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

·  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

A not so new argument is being made on MSM concerning the new Health care legislation as the Senate decides today whether or not THEY CAN EVEN DEBATE THE GODDAMN THING. (blesses himself and as he curses all repubs in the Senate)

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.

http://www.examiner.com/x-28541-Kissimmee-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Health-care-reform-has-not-yet-been-passed-but-has-rationing-already-begun

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 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.

File:Musee de la bible et Terre Sainte 001.JPG

What exactly is a lie? Here are some definitions from different sources:

1. A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. Something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture;
3. An inaccurate or false statement.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

 

1. A gross falsification or misrepresentation of the facts, with constand repetition and repetition and embellishment to lend credibility.
2. The propaganda technique, as in politics, of using this device.

 

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr0cult.htm

 PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC
 

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm

Okay? Do not confuse perjury with lying. And never take a quick definition from Black's Law Dictionary or some general text book as the LAW. You have to check local statutes or federal statutes and then check out at least a handful of good cases that cite the statutes.  And I think everyone at TPM knows that when some pundit reads a definition from a dictionary to prove a point...........well they have proved nothing.

Getting back to the point of this post; I am attempting to find a good definition of the word lie, set some guidelines for its use and then stick to those guidelines.

I mean just because I do not agree with a statement does not mean the one making it is lying.

RULES

Did the person make the statement?

Was the statement at the time it was made incorrect?

Was the statement material to the discussion at hand?

Did the speaker know that at the time he made the statement the statement was incorrect?

Should the speaker have known that the statement was incorrect at the time he made it? Reckless disregard for the truth is as bad as absolutely knowing the statement to be false.

Did the speaker have intent, specific or otherwise to influence his audience with regard to some issue when he made the statement?

Well let's apply my little test to somebody who says good morning to all the fascist Nazis in this country, daily, on FOX News:

DOOCY: Two hundred and thirty-three years of precedent dating back to the very founding of this Republic, American leaders do not bow to leaders of other countries. They are on par. Oops. Take a look, there's the President of the United States bowing to the Emperor of Japan.

DOOCY: You know this is a long standing precedence going back to the founding of the Republic, American Presidents don't bow to anybody. But the President, there he is, bowing. He bowed to King Abdullah earlier in the year as well. The administration said, look it's just protocol, its one of those things they do. You've been in an administration where a President has faced-look there's Abdullah right there. He's going down-why doesn't the, when you look at this, what do you think?

ROVE: I think it was inappropriate.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200911160014

Now you can see from the link that I once again get my kindling from mediamatters.org. KeithO picked up on this dialogue last night.

There was a statement made. But the statement was by Doocy, not Rove. So I cannot call Rove a liar on this one. To say something is appropriate or inappropriate is not a statement. It is a straight out opinion. Rove's opinions, as always, stink. But let us move on to Doocy. And I do believe that Rover is a compulsive liar but I am not discussing his other misgivings here.

Doocy made a statement. He says that there is a long standing precedence going back to the founding of this Republic not to bow to leaders of other countries.

Doocy made a statement that for two hundred and thirty-three years  Americans do not bow to leaders of other countries.

Now there is an issue over Doocy's use of the word precedence. I do not know for sure what that means. A legal case may provide precedence for a rule of law, like Roe v. Wade. And we can argue for three hundred pages about what Roe v. Wade says just like we can argue for three million pages about what the bible says.

And just because there is precedence, does not mean that precedence has not been broken from time to time. Just a thought.

So the statement was made.

Was the statement incorrect at the time it was made? Well here are the links I find that seem to dispute what was said by Doocy.

First, Presidents have bowed to foreign leaders. And so have our ambassadors.

Barth tells a wonderful story about John Adams at http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/esaslaw/2009/11/whining-about-bowing-and-other.php?ref=reccafe

Wiki tells us that:

In 1785, John Adams was appointed the first American minister to the Court of St. James's (ambassador to Great Britain). When he was presented to his former sovereign, George III, the King intimated that he was aware of Adams's lack of confidence in the French government. Adams admitted this, stating: "I must avow to your Majesty that I have no attachment but to my own country."

So we know a man who would become Vice-President of the United States and a man who would become President of the United States, bowed to the King of England three years before our Constitution was adopted. And that man did so as the official Ambassador to England even though we were not yet the United States of America.

Keith O played two videos; one  showing Ike bowing to DeGaule and one showing Nixon bowing to the Emperor of Japan. The video of Nixon is really something since the Japanese Emperor had been Emperor at the time of the attack upon Pearl Harbor.

The DeGaule video is highly emotional to me. DeGaule had been leader of the Free French, exiled to England during most of WWII and Ike had been Commander of the European Theatre of Operations for the Allied Forces. I mean who the fuck would criticize the man who won WWII for greeting his old friend in such a manner?

George W. Bush is shown in another video kissing and holding hands with one of the Saudi Sheiks. You add to this the context, historically speaking. I mean w and his family for generations made a ton of money from Saudi oil fiefdoms. Ha

W also bowed most humbly to the sheik:  http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33289_Bush_Bowed_Too

Now I can move on down through the rest of the test rather easily. The statement that was made was material to the issues surrounding Obama's use of protocols during his Pacific tour.

I will also state that Doocy knew or should have known about w's own bowing during his presidency. And he should have done enough research prior to making a statement like this. Of course Doocy always looks like an idiot, but that is not the point.

Knew or should have known should always be the standard in deciding whether someone lied or not.

Now we come to the issue of intent here. Matthews and other asshats will state that they:

Cannot read what is in another man's heart.

Well that is bullshit; just patent bullshit. And, as anyone can see, it pisses me off.

And Doocy, as always, had an evil intent to mislead his audience.

But in my humble opinion, he did not lie. The word precedence qualifies his statements enough to take them out of the ambit of lying.

So let us move on.

Rather than let McCain and Palin get away with their lie, anchor John Roberts played a videotape of Sarah Palin in a 2006 gubernatorial debate in which she endorsed the bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island saying, "I'm not going to stand in the way of progress that our congressional delegation and the position of strength that they have right now." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/the-mccain-palin-lies-and_b_125240.html

Well during the 2008 election campaign, Palin claimed that she had been against the 'bridge to nowhere' all along.This was a statement made by Palin. The statement was false. It was clearly false. She knew it was false EVERY SINGLE TIME she made it. And she made the statements with the specific intent of misleading her audience. It was a straight out lie.  I do not know how you debate this issue.

PALIN: Welcomes last year's Supreme Court decision deciding punitive damages for victims of the nation's largest oil spill tragedy, the Exxon Valdez disaster, stating it had taken 20 years to achieve victory. As governor, she says, she'd had the state argue in favor of the victims, and she says the court's ruling went "in favor of the people." Finally, she writes, Alaskans could recover some of their losses.

THE FACTS: That response is at odds with her reaction at the time to the ruling, which resolved the long-running case by reducing punitive damages for victims to $500 million from $2.5 billion. Environmentalists and plaintiffs' lawyers decried the ruling as a slap at the victims and Palin herself said she was "extremely disappointed." She said the justices had gutted a jury decision favoring higher damage awards, the Anchorage Daily News reported. "It's tragic that so many Alaska fishermen and their families have had their lives put on hold waiting for this decision," she said, noting many had died "while waiting for justice."  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/13/palins-book-goes-rogue-on_n_357682.html

Again, here we have a statement being made that was false at the time it was made. Palin knew or should have known that it was false when she made the statement and she did it with the specific intent of misleading her audience. Now the argument against my take is that Palin was only stating that the case was a victory, and that it provided some recompense for the disaster and that therefore it was not a lie. But in the end she is claiming that she had more than a hand in getting that verdict, that final result.  That certainly is a lie. She had nothing to do with nothing. She had nothing to do with the original trial, of course, she had nothing to do with 19 years of fierce court battles, she had nothing to do with briefs provided by the State of Alaska, she never even read one brief from Alaska's files, she had nothing to do with oral arguments, she had nothing to do with nothing. So it's not just a lie, it is a damnable lie.

PALIN: Describing her resistance to federal stimulus money, Palin describes Alaska as a practical, libertarian haven of independent Americans who don't want "help" from government busybodies.

THE FACTS: Alaska is also one of the states most dependent on federal subsidies, receiving much more assistance from Washington than it pays in federal taxes. A study for the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found that in 2005, the state received $1.84 for every dollar it sent to Washington. Ibid

I recall this one. Again, a statement made that was incorrect when it was made with Palin knowing that the statement was false when she made the statement and making the statement with the sheer intent of misleading her audience.  This is one of the clearest examples of a straight out lie that I can think of.

For a look at ten more lies see mediamatters.org: http://mediamatters.org/research/200911150010

And today her book formally goes up on the shelves and there will be hundreds of other lies revealed by a thousand sites contained in that book.

1.     A declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc. by one;

2.     An express assurance on which expectation is based;

3.     Something that has the effect of an express assurance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promise?db=dictionary

A promise is a transaction between two or more persons whereby the first person undertakes in the future to render some service, gift or assurance to the others or devotes something valuable now and here to his use.

This next segment comes from George W. Bush's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in 2000:

We will confront the hard issues -- threats to our national security, threats to our health and retirement security -- before the challenges of our time become crises for our children.

And we will extend the promise of prosperity to every forgotten corner of this country.

To every man and woman, a chance to succeed. To every child, a chance to learn. To every family, a chance to live with dignity and hope. For eight years, the Clinton/Gore administration has coasted through prosperity. And the path of least resistance is always downhill.

But America's way is the rising road.

This nation is daring and decent and ready for change.

Our current president embodied the potential of a generation. So many talents. So much charm. Such great skill. But, in the end, to what end? So much promise, to no great purpose.

Little more than a decade ago, the Cold War thawed and, with the leadership of Presidents Reagan and Bush, that wall came down.

But instead of seizing this moment, the Clinton/Gore administration has squandered it. We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence.

Our military is low on parts, pay and morale.

If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ... Not ready for duty, sir.

This administration had its moment.

They had their chance. They have not led. We will.

This generation was given the gift of the best education in American history. Yet we do not share that gift with everyone. Seven of ten fourth-graders in our highest poverty schools cannot read a simple children's book.  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123214&page=1

Every single promise made in this speech failed to materialize.  A promise in this context assumes commitment on the part of the one making the promise. Although a promise is not a guarantee, it assumes responsibility; that is that the person making the promise will take on a responsibility to see the promise through.

Now here are a series of statements made by George W. Bush nine years ago. Every single one of those statements was false at the time it was made. George W. Bush knew when he made those statements that they were false--or he should have known they were false when he made them. These statements were certainly all relevant to the forthcoming election and they were made with the single purpose of getting his audience to vote for  him so that he could carry on with an agenda that had nothing to do with these statements. An agenda that in fact would work against all of the sentiments contained in these statements.

Bush never intended, never in his entire life intended, to work to see that every man, woman and child would have a chance to succeed. He never intended to give every family dignity and hope, or even a significant percentage of families dignity and hope.  Nor had he ever endorsed or helped, in any manner, someone who did have that intent.

Bush never intended to protect retirement funds, or the health of the American People or our children. And he certainly never protected our national security.

The 'leadership of Reagan and Bush' HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL.

I could go on. But the point here is that IT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT THAT EVERY GODDAMN THING CONTAINED IN THIS MAN'S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH PROVED TO BE A GODDAMN LIE. And he knew at the time when he made these statements they were false and he made the statements with the intent to mislead the American People--that is all the people with the exception of his true constituency. http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=George+W.+Bush+and+the+have+mores&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS324US325&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=uhwDS9G8Cc6FnAfpjaBo&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBAQqwQwAA#

And you watch, whoever wins the Republican Nomination in 2012 will MAKE THE SAME FUCKING SPEECH.  And the nominee will make these statements, knowing they are false with the single evil intent of getting his or her audience's vote.  And with no intent whatsoever to take responsibilities for the promises made. And the media, as always, will not do one damn thing about it.

So much for lies and promises.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wwttxW5hMg

Once upon a time, Bill O'Reilly did not get along real well with Al Franken. Now Al, my hero had written a couple books. One of them was entitled: Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot. I loved that book although I lost it somewhere along the way. It was the only book I had read that took on Limbaugh and of course it was funny.

It was written in 1996 and really was his first political book. If you read the forwards to his political series you will find that Al is a Harvard Alumnus and that he goes back to his old Alma Mater to pick up a research staff for his books. They checked facts for him, documented every damn sentence, provided a book appendix as well as a separate appendix for the publisher and it ends up being a good deal all the way around.  First, the staff is talented, educated and happy to be mentioned in a best seller.

In 2003, Franken wrote Lies and the Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. There are pictures of the people he attacks on the cover of the book. They include Coulter and O'Reilly. But somehow O'Reilly's picture is all blotchy. Well the way he tells it, O'Reilly calls him and bitches about the picture. So Al initially was going to get a new picture for the cover. But O'Reilly attacks him so hard that Al just says 'fuck you' and the picture remains on the cover.

Just as an aside here, there were few cannons being fired at the right in 2003. There were few publications questioning the wars and the stated basis for either war, or it blew me away. I had come to the conclusion that the end of the left as I knew it had come at last.  And it was hilarious as a read.

Now FOX not only sues for damages, but sues for an order of the court enjoining the publisher from publishing the book at all.

The count in the complaint that is always cited involves the fair and balanced phrase in the title. 

In 2003, Penguin Books published Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, which included a cover photo of Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly and a chapter accusing O'Reilly of lying. In August of that year, Fox News sued, claiming infringement of its registered trademark phrase "Fair and Balanced". A federal judge found the lawsuit to be "wholly without merit". The episode with Fox focused a great deal of media attention about Franken's book and, according to Franken, greatly increased its sales. Reflecting on the lawsuit during a September 2003 interview on the National Public Radio program Fresh Air, Franken said that Fox's case against him was "literally laughed out of court" and added that the judge's comment that the case was "wholly without merit" was a good characterization of Fox News itself.[17][18]

In another interview I saw on CSPAN, I think, Franken said that the presiding judge listened to arguments by counsel and told them to wait for a short while. Al swears the judge went into chambers and came back in ten minutes and RULED FROM THE BENCH. Of course he ruled against Fox and O'Reilly.

This is a fun story. It really is. No suit survived and the entire matter was eventually dropped. In this country you would just about have to have the plans for an atomic bomb included in a manuscript before a court would even consider imposing 'Prior Restraint'.  It just aint gonna happen and every lawyer worth his salt knows this. And the Case NY Times v. Sullivan,  376 U.S. 254 (1964)   http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39/ makes it real clear that you are not going to lose a libel/slander suit brought by a well known plaintiff. This just aint gonna happen either.

In Great Britain it is different. The Brits do not have a Sullivan rule and if you lie about someone's actions or statements, and those lies seem to have damaged someone's reputation, you could be in some trouble.  Those gossip rags get sued all the time in Britain.

But this is all an intro for one of the funniest slams against the right that I have read in a long time.

Rush and Beck and Hannity and Savage all make up stuff every day. You see they take advantage of the Sullivan Rule. Obama was not born in this country, Obama is a Muslim, Obama was Senator for one year, Obama is a Socialist, Obama has a deep seated hatred of white people, Obama is a liar.....

Health care legislation is the first step to NAZI rule. Death panels will be formulated any day now by the government and kill your grandma. The Health care legislation will pay for abortions....blah, blah, blah, blah. There is never proper documentation for any of these claims. Never.

And Beck is always at the forefront of all of this. Taking a hint from Bishop Sheen he goes to his blackboard and writes his lies as he speaks them. Then he feigns tears about some scenario that he made up on the first place. Like putting Vick's Vaporub under his eyes to help him shed his crocodile tears. So what is a mother to do?

Well this kid set up a web site entitled: GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com. Beck naturally sued him. Hahahahah:

This week, Beck lost a legal battle to take down a parody site devoted to mocking the talk-show host's use of innuendo and rumor in going after his political enemies. The domain name that provoked his ire was GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com, whose main page pledged to "examine the vicious rumor" alluded to in the site's title.

The site's owner, Isaac Eiland-Hall, a 34-year-old computer-science student in Panama City, Florida, told The Daily Beast that the name was derived from a running joke on news site Fark.com's messageboards, which compared Beck's style to a routine by comedian Gilbert Gottfried at a Friar's Club Roast in which he repeatedly denounced the nonexistent rumors that Bob Saget "raped and killed a girl in 1990." In repeating the rumor, of course, Gottfried succeeded in spreading it--thus roasting his fellow comic.

"I've long felt that Beck uses tactics like I satirized on the site," Eiland-Hall told The Daily Beast in an email interview. He says he found "particularly egregious" an incident during Beck's CNN career in which he told Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), a Muslim, that he longed to challenge the congressman by saying: "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies

May 10, 1990, 11 year old Robin Cornell and her 32 year old babysitter, Lisa Storey were found beaten,raped, and smothered to death in Cape Coral, Florida. Police are now interviewing local detectives to re-open the case, but if they don't find any new leads by the end of the year it will be closed. They are also looking into airing an episode on Americas Most Wanted. This town desperately needs your help in solving this case.

Beck was also linked to the rape and murder of seven-year old Margaret Shrader in Harris County, Texas in 1990.

Source: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-323336

I fucking knew it!

I'm not saying he definitely did it, but it is curious how he's not out there denying it. I mean where is his statement on this issue? Where is his criminal record? He should release these things to the public if these so-called allegations are false, but it's pretty disturbing nonetheless.

Especially with the fact that where there's smoke there is fire. I wonder how many other rapes and murders done by Glenn Beck are out there that we don't know about yet

http://gatsome.com/2009/09/01/glenn-beck-raped-and-murdered-a-girl-in-1990/

You can see how this guy uses satire to do EXACTLY WHAT BECK DOES ON HIS OWN SHOW. It is just that Beck is not seen by his viewers as being tongue in cheek. Beck is serious about his outrageous lies.

But there is a hidden story hear.  Beck did not sue Eiland-Hall in a State or Federal Court. Instead he had his attorneys take the creator of this web site to a forum known as the: World Intellectual Property Organization charging that the satirical site's domain name should be canceled because it is "plainly libelous, patently false, not authorized by Mercury or Beck, and is likely to cause confusion for consumers."  http://minnesotaindependent.com/46546/glenn-beck-keith-ellison-rape-murder-site

Now watch Lord Christopher Monckton and John Bolton appear on Glenn Beck's show in this video: http://vodpod.com/watch/2506029-lord-monckton-on-glenn-beck-one-world-government-treaty

One of Beck's continuing conspiracy theories is that the Democrats and the Socialists around the world are conspiring to create a world government.

So the idiot ends up going to a 'World Court' to get rid of a sarcastic blog.

Just irony. That is the only point here.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/clinics/dpclinic/LethalInjection/index.html

Which always takes me to a closely linked issue:

Animal euthanasia (from the Greek meaning "good death") is the act of inducing humane death in an animal.[1] Euthanasia methods are designed to cause minimal pain and distress.

In domesticated animals, this process is commonly referred to by the euphemisms "lay down," "put down," "put to sleep," "put out of its/his/her misery," or "sent away to the farm." Horses are euthanized if they suffer from an intractable illness or a complicated injury.

There are new discussions of the manner in which we execute our convicted felons. Should we use one fatal drug as our injection or three? How does it feel?   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It_iSr6eDVs&feature=PlayList&p=E7A57CB0037433D8&index=0&playnext=1

That is the question. I mean to be or not to be? Well that question has already been asked and answered by the lawmakers, by the prosecutors, by the juries, by the courts and the republican national committees.

So it's time to move on. Not moveon.org. I mean it's time to move on. We, as a country like to kill people. We like to torture people also but that is the subject of the second half of this exposition.

We even enjoy watching movies about killing people; that is executing them. The Green Mile comes to mind. Oh we say we enjoy the movie for the story but this country really enjoys taking some big black bastard and putting him in a chair and attaching electrodes to his body and

BAM...POW...SPARKS...ZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTT......ZAP.......

I mean what future do most minorities in this country face anyway? Oh there are many minorities who win the lottery...less percentage wise than the whites born into wealth and such. But on the whole, substandard jobs, substandard housing, substandard medical care...well a substandard life to say the least. And so many of the males end up in prison anyway, which is not a lot of fun to begin with. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE AFRAID OF THE DARK.

Well humane societies all over the country are worried about all this. It makes us look so bad and all to other nations. NOT THAT OTHER NATIONS ARE EVER GOING TO TELL US WHAT THE FUCK TO DO.

Anyway back to the humane societies. I mean the ASPCA worries about how we dispose of our abandoned pets and all. I mean we do 'put down' an awful lot of pets in this country:

Pacelle's decision to oppose a Commission mandated No Kill goal for San Francisco is also not surprising. Recently, Pacelle defended the slaughter of some 60 puppies in Wilkes County, NC; called for the extermination of 145 Pit Bulls, with most being gassed them to death, in the same facility; defended a Louisiana shelter's decision to kill every living creature in its facility-including cats-because some dogs came down with a mild corona virus; and (through his Vice President of Companion Animals) told an Iowa town that  passed a round-up-and-kill plan for cats that HSUS had no problem with killing stray cats http://joyofcatherding.blogspot.com/2009/03/hsus-aspca-fight-no-kill-goals-support.html

So it appears that turning this country into a no kill zone, at least for pets, has gone by the wayside. I mean I suppose we could just gather them all up and send them to secluded spots in Alaska but there is great fear that they would all be hunted down by scope bearers in helicopters. We are still working on this alternative. 

So what is the proper manner in which to 'put down' our abandoned pets?  As far as I know, there are few shelters that still use the electric chair, or electric kennel...or whatever. From the above link it appears that gassing is still used but this leaves a nasty taste in our mouths.

First there is the issue of when you decide that poochy is getting a little old and its time to say goodbye, kind of like issues regarding living wills:

There is a movement lead generally by veterinarians, more and more pet owners are learning about and using hospice care for their dying pets. One example of hospice care for animals is pawspice.

According to Alice Villalobos, DVM, "the pawspice program provides comfort care for both the family and the patient. Pawspice provides clients with end-of-life care and staff with a protocol that validates a mutual willingness to endure its special purpose..."

According to the website Veterinary Practice News, they have developed a guideline or sorts to ..."help clients determine for themselves when a pawspice plan is good for the pet or when it is time to make the final call for euthanasia..."

The vets use a HHHHMM Quality of Life (Q of L) Scale to measure seven special parameters. The acronym stands for Hurt, Hydration, Hunger, Hygiene, Happiness, Mobility and More good days than bad days. Each parameter is measured from zero to 10. Evaluate each parameter and try to alleviate each problem by at least 30 percent to 50 percent.

This scale is to help the pet owners monitor their terminal pets on a daily basis.

Go to their site here and read further information on the pawspice plan and see if it is something that you need to discuss with your family and your vet.  http://www.pettrustlawblog.com/articles/general/pet-euthanasia/

Certainly we wish to 'put down' our pets in a humane manner. And the method should not vary just because one puppy was loved and another was not.

Pets are almost always euthanized by intravenous injection,[citation needed] typically a very high dose of a barbiturate such as pentobarbital. Unconsciousness, respiratory then cardiac arrest follow rapidly, usually within 30 seconds[2]. Observers generally describe it as a quick and peaceful death. Sometimes the animal makes a gasping sound after the death, which is air being exhaled by the lungs. The animal may twitch for a moment.

Remember now, the animal may twitch for a moment and this will no doubt be the case for the executed felon.

I have come up with a better way to handle executions of convicted felons in this country. And I am surprised that some humane organization has not already proffered it.

Why not just permit them to get high just one more time. I mean the convicted felon would go into a dream, a wonderful dream and then just never wake up.

Start him off with a nice fatty; a big round doobie that will relax him and get him ready for the big one.

Then give him a nice bong hit of some good opium.

Then inject him with some of the best horse around.

Look, this will serve so many purposes. I mean the big bugaboo against drugs and all is that they tend to get people addicted and lead them to a life of crime.

HELL THAT ALREADY HAPPENED HERE. I mean the guy is going to die anyway.

And you could make a party of it. Let some of his friends and relatives arrive and make it a nice big party. A celebration of death so to speak.

I mean, America loves going away parties.

Now there might be objections with regard to permitting the visitors to hit the bong. But good legal drugs could be made available like whiskey and Vick's Nyquil.  Oh and that last twitch might not only be the signal for the final goodbye, but under the influence it might lead to a couple of good hearty laughs by all.

And, just in case the authorities find out they made a mistake somewhere and got the wrong guy...hey, at least they know he enjoyed a good going away party.

Well, it was just a thought.

Now, let us move on to torture.

The purpose of torture, as I understand it, is to get good information. I mean  still believe that if you could just tie the former vice-president to a chair and start cutting his toes off, you might get some good information at first.

Where exactly are the relevant documents?

How many BJ's did you receive from oil company execs?

How many BJ's did you give w during your eight years in office?

WHERE ARE ALL YOUR MONEYED ACCOUNTS?

How much did Haliburton really pay you over the course of eight years?

I really feel that after the second or third digital excision, we could get some answers to these very important questions.

But there may be more humane ways of getting the information you want from terrorists like Dick Cheney.

Which reminds me. Do you realize where our Founding Fathers spent most of their time while conspiring against the Crown?

Was it the local church?

Was it the Town Hall?

Was it some Community Center?

Nah. The traitors met in the ale houses. The Sacred Ale Houses. And why was that?

Well ale loosens the tongue.   

WHAT DO YOU REALLY THINK JOHN ADAMS?

HOW ABOUT ANOTHER SAMUEL ADAMS?

Well you catch my drift.

Listen, if they had just brought some good weed, good whiskey and some fine opiates to our sponsored death camps,  our military would have gotten so much more information and sooner.

Oh some of these Muslims were against drug and alcohol use you say. Hell, just show them some good videos of waterboarding and lashings and guttings...hell just show them some videos from 24 or something from the Tarentino archives. That would surely loosen these Jihadists up.

And loosening up is what I am attempting to get at here.

How many times has a close friend finally confided to you that he secretly carries his sister's old panties in his back pocket? And where did he make this disclosure to you?

Was it in church? Was it in the men's room at the office?

Of course not. Most probably it was at the local Ale House.

And recalling your days at the frat house, when did your room mate finally admit to you that he once masturbated while watching Schwartznigger pumping weights?

Why over a couple beers and a nice fat dooobie. That's when.

We could get some of our drugs of the street and back into the prisons and holding tanks where they belong.

Maybe if we purchase the opium produced in Afghanistan for a decent price and put the substance to good use we could better comply with Eighth Amendment mandates and Geneva Conventions.

THIS JUST IN:

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - The United States' first marijuana cafe opened on Friday, posing an early test of the Obama administration's move to relax policing of medical use of the drug.

The Cannabis Cafe in Portland, Oregon, is the first to give certified medical marijuana users a place to get hold of the drug and smoke it -- as long as they are out of public view -- despite a federal ban.

"This club represents personal freedom, finally, for our members," said Madeline Martinez, Oregon's executive director of NORML, a group pushing for marijuana legalization.

"Our plans go beyond serving food and marijuana," said Martinez. "We hope to have classes, seminars, even a Cannabis Community College, based here to help people learn about growing and other uses for cannabis."   http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5AD06O20091114?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

Once upon a time a little girl, the prettiest little girl found fame and fortune in the screwiest manner. Carrie Prejean came to be the heir to the crown of the great Bess Meyerson.

In September-a full five months after the Miss USA pageant-Prejean was still talking about The Most Important Question of Our Time. "I knew that God had a plan for me that night," she told the audience at the Values Voter Summit. "God chose me for that moment because He knew that I would not only be the one to stick up for Him, and for the truth, but also, He knew that I am strong enough to get through all of the junk that I have been through." Truly, her struggle is an inspiration to all who have suffered adversity

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-12/miss-popularity-the-six-craziest-carrie-prejean-speeches/2/

Well people will pay to read her book. They are no going to pay to read my book. And they are not going to pay to read some great Harvard professor's book on government regulation of banks at the turn of the last century either. The best she could do is hope that some committee believes the tome on economics in the early twentieth century would make good mandatory reading in colleges and universities across the nation.

The Harvard professor might show up for fifteen minutes on CNBC on a panel or something I suppose. 

Now there are good things that happen on MSM, ONCE IN AWHILE.  I mean God would not help Carrie answer Larry King's questions.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-12/miss-popularity-the-six-craziest-carrie-prejean-speeches/2/

It appears that Carrie also had some conversations with people not that associated with God Almighty (blesses himself):

The Carrie Prejean sex tape video free download is hot. Download the Carrie Prejean sex tape video for entertainment. Fallen Queen Prejean made a hot and saucy sex tape video for a boyfriend when she was 17. This means that the "Free" sex tape video may not actually be free. This is now the most controversial sex tape video was made. These days, her actions could have landed her child pornography charges. The "free" Carrie Prejean sex tape could have cost the young woman a lot. She would be a registered sex offender - which would be very embarrassing.

Don't believe me? Three teenage girls took semi-nude photos of themselves and sent them to male students. According to MSNBC, "The female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg, Pa., all 14- or 15-years-old, face charges of manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are 16 and 17, face charges of possession"

If an adult downloads child pornography, they face steep charges too. Keep that in mind when searching out the Carrie Prejean sex tape video free, it may not actually be free. In addition, many malicious Internet users could be stuffing Web sites full of links that will do nothing other than spam, overload, or install viruses or spyware on your computer.http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2384786/carrie_prejean_sex_tape_video_free.html?cat=7

So it appears that we have a girl who participated in a felony, lured other people to participate in a felony and wants men to masterbate when they see her. And she is born again.

And we wonder if the Lord spoke with her  when she made those 'cameo appearances' or when she had those nasty breast implants: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Carrie-Prejean-Claims-Pageant-Forced-Her-to-Get-Implants-126672.shtml

Well it turns out she kind of did have a discussion with the lord god of the ignorant about these matters:

Carrie Prejean is just carrying out God's plan, she tells Christianity Today in an interview that fails to address her solo sex tape--the topic that nearly caused her to walk off 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night.

She also answers a question about her topless photos by discussing a need for Christians to unite against the Enemy and says she can't be homophobic because she lives in California and has gay hairdressers. Then she breaks down her conversion time line in a way that refutes her ex-boyfriend's claim that she sent him the masturbation tape when she was 20, not 17 as she has stated. Here are some highlights:

On when she traded her depraved teenage behavior for Christianity:
I went to Santa Barbara and I found out that it was a big party school, and I just didn't seem to fit in. So after I came back, I started going to San Diego Christian College, and that's where I felt at home...I think that was at a Christian school where it's cool to study on Friday nights, and you don't have the pressure of going out and drinking, and you are surrounded by people who have the same interests as you. That was a big turning point in my life, when I started going to the Rock, when I was about 18.

On finding forgiveness for Perez Hilton:
Oh yeah. I actually feel really sorry for him. I really do. If you look at his website, it's kind of scary what he does.

On reconciling her breast implants with her Christian faith:
No, I don't think there's anything wrong with getting breast implants as a Christian. I think it's a personal decision. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says you shouldn't get breast implants.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/carrie-prejean-the-bible_n_355745.html

Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached a point of such blatant hypocrisy in this country that there is no search for the truth anymore. I mean, the search for truth by MSM was kind of a ruse anyway, since the corporations spewing out all that paper and all those radio waves and all those TV signals were attempting to merely sell soap and appliances.

Now of course, they sell more Viagra, extenz, and exercise equipment, but nothing has really changed.

Fuck the pageants. I mean in the old Burt Parks days, a contestant was supposed to be a virgin. It was some sort of ancient rite brought to TV and it sold because the virgins would be relatively naked, by the standards for those days. The only real difference from similar virgin rites ten thousand years ago was that they cooked and ate the winner... but I digress.

And the speeches given by the little girls were vacuous pleasantries like the desire for WORLD PEACE. We all knew it was crap. Even as children. I mean, since when was the United States of America for world peace? After WWII we wished to conquer all and give it to our corporate shills like Britain gave everything to the East India Company.

We do not need pageants any more than we need award shows or reality shows.

Contests would be nice. Swimming contests. Essay contests. Spelling bees. Debates concerning world history, American History, civics, political issues.  Then, after all this, we could choose by twitter or some such MISS AMERICA or MR. AMERICA or MRS. AMERICA.

Fake Boobs Carrie is not going to do anything for anybody except spread anti-gay messages along with her allegiance to God. I mean, are we really supposed to care if men are jacking off to videos of Carrie (which was her original intent remember) or to videos of Kevin Bacon; please just don't do it in the subway.

THE MSM LIES ARE ALL JUST MORE BLATANT TODAY

Another lady from the right who got her start as a pageant contestant is Sarah Palin. And of course she sticks up for God Almighty just like Carrie.

It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it.

If Madame Palin were to speak the truth she might say:

I was elected to govern Alaska. A magnificent area of land that includes the highest mountains, the freshest streams, the most beautiful flora and fauna and it encompasses one fifth of the entire area of this great country. It contains more natural resources than any other state. It contains real live American Pioneers. Some living in shacks, some seeking gold, some seeking fish, some seeking great animals by the hunt and some who just wished to get away from urban blight.  The hopes and aspirations of an entire country reside in a land mass that contains seven hundred thousand people. 

I did get here quite by accident. I mean I was mayor of a small town and ran for state wide office at the perfect time. And quite by accident I was picked to be the Vice-Presidential nominee of the Republican Party.

I lost of course. But now I can make the big bucks all due to Tina Fey along with the video exhibition of my own stupidity and narrow mindedness for all of America to see.

Some in my position might feel that I should finish the job. I should somehow work for what I feel are the greatest interests of the greatest State of the Union.

But the big bucks are there. I can bring in some conservative yahoo and have her write a book for me. Money up front. I can give meaningless speeches and get paid tens of thousands of dollars. The train has left with all the proper people running it. I can scoop up the kids and head for never never land. No one in my family will ever want for a thing. Ever again. It is there for the taking and I WANT MINE NOW!!!

Is this the mind set?

I mean the stripper with the fake boobs and the governor with no brain can just jump on that train. No real cross examination. No examination of their particular ethos, world view, human perspectives. Neither of them have any real beliefs.. At least in the form of thoughtful creative proposals for solving the issues of the day.

But the right wing non-think tanks will pick them up and pay them millions just to stand there and read five or six points selected for them by the corporate oligarchy that is paying them.

I hate taxes, I hate abortion, I hate gays, I hate government regulation, I hate rich people (?), I hate Muslims, I hate immigrants, I hate banks, I hate poor people, I hate people who have not taken Jesus as their only lord and savior.....whatever. They get the cheers, take the check and go on to the next dais.

And if people get hurt along the way? Well they both have the ultimate defense:

                                             GOD TOLD ME TO DO IT.

WHAT? ME WORRY?

George W. Bush has his own library. He spent more hours planning that library than he ever did planning anything else during his eight years as President of the United States of America.

WASHINGTON - Former President George W. Bush took a step closer Thursday to establishing an "action-oriented think tank" alongside his future presidential library by naming James K. Glassman, the longtime journalist and former administration official, as its founding executive director. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/

What follows are the names of some of the finest minds in George W. Bush's administration:

Feith joined the administration of President George W. Bush as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in 2001.

Responding to criticism of a report that linked Al-Qaeda with Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Douglas Feith called the office's report a much-needed critique of the CIA's intelligence. "It's healthy to criticize the CIA's intelligence", Feith said. "What the people in the Pentagon were doing was right. It was good government." Feith also rejected accusations he attempted to link Iraq to a formal relationship with Al Qaeda. "No one in my office ever claimed there was an operational relationship", Feith said. "There was a relationship."[9] Feith stated that he "felt vindicated" by the report of the Pentagon inspector general.[10] He told the Washington Post that his office produced "a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community, and in presenting it I was not endorsing its substance."[7]

n 1998, Feith was one of a number of U.S. officials who signed an open letter to President Bill Clinton calling for the United States to oust Saddam Hussein. Feith was part of a group of former national security officials in the 1990s who supported Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress and encouraged the U.S. Congress to pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Congress approved the Act, and Clinton signed it into law.

Described by General Tommy Franks as either "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet" (according to Franks' autobiography) or "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the Earth" (according to Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack),  http://www.nndb.com/people/100/000047956/

They have involved co-operation between the Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda operatives on training and combined operations regarding bomb making and chemical and biological weapons.

Douglas Feith  http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/douglasfei206249.html

What the UN inspectors can do is demonstrate to the world, help the Iraqi government demonstrate to the world that the Iraqis are cooperatively disarming if that is in fact what the Iraqi government decides to do. ibid

I'm not concerned about weapons of mass destruction. Ibid

Peace, of course, is different from divorce; indeed, in essential respects, divorce is the opposite of peace. ibid

Richard Perle

I have been widely but wrongly depicted as deeply involved in the making of administration policy, especially with respect to Iraq. Facts notwithstanding, there are some fifty thousand entries on Google in which I am described as an "architect," and often as "the architect," of the Iraq War. I certainly supported and argued publicly for the decision to remove Saddam, as I do in what follows. But had I been the architect of that war, our policy would have been very different. [...]http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/08/perle-iraq-architect/

If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now.    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richardper183725.html

There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they've been liberated.  Ibid

The lax multiculturalism that urges Americans to accept the unacceptable from their fellow citizens is one of this nation's greatest vulnerabilities in the war on terror. Ibid

Michael D. Brown

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." --President George W. Bush, to FEMA director Michael Brown, who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his job performance, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005  http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-brownie.htm

"I'm very concerned about people in Mississippi and Louisiana who have watched these storms the past two years hit Florida and Alabama and may have a little lackadaisical attitude toward this thing."

 "I am looking forward to working with the IIBA community for the third time.  I don't usually work with such a tightly profiled group on this scale, and my previous experiences have been exhilarating.  I think it's fair to say, as an off-the-scale intuitive, spontaneous and unstructured thinker with no eye whatsoever for detail, that my profile is somewhat different to the typical Business Analyst.  The result is that we tend to eye each other up a little warily in the opening moments, trying to work out which of us walked off the spaceship.  Once we get over this it tends to be a refreshing change for both parties, and everyone seems to walk away with a new perspective."  (2009-  http://uk.theiiba.org/index.php/chapter-events/conference-2009/74-michael-brown-quote

I,m going to go home and walk my dog and hug my wife, and maybe get a good Mexican meal and a stiff margarita and a full night's sleep, ... And then I'm going to go right back to FEMA and continue to do all I can to help

You've got to know where the machinery is and how it works before you can throw a monkey-wrench into it.  http://www.andiquote.co.za/authors/Michael_H_Brown.html (I know that this is a different Michael Brown, but it kind of fits here, do you not think?)

There are few cities with so many good as New Orleans and also few cities where there is such a stark coexistence with the bad. It is this city, the Big Easy, that is home to kind and...

John Yoo

A decision by the Supreme Court to subject Guantanamo to judicial review would eliminate these advantages.

If the Court were to extend its reach to the base, judges could begin managing conditions of confinement, interrogation methods, and the use of information.

In light of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, critics are arguing that abuses of Iraqi prisoners are being produced by a climate of disregard for the laws of war.

It is important to recognize the differences between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. The treatment of those detained at Abu Ghraib is governed by the Geneva Conventions, which have been signed by both the U.S. and Iraq.

President Bush and his commanders announced early in the conflict that the Conventions applied.

The effort to blur the lines between Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib reflects a deep misunderstanding about the different legal regimes that apply to Iraq and the war against al Qaeda.

This is not to condone torture, which is still prohibited by the Torture Convention and federal criminal law.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_yoo.html

The Honorable Jay S. Bybee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_Memo

 http://www.tomjoad.org/bybeememo.htm

I mean who can forget this brand spanking new interpretation of the Statutes and Constitutional provisions.  The protections guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment might not cover a victim of torture who has never been convicted of anything.   

Gonzo

The top 10 Alberto Gonzales quotes:

10. "I have searched my memory."

9. "I don't have any recollection about..."

8. "I have no recollection."

7. "I have no memory of this."

6. "I don't remember."

5. "I don't know."

4. "I don't recall ever saying this."

3. "I don't recall ever doing that."

2. "I can't recall."

1. "I don't recall."

http://thethoughtsontheworld.blogspot.com/2007/08/top-10-alberto-gonzales-quotes.html

GEORGE W. BUSH

Are you kidding? Who has the time to read twenty five pages of his famous sayings?

Dick Cheney

Come on, I just ate.

Paul Wolfowitz

• A new regime would have become the United States' responsibility. Conceivably, this could have led the United States into a more or less permanent occupation of a country that could not govern itself, but where the rule of a foreign occupier would be increasingly resented.
• Quoted in John Calabrese, The future of Iraq (The Middle East Institute, 1997, ISBN 0916808467, 9780916808464) [1]

• "There has been a good deal of comment -- some of it quite outlandish -- about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army -- hard to imagine."
• House Budget Committee testimony on Iraq (February 27, 2003)

• Firing employees, that's unfortunately a part of doing business. [2]

• "I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism. And that's why it has to be a broad and sustained campaign. It's not going to stop if a few criminals are taken care of."
• Dept of Defense News Briefing (September 13, 2001)

• "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years."
• House subcommittee on Iraq testimony (February 28, 2003)

• "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq. Those who want to come and help are welcome. Those who come to interfere and destroy are not."(2003)
• Press conference in Mosul, Iraq (July 21, 2003) Commentary on comments by Wolfowitz

• "...the importance of leadership and what it consists of: not lecturing and posturing and demanding, but demonstrating that your friends will be protected and taken care of, that your enemies will be punished, and that those who refuse to support you will regret having done so." [3]

• "Fuck you."
• To Al Franken
•  

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz

Collin Powell

You could offer him Rio, I mean full ownership, and he would not have anything to do with a George W. Bush think tank. ha

We can only hope that the new think tank will have as its members individuals with the stunning thought processes we were able to witness over George W. Bush's two terms as President.

All righty then. The House of Representatives has passed a health care act that is 2000 pages long, and we all wish to know what happens now.

Please take time to at least check out Ducky's take on this bill. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/oldengoldendecoy/2009/11/health-reform-bill-implementation-2010-or-2013.php

Yeah, I already know that all women must mandatorily bear babies now. But I must move on. Women are up in arms and up in legs and for chrissakes this has to be fixed. I watched Kitt Bonds (what the fuck kind of name is kitt bonds anyway, sounds like a porno queen but I am attempting to get more info from LarryH on this issue) on Stewart last night and he thinks that any woman he impregnates should have his baby and all, and I hate those people.

At any rate we have a bill that was passed by the House of Representatives. Now the bill GOES to the Senate. No ifs, and or buts, the damn bill goes to the Senate.

The Senate of the United States of America MUST CONSIDER THIS BILL. PERIOD.

So, the Senate will and must address this bill.

Now, the Senate has its own rules, separate from the House as to how to address this issue. It will not, because of pride and indigestion not bring a vote to the floor of the Senate to vote up or down on the provisions in the House Bill.

Through several different committees including the so-called Baucus Committee, a bill will be prepared by the Democrats (the repubs just say no to everything except for amendments that include the outlawing of all abortions even if the victim was raped by Kitt Bonds who has not had an erection in at least a decade--thank god almighty for that) and will be somehow introduced to the Floor of the Senate for consideration.

Then the repubs (who are sick fucks who never cared about anything except for their own reelection and finding a way to get nooky in the local bars without getting found out) will attempt to filibuster---they will attempt to play Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. That is they will attempt to stop all consideration of the proposed legislation by talking a lot about nothing which is what they have been doing for a century.

The Democrats control 58 seats in the Senate. A wonderful man by the name of Sanders calls himself a socialist and caucuses with the Dems.

Now, at least four Dems may not like the legislation that is proposed. But it will only take Joe to enter into an agreement with the true traitors to the U.S. Constitution to stop all consideration of the bill.

But Joe is an egoist as well as an egotist. And he might demur as far as joining with the traitors to stop any consideration of the proposed legislation. I predict that he will lose all committee posts if he does such a heinous thing.

And Olympia Snow (Is that not the coolest name you have ever heard)  or even her Maine Colleague might also demur as far as voting for a filibuster. Olympia Snow is in deep doo doo with the fascist side of her party in Maine. She is losing 60 to 39 according to the polls there in a proposed primary.

At any rate, the Senate WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES vote on the same bill that was passed by the House.

But if the Senate votes on a health care package and it passes and it does not echo every single provision of the House package, what the hell happens?

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster. Because reconciliation limits debate and amendment, the process empowers the majority party. Reconciliation also applies in the United States House of Representatives, but since the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the reconciliation process represented less of a change in that body.

A reconciliation instruction (Budget Reconciliation) is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution. The instructions specify the committees to which they apply, indicate the appropriate dollar changes to be achieved, and usually provide a deadline by which the legislation is to be reported or submitted.[1]

A reconciliation bill is one containing changes in law recommended pursuant to reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution. If the instructions pertain to only one committee in a chamber, that committee reports the reconciliation bill. If the instructions pertain to more than one committee, the House Budget Committee reports an omnibus reconciliation bill, but it may not make substantive changes in the recommendations of the other committees.[2]

The Byrd Rule (described below) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect is that reconciliation cannot be used for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond ten years after the reconciliation measure.

Congress used reconciliation to enact President Bill Clinton's 1993 (fiscal year 1994) budget. (See Pub.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312.) President Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa) insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets. However, on August 25, 2009, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), one of the members of the Senate Finance Committee's "Gang of Six" bipartisan group to work on a health insurance reform bill in the Senate, has said that reconciliation may be used, is an acceptable option, and that he can support it.

Until 1996, reconciliation was limited to deficit reduction, but in 1996 the Senate's Republican majority adopted a precedent to apply reconciliation to any legislation affecting the budget, even legislation that would increase the deficit.[3]

Under the administration of President George W. Bush Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts. These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule. Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed.

A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE is a temporary panel of House and Senate negotiators.

A conference committee is created to resolve differences between versions of similar House and Senate bills.

One of the most ambitious environmental restoration efforts ever proposed for the Great Lakes appears imminent following the emergence from a House-Senate conference committee of legislation providing $475 million for a comprehensive Great Lakes restoration and protection initiative.

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/syndicated/great-lakes-restoration-initiative-clears-congressional-conference-committee,88289

Here's what is different this time, though: House progressives are showing some muscle, some guts, and some cohesiveness. They have pledged in writing that they will not get rolled this time, and I think that their leadership is whipping and organizing this thing in the right way. I had a progressive friend awhile back ask me, "Has a bill ever gotten better in conference?" And actually, the answer is yes. The 1993 budget bill, the 1994 crime bill, the S-CHIP bill in 1998, and even several of the budget bills in the 1990s after the Republicans took control of Congress all got better in conference in some significant ways. It's up to House progressives to make this a strong bill. This legislation is too important to the White House for this to die, so if they stick together and negotiate well, House progressives can make this happen.

Now don't get me wrong: what happens on the Senate floor is incredibly important. We need to get the best possible bill out of the Senate. But progressives should not panic if the language on the public option, or any other major issue in the bill, is not great. No matter what happens in the Senate the first time around, I am convinced that how good this bill is will ultimately come down to how good the House negotiators are on the bill. Sen. Reid has some tough choices on how to approach the Senate strategy, and Senate progressives and all of the pro-health care reform movement need to work together to get the best possible bill in the Senate floor fight. But don't give up on the conference committee process: this time, the House (and House progressives) will be a player.

• Health Care

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/conference-committee-coun_b_313749.html&cp

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27949_Page2.html

Okay, now lets say that a new bill comes out of committee and a vote must be taken by the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The Senate needs 50 plus the vote of the Vice-President of the United States. to break the tie.

I do not think that the members of the Senate of the United States can filibuster the proposed vote on this reconciled bill on the Senate Floor.

Finally, this penalty thing is getting to me. You cannot be thrown in prison for not having health insurance. But you can be imprisoned for lying on your income tax return. Remember Al Capone.

"H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax." [page 1]

"If the government determines that the taxpayer's unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…" [page 2]

"Criminal penalties: Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years." [page 3]

 

http://prorev.com/2009/11/morning-line-health-care-could-be.html

I could be wrong. Show me.

On a more important note:

There was a monumental, historical step taken yesterday in the People's House. There were sooooo many issues involved that we could do three hundred blogs (not that we could not find three hundred blogs on the subject over this calendar year) on the two thousand pages of legislation. And each blog could take a different angle.

And she probably thought she had 218 votes and was a little surprised to find a couple extra.

I also believe that the 39 who 'flew the coop' did so with permission from the top leaders for political reasons.  Nobody was blind sided in this vote.

 One who voted against this historical piece of legislation was Representative Kucinich. I believe that he suffers from something I call the "Nader Syndrome"; a form of mental illness that injures the left greatly along with the rest of our nation.

We must have honor.

We must have sticktoitiveness at all times to our values.

We must never compromise with the infidels.

Well guess what? There are over 300 million people in this country. And only 435 people can represent the millions in the People's House.

And we have the third greatest area of any country in the world.

Which means that Montana's health issues vary greatly from New York City's health issues.

Now, we could have had the best legislation for our national health care problems, in my humble opinion, by simply enacting one sentence into law:

Hereinafter, all citizens of the United States of America qualify for Medicare once they reach the age of 21.

There. Kucinich would have signed on to this bill. But it would have been defeated by one or two hundred votes.

Now the fact is that the Senate will not sign onto everything contained in the two thousand pages. As a process, it will be more than interesting to see how this plays out in this undemocratic Upper House of Congress. Think about it. The Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Vermont, Alaska, Maine, Hawaii and New Hampshire comprise less than twelve million people.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

But these states get twenty two percent of the votes in the Upper House of Congress. Four percent of the population gets a twenty two percent vote.

California, Texas, NYS and Florida have a combined total of almost one hundred million people. One third of our entire population lives in four states and they get eight percent of the vote in the Senate.

What is is, and what is not is not. If you believe in our Constitution, then this is the structure of things.

North Dakota has different concerns from NYS.  But despite the fact that ND has one fortieth of the population of NYS, it has an equal vote.

Well you get the idea. A Dakota Democrat has a different take on things than a NYS Democrat.

I believe that we as citizens must make our voices heard. We must communicate with our elected representatives.

But I think we have to step back a little from pronouncing Max Baucus as satan incarnate. I think we have to give a little slack to Senator Lincoln from Arkansas. These people will help get our Federal Judiciary straightened out. They are more likely to vote for important COLA legislation for the poorer among us. Later on they may help us in a number of different areas involving important. legislation.

There are life and death issues here folks. We will get no cooperation from repubs; although there might be a couple of exceptions involving the Senators from Maine.

The Democrats are our only hope. There are fifty eight Democrats and my favorite socialist from Vermont. Hahaha. That is it. I do not count on Lieberman for much of anything.

And there is the problem of cloture or modern filibuster that is correctly pointed out in Café blogs  on occasion. But it becomes confusing at times.

The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a 3/5ths of the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators elected and sworn), brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. (For changing of senate rules the pre-1975 rule of a super-majority of senators present, i.e. 67 senators at most, is still used).[9

 I think the confusion comes into play with the anticipation of a filibuster along the lines discussed in Wiki's short discussion.

Forty one senators can, at times, stop legislation in its tracks. So if all forty repubs and Lieberman work together, they could stop Health Care reform.  Now at that point, I would vote to keep Lieberman out of any leadership position...hell I would vote to kick his ass out of the Democratic Caucus altogether.

Representatives from the People's House meet with representatives from the Senate and come up with one bill. A vote is then had in the House and in the Senate.  In order to pass that revised bill in the Senate, the Dems need fifty votes along with the vote by the Vice-President.

So what we need, in order to get health reform in this country, is almost any health bill passed by the Senate that can then be revised later on in Conference.

LET US PRAY.

This addendum has nothing to do with anything really but it caught my eye and I wondered what you thought about it:

"Do I condone the mention of Hitler in any discussion about politics?" said Cantor, who is the only Jewish Republican in Congress. "No, I don't, because obviously that is something that conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful."

In a climate where Republicans who criticize Limbaugh come crawling back on their knees (see TPM's "Forgive Me Rush" photo feature), Cantor's office has pointed reporters to the story, emailing the link to Glenn Thrush's post on Cantor's remarks.

It's worth noting that Limbaugh made the comment in question -- "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate" -- on Aug. 6. Cantor at the time did not respond publicly to calls from Jewish groups to condemn the remarks

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/cantor-says-tea-partys-dachau-photos-inappropriate-takes-issue-with-limbaugh.php?ref=fpb

I do not like Representative Cantor. I have seen his appearances on cable. Usually he just repeats the talking points of the RNC...hell he is the RNC. It never occurred to me that he was Jewish.

But I did not know that he was THE ONLY JEWISH REPUBLICAN in the House of Representatives. I find that so strange. I mean there are no Black Republicans in the House, since that fellow from Oklahoma quit politics. 

And I had thought that the Christian Right had accepted the Jews on this strange logic surrounding the end of times and such.

And I know there are hundreds of thousands of conservative Jews in this country; hell look at Michael (The Weiner) Savage.

I just found this interesting is all.  And that ends my reading from the Hebrew Text for today.

Representative Shadegg:

I wish this was my granddaughter," Shadegg said. "This is Maddie. Maddie believes in freedom. Maddie likes America because we have freedom here. And Maddie believes in patient choice health care. She asked to come here today to say she doesn't want the government to take over health care. She wants to keep her plan."

The chamber was either a bit freaked out or slightly humored. It was difficult to say.

"Mr. Speaker that was a remarkable child and a great ventriloquist," responded Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/07/house-health-care-vote-br_n_349468.html&cp

Shortly thereafter, Representative John Boner brought his raccoon up to the dais:

Mr. Speaker, this is somebody's grandson; not my grandson. But this raccoon, sure as I am standing here today in the never ending fight for truth, justice and the American way,  had a mother and a father. The  raccoon's parents had their own parents. And, therefore, this raccoon is somebody's grandson.

 

Now political correctness will not allow me to refer to these critters as 'coons' anymore, but suffice it to say that they are really not the masked bandits as they were once portrayed. I will just refer to him as Rush, the magic raccoon.

 

Now Rush was born free in the forest. Rush was free from government interference and you can see that ole Rush is healthy, as healthy as a raccoon can ever be. Rush is free to see any vet his heart desires.

 

Of course he has to work hard and save up enough acorns--oops wrong word in this context--enough eggs to feed himself and his family.  But Rush is free to visit that vet of choice and they can work out the details of payment. It is up to them. Not you or me or the govement.

 

I am so sick of all of this I could puke. Rush knows that he has to keep up his health, he cannot get too fat, he is not allowed to be come lazy. He cannot feign 'mental' debilitation.

 

Rush here is THE TRUE AMERICAN.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I watched CSPAN this morning. A caller quoted some repub as saying that the Health Care Bill throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Shaking, the caller noted that he was one of the 47 million uninsured in this country and that he did not like to be referred to

AS BATHWATER.