This will be quick. Below is just one reaction from a student in St. Petersburg Florida who read Obama's speech today.

Does brainwashing include telling students that, "every single one of you has something you're good at?" If it does, then every child in this world has been brainwashed by their parents and will continue to be for the rest of their lives.



His speech talks to the students on a personal basis, and the country should be proud that we have a competent President who can talk to students without making mistakes and sounding like an idiot.


Do people who think that the President is corrupting students' minds think that living in Indonesia is the end of the world? If they do, then I guess they do have a reason to complain. Should our country never grow and evolve and learn to adapt to different colored presidents and new ideas? Our country wouldn't be where it is today if that had never happened in our history. People would still be riding in horse drawn carriages, owning slaves, and dying from every disease that enters the country including smallpox. People need to get over their dumb nonsense and realize yes, we do have a black president, yes, he is going to be in office for three and a half more years, and yes, he is smart, nice, handsome, and will help our country recover.

To read some more here's the LINK

You'll love the first one from a student named Justin. He has a bright future in Political satire.
Hat tip to Turneresq over a DKos for bringing this to my attention.

Now I'm talking about President Obama's education speech that seems to be causing such a stir on the right. I'm not going to go into the hypocrisy of their complaint, but rather the fact that they making such a loud noise about it.

I would venture to say that had they just shut up and said nothing half the kids who saw it would have yawned their way through it. No offense to President Obama, but rather just commenting on the attention span of far to many students.

However now that this stink has been raised so has their curiosity. So, I wonder how many kids who don't get to see it the classroom will head to the school's computer, the one at home or some other place just to find out what their parents or school board is forbidding them to see.

I find this analogous to winger trying to ban a book. It usually drives up sales.

Given the amount of gnashing of teeth concerning John's piece in the WSJ. Plus, the several diaries either condemning him or saying progressives should back off because we are once again eating our own. I have decided rather than just rant I thought I would address John's ideas point by point. I do this hoping everybody realizes these are my opinions and mine alone. They do not represent the opinion of all liberals, moderates and I would guess not conservatives. Therefore I fully expect and hope the comments are your take on his ideas. Next I am not going to defend or condemn the Whole Foods boycott here. So here goes.
1) Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. This I agree with. If a corporate citizen gets a break why shouldn't the individual. The other approach might be to take away the corporate break to help pay for the uninsured. Just a thought.

2) Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. This was a McCain idea, as well. The issue here is the risk pool. Allowing this type of portability more than likely will lead to insurers offering cheaper policies to low risk individuals and dropping all together those with high risk. End result  we have done nothing for those that truly need insurance.  Health Policy News

The fact is, such a change may end up benefiting only those who are young, fit, and healthy - people who are low-risk in the eyes of insurers, and who can have their pick of policies. Anyone who is moderate or high risk will eventually find that getting affordable insurance, or perhaps even any insurance at all, becomes much harder.

This may seem counter-intuitive. After all, surely opening up the market will mean everyone has a better shot at getting affordable insurance. The problem is, however, to an insurance company risk is still risk. The perceived risk of an individual who is fifty years old, overweight, and a smoker won't decrease just because that individual can buy insurance anywhere in the country.

And if an insurance company can offer cheap premiums to entice low-risk people from all over the country, they're that much less likely to continue offering any type of insurance to higher-risk individuals.

3) Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. Seriously?To my thinking this will only increase insurance company cherry picking and throwing more people into financial trouble. 

4) Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Sorry this a just a fallacy. Malpractice insurance settlement etc add less than 1% to the cost of healthcare. While any lowering of costs is a good thing I rather doubt this 1% will be passed back. 

5) Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. Couldn't agree more. But what he fails to address is that even by doing so are we enabled to negotiate these costs? If so how does one negotiate when you have a heart attack and it's either have the surgery now or die? 

6) Enact Medicare reform. "We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility." I've include everything John wrote here, because he has offered up no concrete proposal. I'm just don't see how what he suggests saves or funds Medicare more so than what is being suggested already.

7) Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.  Now this is where it all falls apart for me. This is trickle down at it's finest. Does John seriously think that by increasing charitable deductions it is going to improve healthcare for the uninsured. This is Freidman at his worst. Now that said as an individual John does practice what he preaches, but he assumes (and we know what that does) that others will act as charitably or responsibly. If he really believes this maybe he should start a non profit health insurance company that is funded by tax deductible donations as well as very low premiums and proof his theory.

That's it, have at it.

So if deal with the pharmaceutical companies is so outrageous where were you when President Obama announced it way back on June 22. 
MSNBC

Hailed by President Barack Obama, a multi-billion-dollar promise by drug companies to narrow a Medicare drug coverage gap for seniors is valid only if Congress succeeds in passing a comprehensive health care bill encountering strong opposition from Republicans, an industry spokesman said Monday.

The commitment was "made in the context of comprehensive health care reform being enacted," said Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. "We recognize that there has to be a shared commitment if this is going to happen and this is our part of it."

The industry sealed a weekend deal with the White House and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee, to spend $80 billion over the next decade defraying the cost of drugs for seniors and paying a portion of the cost of Obama's legislation. The president, in an appearance Monday at the White House, said the agreement was "a significant breakthrough on the road to health care reform, one that will make a difference in the lives of many older Americans."

I'm just a little curious, is it because the NYTimes worded it in such a way as to sound like it was some nefarious secret deal? Obviously it wasn't.

It has come to my attention that your are seriously considering seceding from the Union. Dude, I have to admit I am impressed with your courage and thinking. You just may be onto something here. However, might I suggest before you move ahead with this audacious plan you take it out for a test drive first.

So here are a few suggestions, you know just to see how it all may work out.

1. The next time you get hit by a massive Hurricane or other natural disaster - no calling FEMA for assistance. They have been instructed not to take your call anyway. It will be passed along to the State Department to see if their is any foreign aid available.

2. Need some help with your inter-states, bridges, etc please take the US DOT off your speed dial.

3. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security these are now completely on you. You do have the option of doing away with them completely of course. I mean really they do kinda smack of socialism.

4. Good news. You do get to bring all the citizens of the great nation of Texas home who are presently in the Armed Forces of the United States no matter where they are presently stationed. Truth is you are going to need them which brings me to #5.

5. Need help along your border with Mexico because of the Mexican Drug Cartels. Deal with it.

6. We will also be shuttering all the US Military bases within your nation and taking all the associated equipment with us when we leave. You are free to make an offer to purchase.

6. Now as to your colleges and universities. A couple of things, no more Federal loans to Texas citizens attending colleges or universities, either inside your borders or out. Research grants from the Federal Government, yes those are gone. Oh I almost forgot they are out of the NCAA too.

7. Since we are trying out this whole sovereign nation thing, please remember you are not party to the current NAFTA agreement. So while we negotiate one that may include The Nation of Texas  anything you produce and export to the US will be subject to the appropriate tariffs.

8. Your citizens by  the way will need passports and will suffer the same indignities and hassles all foreign nationals receive when entering the US. In fact we will probably have too temporarily put every Texan on a watch list, just to be on the safe side.

I know I  have forgotten a number of things, but we'll add to the list as they present themselves.

I'll give you a call in six months jut to see how it's going. This assumes you haven't been tarred, feathered and run out of your country on a rail.

Cheers and Good luck!

Steve

There has been a bit outrage about Wagoner loosing his job at GM as a condition of continued government assistance. Such as this front page headline on TPM:

WHY DOES GM'S CEO GET THE BOOT WHILE WALL STREET'S FIRMS FLY FREE?

Have we already forgotten that AIG's head had to go as part of the bailout deal?

Willumstad will lose his job at the helm of AIG, according to a person briefed on the matter, in connection with the U.S. government's $85 billion rescue package for the giant insurer.

He will be replaced by Edward Liddy, a former chief executive of the insurer Allstate Corp, said another person briefed on the matter.

Have we forgotten that the heads of both Freddie and Fannie had to go as part of helping them out.

Should more heads have rolled?

Possibly, but to claim The Street has gotten off scott- free is a conflation of facts.

For all the Republicans moaning and groaning that the stimulus bill was not bipartisan. I find this little nugget to good not to share.

As many may or may not know there are some devastating wildfire happening in Colorado right now. And because of them over 11,500 people have been evacuated from there homes. One of those evacuated, ex FEMA Michael "your doing a heckuva job Brownie" Brown.

There seems to be a meme building amongst many that Obama is all of a sudden is not going to be the anti-war candidate that he promises. Well,is this what he promised? Ever? As a little memory refresher I offer up for your reading pleasure the following speech.

Read more »

So let me see if I get this. By disabling comments a poster believes he or she is raising the level of discourse, by silencing discourse. 

This is pretty much the read I get when I hear reasons for using the disable comments function. They are tired of hearing some say fuck- off or the like to their post. Well I get that, but so what. Some people are rude. Some people use profanity because that's all they have - the attempt of a weak mind to express itself forcefully. However getting all in a lather about it just adds fuel to the fire you think they are trying start. By disabling you are actually validating rude behavior - They have shut you up. How? Disabling comments, in my opinion, is a sure way over time to be ignored and marginalized.

The other excuse seems to be - I am tired of nobody agreeing with anything I say. I am tired of people attacking my opinion. I am tired of people being so  blind that they cannot see that I am right. So, I not going to allow it to happnen. To these folks I say, maybe it's because your arguments are lacking to the TPM readers. And if you are so sensitive maybe you should be writing an old school diary that gets locked and hidden away in your underwear drawer for only you to read. So either have the courage of your convictions or stop taking up space.

You are now free to tell me fuck off or I am full of it.

These are not my words , but those of one Larry Hunter, who's creds as a conservative Republican are lengthy, to say the least. Yesterday he wrote a piece for the Daily News outlining his reasons for why he is voting for Obama.

It's an interesting article some of which, especially on Obama's policies and positions I think he is reading wrong, but so be it.

The money quote  comes in the first three paragraphs.

I'm a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole's presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp's Empower America.

This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama.

When I first made this decision, many colleagues were shocked. How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that's antithetical to almost everything I believe in?

The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.

Whether Larry has truly seen the light and left the dark side I couldn't say.  The news here - another nail in the Republican Party coffin just got hammered home.

Cross posted at DKos/MyDD

Across the blogoshpere this AM there has been a general gnashing of teeth, wringing of hands and liberal moral outrage over Obama's supposed pandering to the religious right. His supposed ignoring of the separation of church and state. His supposed turning a blind eye to discriminatory hiring practices. Well maybe we should all just try to avoid knee jerk reactions to the phrase "Faith Based" and look a bit deeper.
First this is not a new position that just came to him. If you thought this you were not paying attention. This from an interview with Beliefnet in January '08 -

You wrote in “The Audacity of Hope” about the role that faith and faith-based programs could play in confronting social ills. Isn’t your view on that similar to George W. Bush’s?

No, I don’t think so, because I am much more concerned with maintaining the line between church and state. And I believe that, for the most part, we can facilitate the excellent work that’s done by faith-based institutions when it comes to substance abuse treatment or prison ministries…. I think much of this work can be done in a way that doesn’t conflict with church and state. I think George Bush is less concerned about that.

My general criteria is that if a congregation or a church or synagogue or a mosque or a temple wants to provide social services and use government funds, then they should be able to structure it in a way that all people are able to access those services and that we’re not seeing government dollars used to proselytize.

That, by the way, is a view based not just on my concern about the state or the apparatus of the state being captured by a particular religious faith, but it’s also because I want the church protected from the state. And I don’t think that we promote the incredible richness of our religious life and our religious institutions when the government starts getting too deeply entangled in their business. That’s part of the reason why you don’t have as rich a set of religious institutions and faith life in Europe. Part of that has to do with the fact that, traditionally, it was an extension of the state. And so there is less experimentation, less vitality, less responsiveness to the yearnings of people. It became a rigid institution that no longer served people’s needs. Religious freedom in this country, I think, is precisely what makes religion so vital.

Next the issue of discrimination in hiring practices. This from Politco.

The new partnership will not endanger the separation of church and state, so long as a few basic principles are followed. First, if an organization gets a federal grant, it will not be permitted to use that grant money to proselytize to the people it serves, and the group will forbidden to discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. And groups will be required to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws in their hiring practices—including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

So all in all I think we need to get a grip.  It is never wise to act like the rabid right who jump on words or phrases rather than whole thoughts.
Links to entire quoted articlesBeliefnet quote: http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2758Politico quote: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Speaking_of_faith.html#comments

We all know Poblano over at fivethirtyeight.com is on a predictive roll lately. So how is is he/she calling WV?
He's giving WV to Hillary with 105,000 popular votes and 12 delegates. Obama, he predicts will get 6 delegates.
Now if these numbers hold up with Obama's 4 Supers, so far, today and one pledged delegate switch from Hillary to Obama her delegate gain on Obama from WV will be zero.
The popular vote gain will be more than negated by the OR primary. 

Listen, I think we all need to quiet down a bit. We all know there are a lot of Clinton supporters saying - if Hillary doesn't get it, I'm taking my ball and going to play with McCain or go home and not play at all. There are some very deep wounds right now and some of these will heal with time, but some may not. Especially if we keep picking at the scab. If you spend any time over on MyDD.com, a strong Hillary support site, you can read for yourself how deep the divide has become. As a Obama supporter it's hard to read some of the thinking over there, but I grit my teeth and do it. The reason for the Obama dislike are numerous, from he played the race card first, trashing the Clinton legacy, too inexperienced, wasn't his turn, not vetted, can't win the GE and the list goes on. I absolutely disagree with all of them, but I'm an Obama supporter, so duh. However, this is their reality and they either have to get to know Obama and decide they can live with him or not. They will never ever come over as rabid supporters. Just as I never would be a whole hearted Hillary supporter. However I know in the end I would vote for her come November. Doing anything else would have been cutting my nose of to spite my face. Also Obama supporters holding out our hands in friendship right now isn't the answer. Time is needed and they need to make the walk across the bridge themselves. They won't be pulled over. Finally the trash talking of Hillary or her supporters is just counter productive. If I take emotion out of it, I do not think Hillary is racist or any of the other stuff she has gotten called. In the heat of a campaign when you are trying to win, some pretty stupid stuff gets said and gets blown up way beyond it's meaning. Face it, how would you feel if by every known metric a year ago you were supposed to be the nominee? And because of bad advice, some poor choices, stupid and some remarks you found yourself on the verge of your dream slipping away. So the faster we stop trashing her and her supporters the better. As trite as it may sound, we are at that point where - If you don't have anything nice or reasoned to say, don't say anything at all. On that note I can hear a few of you saying well if I do that what am I going to write about ;) It's time to tap those creative brains my friends. And so ends the reading for today.

McClatchy has an interesting story about how Hillary, while following ethics rules fails to report $24 million of Bill's income. Here's where  some of the income came from.

2004: .... $4 million from the offshore partnership with Burkle, the billionaire founder of the Los Angeles-based Yucaipa Companies LLC.

2005: .... $5 million from the Yucaipa partnership.

2006: .... He also received $2.6 million, some of it in ``guaranteed payments,'' from the Cayman Islands-based Yucaipa partnership, which invested in Xinhua Finance Media Ltd., China's leading, government-controlled financial and entertainment media company.

For complete article please go here 
Probably a little late to have much effect on tomorrow, butonce again she shows she's just one of us.