the President should 'stop' telling us what's not in the bill and instead tell us what IS in the bill. The president only gets 10 second shots on the evening news, he has to say one thing or another -- he's not got all night to tell the whole story.  That should be up to his supporters.

As far as the president's reported 'insistence' on a bipartisan bill goes, has it occurred to anybody that maybe he wants to make it APPEAR that he's doing his level best (accepting over 100 Republican amendments so far to any the bill and praising Senator Grassley, Mike Enzi, Olympia Snow and Max Baucus for their hard work).  He's doing everything possible to 'work with' the Republican Party. 

He's been standing before a crowd praising these (so-called moderate Republicans) people after one of them literally said he wouldn't vote for the bill even without a public option in it, if 'other Republicans' refused to do so (admitting that he votes for NOTHING without backing of the PARTY).  Obama's not commenting on any specific people as to what they say at their townhall meetings, he's letting the media do the talking.  He's letting the media show Americans show by examples, how Republicans aren't even 'trying' to work out a deal with Obama.  He's letting the media inform Americans that Republicans planned way ahead of time, NOT to join the Democrats on this or any other major issue, hoping to force Obama's administration to lose members in Congress during the 2010 election cycle, just as President Clinton did in 1994.  He's letting the media point out that it is Republicans that refuse to compromise.

Perhaps the President is putting the Republicans in a corner that they will not be able to get out of.

Just imagine the commercials during congressional elections next year, paid for by the Democratic Party.  Can't you just see the ads now, showing the Republican running for office, refusing to even 'budge' on Health Care Reform, with or without a public option.  Imagine the ads showing those angry paid for, or personally requested to do so, attendees at townhall meetings pointing their fingers at their Congressman/woman or Senators.   Imagine showing that polling that shows over 60% of Republicans think government should stay out of Medicare (a government ran dept).

All those clips we've been seeing on television for the past month will be 'used' during the election cycle of 2010, I guarantee it.  All those Sunday talk shows with Republicans complaining and saying no to everything will also be used in those ads.   They are the Democratic Party's 'proof is in the pudding' sort of speak.  Oh sure these ads will give the GOP a boost within their own base; but forget about getting any Independents and Democrats.

Meanwhile, in September or early October, if Republicans are still refusing to vote for Health Care reform, the President will send word to Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Senator Reid saying, "We've got enough evidence now -- GO FOR IT!  GET IT PASSED with or without their help".

Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was "blindsided" by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.

This proves two things.  One, that the Bush administration used TERROR against United States citizens -- for political gain.  Secondly, it proves that Tom Ridge is a hypocrite and a liar.  He denied this accusation previously on August 3, 2004 when he raised the alert,

"I wish I could give them all Top Secret clearances and let them review the information that some of us have the responsibility to review. We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security."

Not only did he go ahead and do what the Bush administration requested (lie to the American people), he didn't bother telling us in later years while Bush and Cheney were still in office so they could be IMPEACHED.

This in my humble opinion is just one more person from the Bush administration that belongs behind bars.

Is it my imagination or is Lara Logan of CBS NEWS wearing the wrong clothing while covering the War in Afghanistan?  Tuesday night she gave a report while she was wearing a lacy white blouse that I'm sure at times showed a little cleavage.

During another report she is once again wearing a tight fitted white short sleeved tee shirt.

Number one, wearing white on the front lines with the soldiers is plain stupid.  She's a shining bright light in the dark to the enemy.  Secondly, why is she wearing such 'appealing' clothing around men (and women for that matter) that haven't had a leave in nearly a year or more.  It's almost as if she's trying to 'tease' them. 

For her own sake and the troops, she should be in camouflage clothing, or at the very least, in dark and loose fitted clothing, just like the troops are.  It would also show a little respect for the troops and their current living conditions.

Covering the news in a war zone isn't a place, nor is it the time, to be dressing sexy.

Has anybody else noticed this or am I just being too picky?  I don't normally even watch CBS but just happen to see the first report I mentioned and decided to do a little Googling for another video of her.  Lo and behold, there she was again in white.

She can't help but be pretty; but she sure as hell can stay out of white clothing that shines like a light in the dark to the enemy.

A video game called the Great Flu has been created recently.  It is sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline, the folks who have started testing their pandemic H1N1 swine flu vaccine on hapless and dim-witted human guinea pigs. 

They say it's an effort to raise awareness.

The head of virology at the Erasmus Medical Center designed "The Great Flu" game with colleagues and says it reflects, "What is happening in the real world."

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC just talked about it on her show tonight.  She's a bit worried it will scare people to death and pointed out how hard it was to play. 

I'm wondering if perhaps the CDC or some other countries plan to find the best answers to stopping the flu in it's tracks.

Remember what President George W. Bush's administration did right after we were hit on 9/11?  They started a website that asked people across the nation to produce actual scenarios of terrorism.  Yes, they ask Americans and anybody else that wanted to, to send in ways to commit acts of terror in America.  The reason for this request was so that the government could use some of the brightest (or sadistic, which ever you prefer) minds (for free) to give them a heads up on possible weaknesses in our security.  I'm sorry but I can't find the initial website that I saw anymore; but this one at the DOD is similar.

Perhaps that is exactly what is going on with this 'Flu Game'?  Perhaps they are hoping to give millions of minds out there, that are interested, a chance to come up with cheapest and safest way to contain the virus.

If that is indeed the plan, I'd say it's a good one.

BAGHDAD --  Iraq's government approved a draft law on Monday paving the way for a referendum on the security pact that lays out the U.S. withdrawal timeline to be held simultaneously with national parliamentary elections on Jan. 16, spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said...

The government said earlier this year that to save time and money, it wanted the referendum to be held on the same day as the national elections.

That raised the possibility that a majority of Iraqis could reject the deal, forcing the U.S. military to withdraw by January 2010. But many Iraqis said that the referendum was being held too late to make a difference.

The measure still needs to be approved by Iraq's parliament, which is in recess until next month.

I bet you'll hear little about this news from your cable news stations.  If this were to truly happen, the Obama administration would be considered heroes for finally ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home to some very needed relief, at least with their base and some Independents anyway. 

It wouldn't be 'his' fault the Iraqi government insisted that we leave their country. 

He's repeated several times since taking office that he would abide by the agreement that combats troops would leave by the end of August 2010 and a full withdrawal by the end of 2011. wor

I'm a supporter of health care reform for the most part, however, I think the debate over the issue is leaving out an important part of any reform; how will it save us money?

Oh I know the argument that if we get everybody paying a little bit of their own health care costs, that it will lower all of our premiums.  But wasn't that same argument given by States when they mandated that all automobile drivers have liability insurance on their cars?  Did your premiums go down?  I seem to remember getting a one time rebate; but since that time I feel my premiums have increased every year since.  Did we end up saving money?  I really don't know.

We hear every day about how the health care reform is actually an Insurance Reform bill.  They tell us that the bill will force insurance companies to provide insurance to everyone.  No longer can they not cover you because of pre-existing conditions.  We're told that we will be able to get insurance across State lines and take it with us if we lose our jobs.  We're told that if we like our doctor and insurance that we can keep them.

We're told that with a Public option is offered that it will keep private insurers honest and create real competition.

If we're to believe the Republicans, we're told that we'll be paying more taxes, that the deficit will grow and that they'll "Pull the plug on seniors" and disregard the health of the disabled.  If we went by their plans for reform, we could be getting a tax deduction for our health care costs.

Nobody however is talking about savings -- what will be our savings if we have Health Care Reform?

We're told that if we do nothing, in 10 years we'll all be paying half our salary for health insurance coverage.  So, how will this health care reform bill help to stop those growing premiums we're seeing every year?    And within those same 10 years, how much could we end up saving?  Will that savings top any tax deduction that the Republicans are currently offering?  If so, in by how much and how will that happen?

Perhaps it's time to look at that side of the issue?  After all, most Americans think about their own pocketbooks before anything else in this world.

Sunday on "Meet the Press" with David Gregory, Senator Tom Coburn said while discussing health care reform, the following,

"Look, the, the idea that we ought to talk about our future health and what our family and what we want done is a good idea, it's legitimate.  What is not legitimate is having government even weigh in on it. It is intensely personal; your health care, your plans, your family.  There is no role for government in that.  And where we've seen a role--and, and this happens all the time, which goes to one of the things that never gets talked about in health care--is we have statements, living wills.  We have people who have made those very tough decisions.  And then, because they've made them, but because of the malpractice situation and liability, they're ignored.  And we still incubate and put people onto ventilators that never wanted it because a family member threatens through a situation, even though you have that end of life counseling there."

I was wondering if anybody got the same impression that I did after hearing this statement?  This statement almost sounds as if the Senator is the one that wants to have "Death Panels".  He seems displeased that medical providers ignore the living wills.  He sounds displeased that family members end up making the decisions about their loved one's health care. 

He also sounds like he wants to get rid of Medicare and VA medical, as well as the government health insurance currently given to members of Congress.  "What is not legitimate is having government even weigh in on it."

Oh, don't get me wrong, I realize he's pointing out that Tort Reform needs to be passed; but his statement also implies it angers him that families would have the gull to interfere with their loved one's care.

As for tort reform, Republicans have been in charge off and on for over 14 years -- they didn't get it done; now they want President Obama to do it in 9 months?

Perhaps it's the Republican Party that is truly set on creating "Death Panels".  Did you know they has a similar provision in their 2003 prescription drug bill?  Wasn't it also their Party that interfered with Terry Schiavo's family's (her husband) decision to remove the feeding tubes from Terry?

Wasn't it President George W Bush that signed a bill that the Republican Party in Congress got passed -- permitting the parents of a brain-damaged Florida woman to ask a federal judge to order her feeding tube reconnected.  At the signing of this bill he said,

"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life," Bush said in a statement. "This presumption is especially critical for those like Terri Schiavo who live at the mercy of others."

They ignored the wishes of the Terri's immediate family - her husband.  By doing that, didn't they put themselves in the position of being that special "Death Panel"?

Perhaps somebody needs to pin point what Senator Tom Corbin meant by complaining that the medical profession would have the gull to follow a family member's wishes when it comes to their loved ones care?  While they're at it, perhaps they should ask him if he's willing to shut down Medicare, veteran's and Congress's health care system?

I've got an idea that will give us all better health care.  My idea could lower our blood pressure, stop those headaches, stop all the worry and crying over what might happen, and it will prevent us from getting hurt in the future.  Let's "Pull the Plug on the Media".

It's the media (television, radio and newspaper) that's causing a lot of our health issues these days; think about it.  For the past 12 years or so, they've done nothing but scare us to death by reminding us each hour of the day of the dangers out there, by showing us that our leaders are corrupt and showing us all the sex maniacs and murderers, or getting each side of the current issue of the day so stirred up that in some cases people are harmed even killed, for a political or religious belief.

The media, instead of being a place for information and facts, has become a movie that involves action, danger, murder and human failings.  We don't get the facts anymore; we get opinions given to us by talk show hosts, whether that is from people that are supposed to be official reporters reporting the news, or from celebrity hosts or from comedians.   There are no real 'reporters' anymore.  They've all given in to sensationalism instead.  There's no 'money' in 'news'.  It's all about who's going to attract the viewers first?

As much as I enjoy them, lately, my best facts seem to be coming from the comedian side of the issues.  They point out the stupidity of our actions, whether they be our political affiliations, our daily lives, how we handle taxes, Social Security, Medicare, health care, terrorism, war and yes, even our entertainment.

When will we hear what the story actually is or what the bill says, and not how the commentator comprehends it.

During the George W Bush administration and Republican Party's control, 80% of the news was about terrorism and war.  The other 20% consisted of lost children, preventive action to take in the case of terrorism and political division over war.  The economy that went into a recession in 2007, Wall Street and big business corruption, out of whack energy costs and extreme health care costs were simply ignored.

For the past 6 months of the Barack Obama administration, we've heard months of discussion about how he's just a celebrity, and that it's his and the Democratic Party's fault the nation (and world) went into the deepest recession since the Great Depression and that he's trying to take us to socialism; all because he wants to stop the corruption on Wall Street and because he tried to save hundreds of thousands of jobs by saving places like GM and Chrysler.  All because he wants to stop our dependence on oil helping our nation's security and he wants to stop our health care system from bankrupting homes across America and make sure everybody gets the health care they need.   What has the media spent at least 3 weeks discussing?  That President Obama and the Democrats want to "Pull the plug on Grandma".

It's time Americans PULLED THE PLUG ON THE MEDIA!  Stop watching those shows that do nothing but speak one sided but instead tell all sides of the issue.  Stop watching those stories about one lost child for weeks on end and instead ask them - what about our soldiers that are dying overseas protecting us ALL?  Stop watching those network news stations that refuse to report the news; but instead prefer to tell their own opinions.

Being a political news watcher myself, all this will be extremely hard for me to do, but I've decide it has to happen or we will continue down the extreme way of surviving 'together' in this world. There will be - no real 'truth' out there to find; because soon, we'll not know who is speaking it.