Sarah Palin Is Lying About Healthcare Reform

Sarah Palin is lying about Obama's healthcare reform because she is surely not stupid enough to believe what she has said. "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

I believe Palin is familiar enough with the reform proposal to know that it does not propose a Death Panel or anything like it.

My son Jon has Down Syndrome. Jon's life has always been and continues to be significantly better because of government funded programs from Early Intervention before he was one year old to the adult employment program through which he has a job. In Jon's life the only significant cut in the Department of Mental Retardation funding occurred under the administration of Ronald Reagan - the same administration that reduced the maximum income to qualify for assistance thus creating a new class called the Near Poor and defined ketchup as a vegetable to reduce the cost of Head Start school meals.

As Alaska's governor, Palin reduced funding of The Department of Education and Early Development of Special Needs by more than 60%.

Palin isn't interested in the truth about healthcare reform. She knows that she must lie to defeat beneficial reform. With much regret I concede that there might be enough voters who are stupid enough to believe her.

Consumer protection laws require truth in commercial advertising. Why don't we require truth in political advertising? Is it only because we cannot find enough people who are able and willing to render an honest opinion that is free of ideological bias? They don't have to judge the opinions they only have to determine if the claims are supported by facts. I believe there are many people who could fulfill this role, however, since they must be appointed by politicians, unbiased candidates don't have a chance.

Don't listen to the political rhetoric. Read the reform proposals and judge them for yourself. We won't all agree about the reform. But, we should agree to be honest with each other.

Texas Governor Plans To Secede From The Federal Healthcare Program

Texas Governor Rick Perry wants no part of the Federal Healthcare Reform. He doesn't want the federal government to screw up healthcare in Texas. Perry thinks that Texas is doing better and will continue to do better on its own. Perry has been the governor of Texas for 9 years. Let's see how Perry is doing with healthcare in Texas.

1 in 4 Texans is uninsured; 25% of its population. Only 15% of all Americans are uninsured.

Texas employers insure fewer of its residents than 45 states.

Texas spends less than 44 states for healthcare per Texan.

Texas spends less than 36 states for healthcare per "insured" Texan.

Texas receives 10.4% of all Federal funding for the SCHIP program which pays healthcare expenses for children of low income families but SCHIP enrollment in Texas is only 7.4% of the U.S. enrollment. Therefore, the "Federal" cost per child in Texas is 40% higher than the national average.

Healthcare in Texas is poor.

Why then does Governor Perry feel that Texans will get better healthcare if Texas is not involved in the Federal Healthcare program? Is Governor Perry concerned that all Texans have access to affordable healthcare or is he more concerned that the healthcare industry continues to make a good profit?

No Honor In The GOP

Barack Obama's citizenship was first challenged when he decided to run for the presidency. The accusation that he was born in Kenya rather than in Hawaii is still being made by a group of nuts referred to as Birthers. The Birther's campaign to unseat Obama because he is not a citizen has actually intensified recently. Several congressional Republicans have publicly supported the Birther's challenge. In spite of clear and legal evidence that Obama was born in the United States, these Republicans claim that they have not seen the proof of citizenship that the Birthers are demanding. The rest of the elected Republicans as well as the Republican National Committee remained completely silent on the matter until this week when an RNC spokesperson released this statement, "Chairman Steele believes that this is an unnecessary distraction and believes that the president is a U.S. citizen." Steele waited until Obama had been president for 6 months before finally coming out against the outrageous Birther accusation. The McCain campaign team never acknowledged Obama's U.S. citizenship and John McCain only did so when one of his supporters asked him if Obama was a Muslim and not an American.

You may be saying that it's politics as usual and the Democrats would do the same thing if the situation was reversed but that is not true. McCain was actually born in a foreign country - Panama - where McCain's father was serving in the U.S. Navy. When McCain opponents started challenging McCain's citizenship and right to run for the presidency, Democratic Senators Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Patrick Leahy of Vermont introduced a resolution in the Senate proclaiming that John McCain was a U.S. Citizen. The resolution was co-sponsored by Democrats Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Jim Webb and Republican Tom Coburn. The resolution was proposed only two months after the accusations about McCain became public.

While there is no less evidence that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen, several congressional Republicans and many Republican spokespersons, including Liz Cheney aka "Little Dick," continue to challenge Obama's U.S. citizenship. One statement released by an RNC spokesperson, rather than a public statement from Chairman Steele and/or congressional Republican leaders, is not enough and has come way too late.

The RNC and elected Republicans have not come out against the accusation in support of their president for political reasons; not because they are so stupid or so uninformed that they believe the accusation. In spite of their claim to be the moral leadership of the U.S., the RNC and elected Republicans have proven again to be anything but.

If you happen to be one of the Birthers, be ashamed of your utter stupidity and should I say racial bigotry. If you are a Republican and you believe that Obama is a U.S. citizen, then I suggest that you write your party leadership and your elected Republican representatives, if you have any, and demand that they publicly oppose the Birthers and strongly proclaim that Obama is a U.S. citizen.

If you happen to be undecided about Obama's citizenship, I suggest that you wake up and start using your brain.

The Arrest of Professor Gates - Update

I think Obama is technically incorrect to support Gates since Obama admits not knowing all the facts BUT we should not be surprised that a black man’s initial response to such a story would be to take the side of the black man arrested. I don’t think a typical American minority person, especially a black, should be expected to "react" differently in situations like this.

However, Obama is not a typical black man when he opens his mouth in public. As the President he should not have commented until he adequately understood what took place. He certainly has enough resources at his disposal to inform him well in a short time.

When our politicians have spoken out as white men or Christian men rather than for all Americans, the majority has rightly disagreed with their narrow-minded positions. We should not make an exception for Obama.

The Arrest of Professor Gates - Who's Responsible?

I've read two accounts of the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. One account was written by a friend, Lawrence Bobo. The other account was provided by the attorney for Henry Louis Gates, Jr. They are, in my opinion, very different accounts. The attorney's account would leave one to believe that the policeman had no cause to make an arrest. But, the account by Lawrence Bobo convinced me that Gates was responsible for his own arrest even though Bobo blames the policeman for a false arrest. Gates and a second black man broke into a house that he had just rented when he found that the door was damaged and the key would not open it. This activity was reported to the local police who responded as though it was a possible burglary.

I agree that race continues to be an issue in the US. Having a black man as president gives white America a new perspective that is not wasted on many, if any, whites and it gives blacks a new perspective of themselves and hope for continued improvements in race relations. However, I think Professor Gates is responsible for his arrest. Professor Gates could and should have reacted like an “unknown person” confronted by a policeman investigating the report of a possible crime. Instead, he chose to assume that the white policeman was disrespecting him because he was black. Then again, it may have been a “class” issue: the working class cop versus the “famous and successful Harvard professor”, according to Lawrence Bobo. I can’t be sure whether either the policeman or Professor Gates turned this into a “class” issue but Lawrence Bobo’s own words suggest to me that he has a “class” attitude. I didn’t recognize the name Henry Louis “Skip” Gates in spite of the fact, according to Lawrence Bobo, that Professor Gates is “one of the most readily recognized black men in America and the most broadly influential black scholar of this generation.” I looked at a photo of Professor Gates and he was not familiar to me. That doesn’t mean that Professor Gates is not highly recognized and most broadly influential. What it means to me is that at least Lawrence Bobo, if not Professor Gates, is wrong to assume that the policeman had to have recognized Professor Gates by sight and by name and was bent on punishing him for his race and/or his status.

Let me know what you think after you have read both views.

Secret CIA Program - A Legal Not Political Matter

CIA Director Leon Panetta recently disclosed to Congress a secret CIA program authorized by Dick Cheney in 2001. By order of Dick Cheney, Congress was never briefed on the program. This act alone is a violation of federal law. If Cheney did not want Congress to know that the program existed then one can only conclude that Congress would not have approved of the program's activities because those activities also violate the federal law or international treaty.

The GOP would have us believe that an investigation of the secret program would only be motivated by politics for the purpose of damaging the GOP and members of the Bush Administration. They further claim that the investigation would embarrass the US and likely threaten US security. John McCain asked, "What's going to be the positive result from airing out and ventilating details of what we already knew took place and should never have? "And," added McCain, "we are committed to making sure it never happens again." McCain would have a stronger argument against an investigation if the guilty admitted their wrong doing and condemned their own acts. Without that the nation has not adequately admitted that wrongs were done, never should have been done and should not be done again. Without a full admission of guilt those who believe that wrongs were not done will commit, or permit others to commit, the same wrongs in the future.

I agree that a political motivation exists but politics must not also prevent the US from investigating criminal activity, especially within the government, and prosecuting those responsible for it. The US has already lost moral ground with other nations and the only way to recover it is to thoroughly investigate and prosecute these crimes. Finally, the only way to ensure that future administrations do not violate the law is to demonstrate that future violations will not go unpunished by punishing the violators within the Bush Administration.

I don't doubt that the country will be deeply split if the Department of Justice proceeds with this investigation but that is not a reason to ignore criminal acts. The country has been deeply split before and each time has risen from it a better country for fully enforcing our Constitution. The strongest example is the secession of the Southern slave states following the election of Abe Lincoln who campaigned against the expansion of slavery. The cost of doing the right thing was high but the need was greater.

Our Constitution is only as powerful as our commitment to enforce it. Enforcing the Constitution is not "politics as usual" it is a matter of Law and the survival of our Constitution.

Fox & Friends Host Is An Idiot - Maybe A Racist

Watch this video of "Fox and Friends" host Brian Kilmeade proving that he is at least an idiot if not also a racist. How does this gang stay on the air? The first time I watched this show, the female host stated, while responding to an accusation that the United States would preemptively use nuclear weapons, "the United States has never used its nuclear weapons." Has she not heard of "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" that were dropped on Japan and killed more than 200,000 people? Murdock doesn't care who he hires at Fox as long as they will tell his lies. Is it possible that Murdock's lackeys are stupid enough to believe what that are saying?

Are Mexican Army Interrogators CIA-Trained?

"Mexico Accused of Torture in Drug War PUERTO LAS OLLAS, Mexico -- The Mexican army has carried out forced disappearances, acts of torture and illegal raids in pursuit of drug traffickers, according to documents and interviews with victims, their families, political leaders and human rights monitors." (By Steve Fainaru and William Booth, The Washington Post)

I bet the United States Government doesn't have the nerve to complain to Mexico that the methods they are employing against suspected drug traffickers are human rights violations. Yet, if they do I won't be surprised. After all, John McCain stated that the United States does not have to worry that other countries will also violate the Geneva Convention Treaty if the United States refuses to prosecute its own treaty violators. Why? "Because other countries know that the United States will punish them for their war crimes if they torture our military personnel," said John McCain.

Apparently the Golden Rule and international treaties apply to all nations except the United States.

Rev. Al Sharpton - Playing the Race Card over Michael Jackson

I have never been a fan of the Rev. Al Sharpton because he too often creates a race issue where one did not exist or he throws fuel on a small issue, making it worse rather than better.

Now he is using the death of Michael Jackson to accuse the news media and the entertainment industry of slighting Michael Jackson by their "inadequate" coverage of his passing and recognition of his talents. It was my opinion that the news media and the entertainment industry could not have spent more time and resources on Michael Jackson since his passing. Was there anything else on TV for days after Michael Jackson died? The news media over-reports on many events until most of us are sick of the subject and they haven't made an exception for Michael Jackson.

Sharpton called on the news media and the entertainment industry to recognize Michael Jackson on the occasion of his passing in a manner equal to that which was afforded Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley. I'm very sure that Sinatra's passing did not give rise to as much positive coverage. I even doubt that Elvis Presley was lauded more than Michael Jackson although the news media could and did make more of the cause for Presley's "passing."

I don't question whether Michael Jackson was a significant talent and I don't resent the attention that he has received due to his very significant fan following. However, as a person, rather than a musician, Jackson deserves significant criticism although now is not the proper time. Matter of fact, his parents also deserve significant criticism, in my opinion, for their contribution to the making of Michael Jackson, the person.

If the impact of Al Sharpton's statements were limited to his reputation then I would not mind that he is making a fool of himself, but his conduct is a negative impact on the race issue in America. What's worse is that his impact is often negative.

More Anti-Obama Lies From Rush Limbaugh

While on a recent 1,300 mile roadtrip I happened onto Rush Limbaugh's radio talkshow. I think we should listen to both sides of all the issues which affect us or on which we want to have an opinion. So, I decided to listen to Rush.

The Obama Administration had just announced that the federal government would provide cash awards for the development of technologies that will reduce America's reliance on carbon based fuels. Rush stated that the cash incentive is sufficient evidence that nobody knows how to achieve the goals that Obama set and that these technologies are not currently cost justified. Rush also complained that the government should not spend money to develop technologies that the private sector is not willing to invest in. For example, one of the goals is to increase the automobile mileage to at least 70 mpg without significantly increasing the cost of the automobile. I agree that nobody knows how to do this or that 'somebody' would already be selling the technology like hotcakes to a hungry man. I don't agree that the United States should wait for the private sector to develop new technologies which will benefit the the country as a whole but cannot be cost justififed by the private sector. If that were the case the world would not now have the internet and Americans would not have the federal superhighway system.

Rush Limbaugh is smart enough to know that he is lying to his fans but he also knows that most of his fans aren't smart enough or informed enough to know that they are being lied to. Such is the strength of the talking heads of the far-right base of the nearly deceased and thoroughly insignificant GOP.

More Richard Nixon Tapes!!!

I get to post twice today thanks to Gov. Sanford of South Carolina and the late and disgraced President Richard Nixon.

More taped oval office conversations of Richard Nixon have been released. These tapes reveal that he was a racist. While discussing the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion Nixon stated, "I admit, there are times when abortions are necessary, I know that." Nixon cited "a black and a white" as an example. Charles Colson with whom Nixon was speaking added, "or rape." "Or rape," said Nixon. Did the weary Civil Rights Movement know that it had an opponent in the White House?

In another taped conversation with George HW Bush, who was then Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Nixon stated, "I noticed a couple of very attractive women, both of them Republicans, in the legislature, I want you to be sure to emphasize to our people, God, let's look for some … Understand, I don't do it because I'm for women, but I'm doing it because I think maybe a woman might win someplace where a man might not … So have you got that in mind?"
To which Bush replied, "I'll certainly keep it in mind."

Nixon's tapes have ensured that his legacy will be as poor as it deserves to be. More poor than we could have imagined without the aid of his tapes.

Can the Moral Majority still think the GOP represents their Moral Interests?

Two more possible 2012 GOP presidential candidates have likely dashed their hopes for nomination by admitting to extra-marital affairs. Senator Ensign got off easy compared to SC Governor Sanford who "disappeared" for nearly one week without a word to his family, his staff or the State of South Carolina. After telling the press that he was hiking the Appalachian Trail he was caught by a news reporter arriving in South Carolina on a flight from Argentina. Now he has admitted to his family, his state and the GOP, which he had hoped to lead back to the White House, that he has been having a affair with a woman from Argentina.

How many moral scandals can the GOP commit before the Moral Majority realizes that the GOP politicians and leadership are giving them lip service only? I'm not suggesting that the Democratic party hasn't had some moral scandals of its own but the Democratic party doesn't claim to be the sole representative of Christian morals and ideals as does the GOP. Recently, Liberty University, founded by the Moral Majority's Jerry Falwell, banned the Democratic Club from the campus because unlike the Republican Party the Democratic Party with which the Club is affliliated "stands against the moral principles held by Liberty University." Can the university still assume that the Republican Party stands for those moral principles?

Who is left in the GOP that "may" still stand for those moral principles? Rush Limbaugh?

Can you hear me laughing out loud?

Is GITMO any better than a North Korean trial?

The following was posted by Mitchell Bard on The Huffington Post:

"North Korea can seize two innocent journalists, put them through a bogus, private, star-chamber trial, and then sentence them to 12 years of hard labor, all without any justification. The United States I grew up in, the United States that fought wars from World War I to the Cold War defending democracy and freedom against repression, could never engage in such conduct like the North Koreans did. And yet, there it is, for all to read, that we took a man and locked him up without a trial for 7 1/2 years, torturing him while in our custody, even though two courts, one in the U.S. and one in Bosnia (one before his detention and one after), found insufficient evidence to charge him with any crime. While we clearly have a more open and democratic society than North Korea does, his experience with us was no better than what the two American journalists are now going through in North Korea. We have to recognize that Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang did real damage to core American ideals, and that this damage is still being felt, both at home and abroad." Mitchell Bard's full story

Do you feel, like most Americans, that North Korea's treatment of two American Journalists is a crime and that North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is a criminal? Is the detention in GITMO without trial of suspected terrorists less criminal? If you are not just as outraged by the abuse of GITMO detainees as you are about the detention of two American journalists then, in my opinion, you have a serious moral deficiency.

The GOP "Leadership" Is Desperate!

The self-proclaimed GOP leaders are saying anything they can think of to discredit every action that Obama takes. The GOP obviously doesn't care if their statements are true but even I am surprised that they aren't even plausible.

During the BIG GOP fundraiser last night Newt Gingrich charged that Obama's stimulus plan prevents Boy Scouts from holding meetings in public schools. Does anybody with at least half a brain believe that?

Sarah Palin (I still can't believe that anybody takes her seriously) charged that after Obama bails out and buys up all the corporations he will start bailing out and buying up all the bankrupted state governments. At that point Obama will not only be able to hire and fire corporate CEO's, he will also control the states and the People. Does anybody with at least half a brain believe that?

As stupid as those claims are to you and me, there's a large number of people that believe them. I don't wonder why moderate Republicans are leaving the GOP?

Law Enforcement Could Have Prevented Dr. Tiller's Murder

Scott Roeder, an extreme anti-abortion activist, has been charged with murdering Dr. Tiller, who performed abortions, some late-term, in Wichita, KS. I don't believe in abortion unless it is a medical necessity. Dr. Tiller performed abortions that were legal in Kansas. The legality of his abortions was upheld in court.

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 1994, forbids the use of force, threat of force or physical obstruction to prevent someone from providing or receiving reproductive health services. Violation of the Act is a federal crime. In 1994, the Dept of Justice prosecuted 17 violations of FACE. In the years 1994 through 1998, the DOJ prosecuted about 50 violations. While GW Bush was president, the DOJ prosecuted an average of 2 violations per year. The number of DOJ prosecutions would be expected to decrease because the number of FACE complaints per year decreased. However, the ratio of prosecutions to complaints during the Bush administration was only one-third as much as throughout the Clinton administration.

Violations have not decreased for all clinics as much as they have for some because of differences in the enforcement of the law. Law enforcement in Wichita, KS where Dr. Tiller had his clinic was poor to none. After one Wichita city attorney failed to act on one of Dr. Tiller’s complaints, the attorney explained that he would rather be sued by Dr. Tiller than the anti-abortionists.

Many complaints about Scott Roeder were filed with the FBI over a period of years yet Roeder was never prosecuted. The FBI received two complaints from a Kansas City clinic about Scott Roeder one week before the murder and the day before the murder. In the second incident a clinic employee confronted Roeder while Roeder was trying to super glue the clinic’s access doors. Roeder was also videotaped by the clinics security system but the FBI did nothing.

While local law enforcement and the FBI did nothing, Cheryl Sullenger, an advisor to Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group in Wichita, provided information to Scott Roeder regarding the time and place of various court hearings in which Dr. Tiller was involved. Cheryl Sullenger served two years in jail for conspiracy to bomb a California abortion clinic. Sullenger claims that she was only providing answers to Roeder’s questions and was not otherwise involved. It appears to me that Cheryl Sullenger, if not Operation Rescue also, conspired to murder Dr. Tiller.

Scott Roeder was able to murder Dr. Tiller because the DOJ, the FBI and local law enforcement in Kansas repeatedly and consistently failed to act. I expect Scott Roeder to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, I question whether Cheryl Sullenger and Operation Rescue will be investigated to determine if either or both conspired with Scott Roeder. I also question whether the DOJ, FBI and Wichita law enforcement will investigate their neglect that enabled this crime to be committed.

Liberty Limited at Liberty University

Earlier this month Liberty University, the Christian Evangelical university founded by the late Jerry Falwell, informed the student Democrats Club that it is no longer recognized as a university club. In an e-mail to the Democrats Club the vice-president of student affairs stated, "I must inform you that the College democrats' club is no longer going to be recognized as a Liberty University club. We are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by Liberty University. I expressed these concerns when we met, earlier in the spring semester. The Liberty Way states, "It is the duty of every student to respect Liberty's Statement of Doctrine and Purpose. They may not engage in any activity on or off campus that would compromise the testimony or reputation of the University or cause disruption to Liberty's Christian learning environment." The Liberty University School of Law had been working on a policy to govern their clubs and organizations for quite some time. They have now completed that policy and we have adopted it for Liberty University as well. Now that it has been adopted and will apply to all clubs and organizations, it is clear that this club does not comply."

When the bigoted and self-righteous Jerry Falwell chose Liberty as the name for his university, whose liberty did he have in mind? He certainly didn't believe in liberty for his followers and university students.

As a tax exempt religious organization the university is barred from participating in politics and advocating for any political party or candidate. Banning the student Democrats Club because its parent organization is the Democratic Party violates the conditions under which the university receives its tax exemption. Liberty University students who receive federal financial aid or student loans that are guaranteed by the federal government are at risk of losing such funding.

Liberty University can advocate against abortion and same-sex marriage but it cannot advocate for or against any political party or candidate and continue to be recognized as a religious organization. Liberty University and its supporters will complain that their religious freedom is under attack by the Left, by the Democratic Party and by anti-Christians but this will simply not be true.

Military Suicide Rate is High

The suicide rate among active duty military personnel is higher than in the general population. Last year, there were 140 such suicides. That is alarmingly high but the suicide rate among active duty military has always been high, in fact, the suicide rate among inactive veterans is higher than in the general population. This could suggest either that personnel who join the military are already more predisposed to suicide or that the active duty experience causes a change in the personnel that results in an increase in suicide rate and that this change is permanent for all or most of the personnel.

The military is struggling to reduce the incidence of suicide but is still not able to identify all of those at risk of or already contemplating suicide.

When I was in boot camp in San Diego in 1965, five recruits committed suicide and many more attempted it. I was in boot camp for 14 weeks. There were 80 recruits in my company at the start of training. Three of them had nervous breakdowns early on in the training and were discharged. A fourth was sent to a hospital for several weeks before restarting training shortly before my company graduated.

I've always thought that the military should have been able to identify during initial evaluations those people who were at greater risk of a mental breakdown and suicide. It was my impression that the military didn't really care. One night in boot camp while I was on guard duty one of the recruits from another company in my battalion pretended to commit suicide. He cut his wrist with a razor but it wasn't deep enough to do real harm. When the recruit was brought before the battalian duty officer, an older mustang officer, he chewed out the recruit. He told him that the next time he tried to commit suicide he had to cut deeper and cut his throat instead of his wrist at which point the duty officer swiped an object across the recruit's neck as if to cut his throat for him. The recruit fainted. That's how sensitive the military was to the issue when I was a recruit.

Surely, the military is more sensitive and more capable than they were 45 years ago but the statistics show that they are far from being adequately capable.

I suspect that some people think that men aren't made of the same tough stuff that they used to be made of and their weakness contributes to the high suicide rate. That wasn't true 45 years ago and I'm sure that is not true today.

Conservative Mancow Muller says Waterboarding Torture

On May 22, 2009 Erich "Mancow" Muller, a conservative radio talk show host submitted himself for waterboarding. "I want to find out if it's torture," Mancow told his listeners Friday morning, adding that he hoped his on-air test would help prove that waterboarding did not, in fact, constitute torture."

I watched a video of his waterboarding, which was administered by Marine Sergeant Clay South. Muller stopped the waterboarding after 6 to 7 seconds and was visably shaken by the experience. Muller stated, "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens submitted himself to the same thing last year and came to the same conclusion. In fact, Hitchens said that the experience "haunted" him for months.

Sean Hannity, Fox, offered to submit to waterboarding to prove that it is not torture. Hannity has not followed through although given the chance to do so. I'm not going to suggest that Hannity is a coward because he changed his mind. I wouldn't submit myself to waterboarding, but then I already believe that it is torture. Hannity had enough sense to stop short of "torturing" himself and proving to his audience that his mouth is bigger than his lungs are.

Too bad that Muller's experience won't be enough to convince everybody that waterboarding is torture. Many of them will find some way to excuse Muller's inability to endure waterboarding. They will continue to support the use of waterboarding. There are many other supporters of waterboarding who didn't need Muller to demonstrate whether it was torture. These people already believe that waterboarding is torture. They believe that the US had the right to torture the detainees and would approve of the US using torture in the future.

Steve King - Another Worthless Republican Bigot

Iowans made a damn big mistake when they elected Steve King to the US Congress. Steve King opposes the hate crime bill that makes federal funds and legal services available to local and state governments that otherwise might not be able investigate and prosecute hate crimes and expands the law to protect individuals targeted because of their gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and disability. I've read every word of the bill and I found that none of the complaints about this bill are true.

The first complaint I heard was from religious conservatives who warned that the bill would make it possible for the government to prosecute church leaders who oppose homosexuality. Nothing in the bill supports this outrageous claim. In fact, the bill contains an explicit provision reiterating that free speech rights are not altered by any provisions in the bill. In order for somebody to be charged with a hate crime, the crime has to result in death or bodily injury.

Last month Republican Virginia Foxx, complained that sponsors of the bill were improperly citing the robbery/murder of Matthew Shepard as a hate crime to promote the passage of the bill. Virginia Foxx said that it was a hoax to call the Matthew Shepard murder a hate crime. She did so in the presence of Matthew Shepard's mother. Matthew Shepard died after being tied to a fence post and beaten. His murderers confessed that they pretended to be gay in order to lure Matthew out of a bar so that they could kill him for being gay.

Steve King is now claiming that the bill will protect pedophiles. If Steve King is not lying through his teeth, he is more stupid than anybody I know. There is nothing in the bill that could in any way be interpreted as protective of pedophiles.

There is nothing that opponents of the hate crime bill will not say and do to prevent it from becoming law. Do they hate the victims of hate crimes more than the criminals? Do the opponents of this bill believe that the victims of certain hate crimes are deserving of punishment? It's impossible for me to believe otherwise.

No person that feels and acts like Steve King and Virginia Foxx deserves to hold any government office. It is not a place for bigotry and hatred. Shame on them and shame on the voters that put them in office.

The Big Bang and Creationism

Most of the Christians I know believe the universe was created by God. They do not believe in the prevailing theory of science - The Big Bang. Many of them disagree with The Big Bang Theory without knowing anything about it. They believe that the universe was created by God exactly as stated in the Book of Genesis. I have always believed that the Big Bang and Creationism are not opposing concepts. Why couldn't God be responsible for the Big Bang?

Christians tell me that the Big Bang would have been revealed in Genesis if it had really occurred. How would God have explained the Big Bang to his people thousands of years ago? Would the messages contained in Genesis be better understood if God had provided a scientific description of creation?

The Big Bang says that the Universe was once smaller than a single atom. For an unknown reason it rapidly expanded and began forming stars. Over billions of years some of those stars died and in the process of dying formed all the elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. The debris from exploded dying stars formed all the other objects in the universe, including Earth, the moon, you and me. We are all stardust. The universe continues to expand at an ever decreasing rate. At some time many, many billions of years from now the expansion of the universe will stop and the last star will burn out.

The Big Bang can't explain the origin of the single particle that became the universe. The Big Bang can't explain why that particle exploded into the universe. Science can tell us what happened and how it happened but it can't explain why. Why is a question that only Religion, not Science, can address.

GOP - Politics As Usual

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the CIA did not inform her of their use of waterboarding when they said they did. The CIA's Panetta says the CIA can't provide confirmation that they actually informed Pelosi but Panetta is sure that the CIA would not have misled Pelosi and Congress. Ex-Senator Bob Graham was told by the CIA that he was briefed four times regarding waterboarding while he was Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Graham, who is famous for recording every daily activity in small spiral notebooks, replied that he was not briefed by the CIA on three of the four dates and was not told about waterboarding in the one of four briefings that did occur. Senator Jay Rockefeller has also reported that the CIA's records regarding his briefings are incorrect. Today Rep. David Obey notified Panetta of yet another error in the CIA's report on briefings. The CIA said admitted that their records could be wrong.

Although the CIA cannot provide proof that Pelosi was informed as they claim and three congressman have provided records proving that CIA claims about their briefings are wrong, the GOP and its supporters have launched a blistering attack against Pelosi.

The GOP has not accused Graham and Rockefeller of lying about the CIA briefings. Why?

Do the GOP and republicans not need evidence before going on the attack? Never. Politicians, in general, never worry about evidence to back up their claims. Even claims disproven cause damage.

It's my opinion that Nancy Pelosi is most disliked by republicans because she is a woman with power. A Bitch is what republicans call her. They have always felt the same way about Hillary Clinton. Another Bitch, in their opinion.

Could the GOP's strategy to recover political power be any more flawed?

Ability Beyond Disability Resident Video - Geoffrey's Story

Ability Beyond Disability is a Quality non-profit provider of services to mentally and physically disabled people in NY and CT. They struggle as do all non-profits in their business to provide excellent care with inadequate funding from the government.

Geoffrey's Story

Torture: It's illegal, Stupid!

Liz Cheney appeared on "Morning Joe" to defend her father's advocacy for enhanced interrogation. She argued that waterboarding as used by the CIA was legal. She argued that Department of Justice lawyers were within the law when they defined the limits within which waterboarding is legal. She argued that the White House is withholding information that proves that waterboarding was effective and consequently justified. The host of the show, Joe Scarborough, accused the White House of cherry-picking government records to release only negative documents regarding enhanced interrogation and withholding documents that would show that these methods were effective.

Torture is illegal. Nothing else matters. Joe Scarborough should apologize on air for defending the use of torture – for justifying a war crime. I think MSNBC should fire Scarborough and any of its personnel who defend the use torture and the violation of our laws and treaties. I'm tired of the suggestion that any rational person would use any means to extract information from a detainee that might save American lives. That's not true. It is immoral. It is inhuman. IT IS ILLEGAL.

If torture is justified by the admissions of the tortured and if admissions under torture are true, then witches possessed by Satan are REAL. The witch hunt in early modern Europe executed about 60,000 women, men and children for being witches possessed by Satan. Torture was the primary method employed to get a confession.

If you believe that torturing detainees is justified by the results, then you must also believe that tens of thousands of witches, in league with Satan, existed in early modern Europe. Since the witch hunt could not have eliminated all witches and surely did not end Satan’s ability to possess people and create witches, then you must also believe that there are thousands of witches in America that are possessed by Satan and using supernatural powers to do his will.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney advised all patriotic Americans to watch their neighbors and report all unusual activity. They should also have advised us to watch for and report all “supernatural” activity. After all, a witch possessed by Satan is surely more dangerous than a terrorist serving Osama bin Laden.

Unprecedented punishment for unprecedented crimes

The talking heads that oppose punishing the Bush administration for its war crimes say that such punishment would be unprecedented and therefore unjust. I disagree. There is no precedent for such punishment only because these crimes are unprecedented.

The more the Bush administration and its supporters argue that these crimes were justified by the circumstances or not crimes at all, the more the need to prosecute the criminals to the fullest extent of the law.

If we do not punish the criminals and silence their supporters, a future administration will again violate our Constitution and our treaties and argue that circumstances and executive privelege justified their actions.

Wanda Sykes on Rush Limbaugh

I wouldn't approve of some of Wanda Sykes' humor targeting Rush Limbaugh except that Rush Limbaugh has never resisted saying anything he wants about anybody. Rush's response to the humor was "No comment." If Rush feels that he shouldn't complain, why should we?

Thoughts on Church, Torture and Capital Punishment

The Pew Forum surveyed four major religious groups and found that people who attend church most often are also most likely to approve of using torture. 62% of White Evangelical Protestants justify torture compared to 40% of those who are unaffiliated with a church. I would expect most Evangelicals to completely disapprove of torture. Since an Evangelical strives to be Christ-like wouldn’t all Evangelicals disapprove of torture?

Based on what I’ve been taught about Christ, Christ would not approve of torturing anybody for any reason. So why do most Evangelicals approve of torture?

There are more than 200 countries in the world. The Death Penalty is abolished in 113 of them and has never been used in another 4 countries. Of the 91 countries that have not abolished the death penalty 43 countries have not used the death penalty in more than 10 years and 25 have not used the death penalty in more than 20 years. In the first 4 months of this year alone the United States has executed 24 people. Texas has executed 14 of them; almost one per week. In the previous 10 years 636 people were executed in the US and 41% of them were executed in Texas. The population of Texas is 8% of the US population. Thus, the rate of execution in Texas is 5 times as high as it is in the rest of the US. The states with the highest execution rates are the Bible Belt states. The states of the Bible Belt were the slave states prior to the Civil War. The predominant religion in the Bible Belt is the Evangelical Protestant.

The United States in one of only 5 countries that executes minors – the other countries are China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran and Pakistan. The United States and Kyrgyzstan are the only countries that execute the mentally retarded. The United States Supreme Court banned such executions however Texas maintains its right to execute the mentally retarded and in 2001 Governor Perry, vetoed a bill that would have banned such executions.

GW Bush was governor of Texas from 1995 through 2000 during which Texas held 152 executions. Executions in Texas peaked while Bush was governor, increasing 25% in 6 years. Executions in Texas decreased 23% since Bush left the governor’s office. GW Bush claims that each case is reviewed in detail when he considers the final appeal, however, in the case of Terry Washington, a mentally retarded man, Bush met with his legal counsel Alberto Gonzales (the same scoundrel who was Bush’s Attorney General of the US) for only 30 minutes before denying the appeal for clemency. GW Bush is an Evangelical and he approves of torture. In fact GW Bush is the only US President to authorize torture.

The countries that have used the death penalty in 2008 and 2009 are: Sudan, Bangladesh, China, Iran, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Vietnam, Yemen, United States, Botswana, Egypt, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Indonesia, Iraq, North Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Belarus and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

The United States, which claims to be the Moral Leader of the world, which consistently attacks other countries for Human Rights Violations, uses the death penalty and torture (until the recent ban by President Obama). We are one of the most violent societies in the world. More crimes are committed in the United States than in any other nation. Only 4 countries have more murders: India, Russia, Columbia and South Africa.

The US is far less than it pretends to be. Insisting that we should not investigate and prosecute our own war crimes ensures that we will commit war crimes in the future.

Does Virginia Foxx typify the GOP?

The recent statement by U.S. Congresswoman Virginia Foxx on the House floor that the hate crime against Matthew Shepard is only a "hoax" is inexcusable. Foxx has since claimed that "hoax" was a poor choice of words. In my opinion, Foxx is the poor choice.

Foxx typifies the current GOP, which is being dominated by far right elements. Politicians like Foxx and Michele Bachmann and ideologues like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are driving moderates out of the GOP. Arlen Specter is only the first of many Republicans who will leave the GOP, in my opinion. As the GOP moves more to the right it will also decrease in size. It could cease being of national political importance.

Will a New GOP emerge, like New Coke? Although moderate Republicans are likely to leave the GOP, few of them will join the Democratic Party as did Specter. They are, after all, conservatives, albeit moderate. They could and should create a new conservative party, a New GOP. If only they had a leader.

I can imagine a Congress balanced between a New GOP and Obama's Democrats enacting bipartisan legislation. I can imagine it but I can't believe in it.

Let's see what the elections of 2010 bring. Until then I'll have to be satisfied with legislation carried by Obama's Majority Democrats and uniformly, but insignificantly, opposed by the Minority Republicans. Until then conservative Americans will only be represented by the Party of No.

McCain Opposes Torture But Wouldn't Prosecute

McCain was on Face The Nation on April 26 to confirm that he is opposed to using torture but would neither investigate the matter further nor prosecute anybody involved. He said that the U.S. understands that the use of torture was wrong and will not use torture in the future. He said the country needs to move on. McCain feels that enough is known about what happened, how it happened and who was involved. He's concerned that if we criminalize bad legal advice, others will refuse to serve. He feels that the torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib lead to an increase in the number of people joining the Iraqi insurgency, however, he isn't concerned that other nations will ignore the Geneva Convention ban on torture because they know that they will held accountable if they do. Throughout the interview McCain maintained a straight face, appearing to believe everything that he was saying, and apparently confident that the majority of the TV audience would also believe him.

McCain is wrong. The people responsible for the use of torture do not agree that they were wrong and, led by Dick Cheney, continue to argue that waterboarding is not torture and in any case it was justified by information extracted from the detainees. As long as the debate exists there is a chance that future administrations will resort to torture. The U.S. does not know the process by which waterboarding and other forms of torture were approved. The U.S. does not know who was involved. I am not concerned about any person who will refuse to work for the government because he/she will be prosecuted if they violate the law or approve of others violating the law. I don't want people like that serving in our government in any capacity. The majority of U.S. citizens wants this matter investigated so that those responsible for approving and ordering the use of torture are punished according to the law.

The U.S. should punish its own violators to the same extent that past violators have been punished by the U.S. and to the same extent that we would punish other countries if they torture in the future. The U.S. is not above the law or the treaties it has signed and cannot be held to a different and more lenient standard. McCain's attitude that we need not punish ourselves but we will certainly punish others is unacceptable to me, unacceptable to the majority of our citizens and certainly unacceptable to the rest of the world.

McCain felt that President Ford did the right thing for America when he pardoned Richard Nixon and McCain feels that it would be appropriate for Obama to do the same thing by pardoning everybody that was involved in the torture of detainees. The situation is by no means the same. The U.S. thoroughly investigated and prosecuted everybody involved in the Watergate Break in and its cover-up. Only Richard Nixon was spared legal prosecution, however, he was not spared punishment. The country as a whole condemned his actions and he resigned the presidency in shame. Recent war crimes by the U.S. have not been investigated adequately. We do not know who is ultimately responsible for the crimes. The U.S. government has not determined officially that its treatment of detainees was a war crime. The U.S. government has not denounced those that continue to justify how the detainees were treated.

We have always prosecuted war criminals even when the crime was committed by our military. We should not make an exception for the war crimes committed during the Bush administration. To do so increases that likelihood that the U.S. and other countries will commit these crimes in the future.

The End does not always justify the Means

I'm shocked that so many people who were or are involved in governing the United States of America believe that torture is justified as long as it yields beneficial results. Is rape justified if the rapist has an orgasm? I say it is not and I feel the same way about torture.

Dick Cheney is calling for the government to release documents that will prove that beneficial information was gained through the use of torture. It doesn't make any difference; torture is wrong. Rape is wrong. Cheney was and is wrong.

I think that Obama made a mistake when he ordered that no CIA personnel could be punished for using torture. I think his recommendation to look forward and not into the past is foolish. All crimes are acts of the past; should we not punish all criminals? Following orders is not an excuse. 9-11 is not an excuse. Protecting America is no excuse for torture. We punished, in fact we executed, many government officials and military personnel that claimed that they were only following orders when they used torture during WWII. Was that time less dangerous than during the Bush presidency after 9-11? No. Are our torturers less guilty? No.

In my opinion Obama is obligated to enforce the laws of this country and our treaties. The Dept of Justice should investigate and prosecute these "admitted" crimes without exception. High rank and high office does not put one above the law and exempt from punishment. Nixon was wrong when he said "it's not a crime when you are the president." It is, in my opinion, a bigger crime deserving of harsher punishment when it is committed by the president.

If these criminals, especially those responsible for justifying and ordering the use of torture, go unpunished it will open the door for future leaders to do the same when they feel events justify it. Who have we become if we do less?

Can America Be Saved?

Our nation and the world are struggling to avoid a complete collapse of our economies. We have a president that has done more in his brief time in office than any other president. We have leaders of the manufacturing and financial industries that continue to shamelessly lavish themselves with bonuses while their businesses have failed or are failing due to their mismanagement. We have a minority party, the GOP, whose leaders, both official and unofficial, are focused only on obstructing the efforts of our president and the majority in Congress. I'll be the first to admit that were shoes on other feet the Dems would probably do the same thing, however; now is not the time for tit-for-tat. Matter of fact, IT NEVER IS, when the participants are our elected officials.

Does their conduct give you hope that we can recover more than momentarily, if at all? I'm talking about more than our economy. I don't want to sound like the Moral Majority, which was anything but, however; the leadership of this country is rotten with greed. The crime rate of elected officials, at all levels, is higher than it is in the general population. The crime rate of business leaders is probably no better. Our business leaders are unethical - generally speaking they don't care if their employees are fairly compensated; they don't care if their employees workplace is safe; they don't care if their manufacturing process pollutes the environment and poisons their neighbors; they don't care if the product that they produce is of "adequate" quality, reliable and safe. Their only concern regarding their customer is that the customer thinks that the product is quality, reliable and safe. I spent more than 30 years working for a large consumer products corporation - PepsiCo. Managers at all levels became less ethical over those three decades. One of the last projects that I completed while working for the largest franchise of PepsiCo, The Pepsi Bottling Group, was to bring all of the companies bottling facilities in the U.S. in compliance with OSHA regulations regarding employee exposure to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is an ingredient in most of Pepsi's products. The often antiquated equipment that is used to carbonate and package the beverage continually releases carbon dioxide into the workspace. Every one of the facilities in the U.S. was audited and every one of them continuously exceeded the legal limit. In a few plants the exposure level was almost 10 times the legal limit. The vice president of the engineering group I worked in opposed the project. Companies do the right thing only when they are obligated to do so by law and then only when the government actually enforces the law.

Leaders without ethics are not found only in our businesses. Our politicians are no better. Our major political parties - the Republicans and the Democrats - do not represent the People. They represent themselves. While they are not serving themselves directly they are serving their party leaders, the lobbyists and the PACs without which they would not have been nominated and could not remain in office. Each of us can think of at least a few politicians that have been caught violating the ethics of their office and/or the law. Illinois will soon have two ex-governors in prison at the same time. Our last vice president was recently indicted by the state of Texas for prisoner abuse in some privately owned prisons in Texas - prisons that he owns. And, one of previous attorney generals, Gonzales, has also been indicted by the state of Texas for attempting to stop the investigation of the prisoner abuse. Our previous president is a war criminal who knowingly violated our laws and our international treaties regarding the treatment of prisoners of war; he violated the privacy of American citizens through illegal wiretapping; he manipulated the federal courts and attorneys to protect himself from those who opposed such violations.

We complain that Islamic fanatics threaten our democracy, our safety and our religious freedom, but have you paid any attention to the lying, cheating, thieving, immoral, self-righteous Christian fanatics in the U.S. that want to control your government, dictate how you will live and eliminate other religions? How many religious leaders have been caught doing the very acts that they condemn. How many TV evangelists prey (not pray) on the weak, the poor and the sick to live richly on the millions of dollars that they steal from their followers by making promises that they cannot keep, by offering cures that they cannot deliver?

The worst sign of our decay is our own conduct. How many of us want something for nothing? How many of us will ignore the plight of another? How many of us think like conservative radio host Bill Cunningham, that "people are poor in America ... not because they lack money," but "because they lack values, morals, and ethics?" How many of us respect others and have raised our children to respect others? How many of us cheat on our taxes... not a lot but a little? How many of us drive through stop signs and rush through yellow/red traffic lights? We expect honestly from others when otherwise means a loss to ourselves but not the other way around. If while loading your purchases into your car you discover that the check-out clerk forgot to ring up a $6 item in your shopping cart do you take it back to the store? When was the last time you volunteered?

We have a lot to fix. The problem is not "them" it is "us." We have to change ourselves. We have to start respecting each other. We have to help each other. We have to take charge of our government. The worldwide economic collapse started in the U.S. We have more lawyers per capita and sue more often than any other country. The percentage of the U.S. population that is in prison is much higher than in any other country. We have more murders per capita than any other country. We have more crime per capita than any other country. We are one of the few nations in the world and the only Western nation that stills executes criminals - including minors, the mentally retarded and the mentally ill. The annual production of this nation is higher per capita than any other nation yet we do not have the highest standard of living, we do not have the lowest birth mortality rate, we do not have the highest performing schools. We have more doctors and hospitals per capita than any other nation but we are not the healthiest nation. We are the largest economy in the world but our infrastructure has decayed. We are the most powerful country in the world but we have too often abused that power to serve our national needs while rarely using it to stop genocide as in Sudan and Rwanda.

Can America be saved? What will you do?

Should We Rescue the Automakers?

Letting the automakers fail seems like the right thing to do. Why prop them up, artificially, if they can’t stand on their own. I keep thinking that they made the wrong cars, knowingly, and now they can only make big gas hogs when the world can only afford high mileage hybrids or electric. On the other hand, the American consumer wanted the crap that Detroit was making and these companies were financially successful until Wall Street crashed the market and the consumer quit buying.

So, Detroit is in trouble only because the consumer stopped buying cars. Is that Detroit’s fault? The consumer has stopped buying a lot of things and the companies that were making or selling those things are failing but not because those companies were poorly run. Any company with zero sales is bound to fail.

Now that Detroit is failing for lack of sales we are blaming the failure on overpaid CEOs, union labor and low MPG autos. While all of these may be issues none of them caused the companies to fail.

Obama is going to spend money to recover our economy. It will be costly to most of us but he is using this disaster as an opportunity to restore America to something better than it was before the crash. Since we are going to spend a lot of money, let’s spend it to do all the things that we couldn’t afford before the crash. We have long needed to change our energy resources – now is the time. Our bridges and roads are a disaster; our healthcare system is inefficient; our schools are decaying and inadequate. So, while we have to spend at least a trillion dollars to jump start the economy we will spend it so that we are better than before.

In that spirit, we should do something about the American auto industry. However, “I” am not qualified to decide what to do and how to do it. But, I’m convinced that if we spend money on the automakers they should be rebuilt into a 21st century automaker that builds and sells the cars we “should” be driving instead of the cars we “love” to drive. We just may be good enough to build a car that meets both of our needs.

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine - Silence Rush Limbaugh

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced. The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates. According to Steve Rendall of the progressive media criticism group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, “The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.”

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. According to Fowler, Ronald Reagan’s White House staff opposed the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine. The staff is supposed to have told Reagan, “the only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networks—every day they would savage Ronald Reagan—is the Fairness Doctrine, and Fowler is proposing to repeal it!” Ronald Reagan supported the FCC decision and vetoed an effort by Congress to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. George HW Bush prevented its reinstatement in 1991 when he promised Congress that he would veto such a bill.

The revocation of the Fairness Doctrine has had an effect opposite to that feared by Reagan’s staff. Reporting by broadcasters is typically biased. Fox presents the conservative viewpoint, opposes that liberal viewpoint and attacks liberal broadcasters for misrepresenting conservatives and their views. MSNB C presents the liberal viewpoint, opposes that conservative viewpoint and attacks conservative broadcasters for misrepresenting liberals and their views. Conservatives only watch or listen to conservative broadcasters like Fox. Liberals only watch or listen to liberal broadcasters like MSNBC. Their audiences don’t get an impartial view of any issue although I’m sure that both the conservatives and the liberals believe that the broadcasters that they tune into are accurate and unbiased. I’m sure that neither is totally correct.

Revocation of the Fairness Doctrine meant that stations could broadcast editorial commentary without having to present opposing views. Daniel Henninger wrote, in a Wall Street Journal editorial, "Ronald Reagan tore down this wall (the Fairness Doctrine) and Rush Limbaugh was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from the East Germany of liberal media domination." Before the Fairness Doctrine was revoked Rush Limbaugh (aka Rusty Sharpe and Jeff Christie) was a music radio DJ. After the revocation the Rush Limbaugh show was born.

The program gained in popularity and moved to stations with larger audiences eventually growing to over 650 radio stations nationwide. When the Republican Party won control of Congress in 1994, one of the first acts by many freshmen (calling themselves the "Dittohead Caucus") was to award Limbaugh the title of "honorary member of Congress" in recognition of his support of their efforts during this period.

(The preceding is from a Wikidpedia article on Rush Limbaugh.)

It’s an understatement to say that Rush Limbaugh is the conservative star of talk radio. In 2008, Limbaugh is reported to have signed an 8-year contract extension worth $400 million.

I agree that Rush Limbaugh has the right to say whatever he wants as long as he does not promote violence against any person or group. I do think that he and others like him come as close to that line as they can. He is vulgar and insulting and I believe that this is what appeals to his audience. During yesterday’s radio show and an attack on Obama’s healthcare reform plan Limbaugh stated, “Before it's all over, it'll be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Bill”; a suggestion that Kennedy won’t live long enough to see Obama’s healthcare bill become law. I’ve heard many excellent descriptions of Limbaugh but my favorite is by Alec Baldwin: “he will always be nothing more than a poorly educated, marginally talented buffoon who has developed a real talent for manipulating the G-spot of the neocon consciousness and massaging the hate gland of so many economically displaced white voters in America.” However, even Alec’s description misses what is most unacceptable about Rush; many of his tactics for promoting his ideology and his candidates are corruptions of our democracy. I don’t think that he is the only person guilty of such corruption but I do believe that he has more impact than anybody else and any such corruption is, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

The Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated. No broadcaster should be allowed to air his opinion without substantiating his claims and accusations or airing the rebuttal of his opponents. The revocation of the Fairness Doctrine is the only reason that broadcasters will carry the Rush Limbaugh and that is cause enough to reinstate the doctrine. Many of the shows on Fox television would not exist or would not exist in their current form if the Fairness Doctrine was reinstated. Other shows on other stations, liberal and conservative, would be affected along with the Rush Limbaugh Show. If you can’t defend what you say via a medium that reaches millions then you shouldn’t have the right to broadcast it.

The following, from Wikipedia, are reminders of what Rush has done and will continue to do until the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated. The first citing is an example of an attempt to corrupt the democratic process during the 2008 primary elections. I consider these acts unconstitutional. I would permanently revoke any person’s or group’s access to the broadcast medium for the following or similar actions.

In an attempt to sow chaos and disunity among Democrats during a divisive primary battle, Limbaugh encouraged his listeners to vote for whoever was behind in the vote, an effort he dubbed "Operation Chaos". Limbaugh then began to advocate that his Republican listeners vote for Clinton, something the rules of the Texas primary permitted. According to a county volunteer, one voter declared "Rush Limbaugh sent me", another "I am voting for Hillary Clinton but I want to see the Democrats implode," and a great many others mentioning Limbaugh. In Ohio, Limbaugh similarly encouraged his listeners to re-register as Democrats and vote for Clinton. Although Ohio does not use an open primary, voters who change their registration must attest that they support the principles of the party to which they switch. About sixteen thousand Ohio Republicans switched parties for the election. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections announced that, at the urging of Democrat Sandy McNair, the cross-overs would be investigated. Later, the Ohio Attorney General's office stated that it would be hard to prosecute anyone for falsifying a change of registration, because of the difficulty of proving a voter's fraudulent intent. Limbaugh has said that "The dream end of this [of Operation Chaos] is that this keeps up to the Convention, and that we have a recreation of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fire, and literal riots and all of that, that is the objective here."

On March 19, 2007 Limbaugh referred to a Los Angeles Times editorial by David Ehrenstein which claimed that Obama was filling the role of the magic negro, and that this explained his appeal to voters. Limbaugh then later played a song by Paul Shanklin, "Barack the Magic Negro," sung to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon. Limbaugh had previously referred to Obama as "Halfrican American", a term which he also applied to actress Halle Berry. Limbaugh cited the Ehrenstein editorial, and said that the point of the comment was to highlight "race-obsessed Democrats", who had questioned whether Obama was black enough.

On January 16, 2009 Limbaugh read a letter on his radio show that he had received a request from a national print outlet:... "If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." He responded, "I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." He explained that he didn't want "absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work." He continued, "what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here." He also remarked that Obama's status as the first black U.S. President was part of the reason why there was pressure to accept his policies. Limbaugh later stated that it is President Obama's policies that he wants to see fail, not the man himself. Speaking of Obama, Limbaugh said, "He's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me." On January 27, 2009, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) created an online petition to express outrage at Rush Limbaugh for his comment, "he wanted President Obama to fail". On January 29, 2009, he followed-up his commentary with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing concern about the Obama Administration's government intervention, proposing the "Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009". On February 28, 2009, in a speech to CPAC, broadcast live on CNN and FOX NEWS, he addressed the controversy for a national audience. Among other things, he said, "I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation."

On March 1, 2009 CBS's "Face the Nation" asked chief-of-Staff, Rahm Emanuel: Who represented the Republican Party? He answered, it was Limbaugh. On March 2, 2009, Limbaugh responded to Rahm Emanuel. In remarks aired by CNN on March 1, 2009, Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said that Limbaugh, is "an entertainer". Steele later telephoned Limbaugh and apologized. Limbaugh stated he would not want to run the RNC in its "sad sack state". On March 4, 2009, Limbaugh challenged President Barack Obama to a debate on his radio program, offering to pay all of Obama's expenses: travel, food, lodging, and security.

On July 14, 2003, ESPN announced that Limbaugh would be joining ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown show as a weekly analyst when it premiered on September 7. Limbaugh would provide the "voice of the fan" and was supposed to spark debate on the show. On the September 28 episode of Countdown, Limbaugh commented about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb's role in his team's 0-2 start to the season, as well as the media's coverage of McNabb: “Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.” On October 1, 2003, Limbaugh resigned from ESPN.

In his first bestseller, Limbaugh explicitly describes himself as conservative, and is sharply critical of broadcasters in many media outlets for claiming to be objective. He has loudly criticized political centrists, independents, and even moderate conservatives, claiming they are responsible for Democrat Barack Obama's victory over Republican John McCain in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election and inviting them to leave the Republican party altogether, while calling for the sincere and serious adoption of core conservative philosophies in order to ensure the survival of the Republican party.

Limbaugh is highly critical of environmentalism and climate science. Limbaugh has argued against the scientific opinion on climate change by stating that the alleged scientific consensus "is just a bunch of scientists organized around a political proposition. You can't have consensus in science... they think consensus is the way to sell it because, 'Oh, but all these wonderful people agree.’ Limbaugh has often used the term "environmentalist wacko" as a reference to left-leaning environmental advocates. As a rhetorical device, he has also used the term to refer to more mainstream climate scientists and other environmental scientists and advocates with whom he disagrees.

Limbaugh is sharply critical of feminism, saying that "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." He also popularized the term "feminazi", referring to radical feminists "to whom the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur."

Limbaugh supports capital punishment, having said "the only thing cruel about the death penalty is last-minute stays."

On the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal, Limbaugh said, "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation... And we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day [referring to the U.S. Military service members]. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release?"

Limbaugh has asserted that African-Americans, in contrast with other minority groups, are "left behind" socially because they have been systematically trained from a young age to hate America through a widespread movement headed by figures such as Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and Barack Obama.

Limbaugh utilizes props to introduce his monologues on various topics. On his radio show, news about the homeless has often been preceded with the Clarence "Frogman" Henry song "Ain't Got No Home." For a time, Dionne Warwick's song "I Know I'll Never Love This Way Again" preceded reports about people with AIDS. These later became "condom updates" preceded by Fifth Dimension's song, "Up, Up and Away." In 1989, on his Sacramento radio show, Limbaugh performed "caller abortions" where he would end a call suddenly to the sounds of a vacuum cleaner and a scream, after which he would deny there was ever a caller, explaining that the call had been "aborted".

Doesn't the Customer Deserve Respect?

Does anybody else have the same problem that I do with doctors and lawyers who forget that we are the customer? Why is that? There are exceptions but more often than not they act like I've been granted an audience with the Pope. As long as I'm paying the bill they are an employee. They make no apologies for keeping me waiting for 45 minutes because they have packed their schedule so tight with appointments that they are inevitably late for appointments throughout most of the day.

I'm not asking for humility, however, I do deserve respect and fair treatment.

What's wrong with Wall Street?

I don't believe that a single Wall Street manager who accepted a bonus after receiving bailout funds hesitated for even a moment before doing so. They have always been willing to do anything for money. They neither care who they take the money from nor the impact that it will have on them.

Some Compensation Experts are saying that the President went too far because the talented employees that have been earning a lot more than $500,000 will leave the struggling banks to take jobs at banks that do not need bailout funds. I hope that is a promise rather than an idle threat. After all, what good have they done where they are now - their bank failed!

The same experts also said that these managers will not be able to maintain their current lifestyle with only $500,000 per year. When millions of Americans are out of work and millions more soon will be... When millions of Americans have lost half of their retirement savings... When millions of Americans are losing their homes... because the Greedy Wall Street managers destroyed the economy after the government deregulated the banks, insurance companies and commodity trading... How can they complain that they can't live on $500,000 a year? Simple. They only care about themselves; nobody else matters. Really! It is that simple.

We have a name for people like that - Sociopath. The following is a brief description of a sociopath. Let's see how well it fits the conduct of the Wall Street managers who have just awarded themselves $18.4 billion of taxpayers money.

• Glibness and Superficial Charm
• They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible.
• Grandiose Sense of Self - Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
• Lack of Remorse and Shame - The end always justifies the means.
• Incapacity for Compassion
• Callousness/Lack of Empathy
• Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
• Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility

I hope that they all leave Wall Street.

Bush's Greatest Regret

Recently Bush has been focusing his efforts on improving his reputation - creating a positive, albeit false, legacy. His efforts are no less unsuccessful than the whole of his presidency.

When asked what he considered his greatest regret Bush stated, "I regret that we did not find WMD (weapons of mass destruction) in Iraq." We have learned that Bush had no evidence of WMD before he invaded Iraq, yet, he convinced Americans and our allies that such evidence existed. Without WMD the war in Iraq is unjustified. He could have said that he regrets having started the unjustified war in Iraq that has, so far, resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqis and almost 5,000 American and allied soldiers but he didn't say that because he wanted the war in Iraq - his “gut feeling” told him that the war was necessary. However, without WMD he can’t prove that his “gut feeling” was correct! That is his ONLY regret. He doesn’t regret the massive loss of life. He doesn’t regret the destruction of Iraq. He doesn't regret America's loss of standing in the world. He ONLY regrets not being able to find WMD with which to justify the war that he was going to wage whether WMD existed or not.

Bush isn't a good man because he lacks compassion for others. Bush was not a good leader; he used his presidency to serve himself rather than the people. His legacy consists, in part, of an unjust war of his making, the deaths of more than 100,000 innocents, the destruction of Iraq and violations of our laws, our Constitution and our treaties. I say "in part" because the war in Iraq was only one of many disasterous products of his presidency.

War Criminals Must Be Prosecuted

Obama and his appointees seem reluctant to investigate U.S. war crimes committed while George W. Bush was president. We should not treat our war criminals differently than we have treated war criminals from other countries. War crimes were committed; of that there is no question. We already know at least two of the people who committed these crimes. In the last few weeks President Bush and Vice President Cheney admitted on television that they ordered the use of torture in violation of U.S. law and multiple treaties. In spite of their claim, being President and Vice President does not put them above ANY U.S. law or treaty. They asked a Bush appointed Department of Justice lawyer if the types of torture that they wanted to use were legal as if that was enough to protect them from prosecution. If we let these crimes go unpunished we are as guilty they are.

This is not a party issue or liberal versus conservative or Christian versus non-Christian. Some of the people who support Bush and his use of torture will use the Iraq war, the defense of our nation and patriotism as justifications. Bush’s supporters will accuse me of being anti-war, weak on defense and/or unpatriotic. These, true or not, have nothing to do with my call for war crimes prosecution. These acts were criminal regardless of the context within which they were committed.

Torturing prisoners of war and “detainees” did not save any lives and it did not prevent other terrorist attacks on the U.S. Experts, including the FBI, have always maintained that torture does not yield valuable information and, in spite of such claims by Bush and Cheney, investigators say that none of the information obtained was helpful. What we know to be true is that torturing cost American and allied lives in the war in Iraq. It was a rallying call to all extremist Muslims to join the fight in Iraq. It inspired the enemy to begin beheading their captives, both military and civilian.

If we let our war criminals go unpunished we send a clear message to all future presidents that they are above the law and free to violate international treaties. If we let them go unpunished we will lose the respect of other nations and the right to expect them to honor our treaties.

I call for Obama to investigate all claims of war crime and to prosecute the criminals without prejudice or favor.

Is The Latest Wall Street Scheme Justice Overdue?

Hedge Fund Superhero and past chairman of the Nasdaq Stock Market, Bernard Madoff, has bilked his super rich investors out of approximately $52 billion. Many of those investors admit that they could never understand how Madoff's fund consistently paid such high returns but in spite of their concerns most of them still invested in the phony fund. W.C. Fields said, "you can't cheat an honest man" with excessive promises of profit. Mr. Madoff has certainly proved that you can cheat greedy men and it is high time that some of them paid for their greed instead of Main Street Americans. I find this act of Justice more than a little satisfying.

When AIG and some of the biggest banks failed, or were about to, Main Street bailed them out with no strings attached. Some of them continued to spend lavishly on themselves with that money and have as yet not used it as Treasury Secretary Paulson promised. Paulson demanded that the bail out money be given without conditions so the taxpayers can only hope that it will be spent properly. Greed is winning that one.

Now the automakers have come to Washington DC begging for a bail out. $15 billion won't be enough to save the poorly managed automakers; experts predict that it will take ten times that much or more. The Democrats want to give them the money to save two million workers from unemployment. The Republicans won't agree to giving them any money unless the union workers give up one-third of their wages and some of their retirement benefits; the Republicans think that union wages and benefits are the reasons why U.S. automakers can't compete with U.S.-based foreign automakers who employ only non-union workers.

I think the management of the U.S. automakers along with Congress, who backed off the gas mileage requirements, and American consumers who prefer big gas-guzzling SUVs are responsible for the failure of the U.S. automakers. It wasn't the union workers who decided that GM would sell a $72,000 Cadillac Escalade "Hybrid" that gets 19 miles per gallon of gasoline. It wasn't the union workers that designed cars of such poor quality that they are not as reliable as the cars produced in the U.S. by foreign automakers.

I don't think the union workers are responsible for the failure of the U.S. automakers although I do think they should contribute something to save the automakers. However, the GOP wants more than reasonable concessions for the union; they want to bust the automobile workers' union just like the GOP broke the textile workers' unions in the South in the 1930's.

I don't think Congress should bail out the automakers since I have no faith that their management would redirect their companies to manufacture competitive products. A bail out will only delay the inevitable failures and the massive unemployment that will follow. I'd rather see Congress investing in companies that are developing or have developed energy efficient automobiles and public projects to create effective mass transportation systems. The U.S. automakers only deserve to survive if they can do so on their own.

7 Random/Weird Facts About Me

Karen at TSSO suggested that her readers share 7 facts about themselves at their blog site. The following are my "facts"...

1. I was tattooed in Sasebo, Japan.
2. I once owned and operated a bar.
3. I wanted to be Artist when I grew up but it requires talent.
4. I have ADD.
5. I'm a liberal but most of my friends are conservative.
6. I'm taking Swahili lessons.
7. Christmas is my least favorite holiday because it is ONLY commercial.

Instructions to readers of this post: Share 7 random/weird facts about yourself in a post on your blog site. Identify the person that tagged you and tag 7 random people at the end of your post and include links to their blogs. Let each person know they've been tagged by leaving a comment on their blog.

Separation of Church and State

The separation of church and state only bans the government from promoting or opposing any religion. For example, the government is not allowed to conduct prayer in a publicly funded school, however, the government is also prohibited from restricting a student’s right to pray in school as long as it is not disruptive to the educational process, i.e. the student could not stand and pray out loud during class. Public schools are not allowed to teach or promote religion, however, students may and often do form religious groups and hold meetings in the school, when and where such non-educational activities are held, and promote new membership.

Every citizen is allowed to take any matter important to them into consideration when deciding how to vote. It is the government that must govern only according to the Constitution. Our government is obligated to consider all citizens equally. Therefore, legislators cannot enact laws that would enforce the dogma of a religion since it would impose that dogma on citizens that hold to a different belief. Therefore, a religious wedding ceremony is outside the jurisdiction of the government. The constitution does not prohibit two people of the same sex from living together as a couple and consequently the government should guarantee all couples the right to do so. I believe in same-sex civil unions and that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights as any married couple. However, religious organizations are allowed to limit the definition of marriage as their beliefs dictate, recognize only such marriages that are conforming and deny, if they choose, membership to persons that do not comply.

Elected officials are obligated to execute their jobs without religious bias. They must decide on such matters as abortion and marriage according to the Constitution without regard for their own personal religious beliefs. A juror must do the same thing when deliberating. The juror must limit the deliberation to the evidence presented in the trial, with respect only to the applicable laws and without regard for the juror’s personal opinion. Our politicians are obligated to govern in the same way.

I believe that many of our elected officials fail to perform constitutionally and obviously many of them actually make promises to religious groups in order to get their votes. Such conduct in my opinion is unconstitutional regardless of my own religious beliefs.

Income Tax versus Income

Remember Ross Perot? He has a website http://perotcharts.com/home/ full of his Charts on all the issues.

This chart compares the taxes paid for various income groups.

It indicates that the bottom 50% of the taxpayers pays only 3.2% of the total Federal income taxes collected yet they earn 12.8% of the total income reported by all taxpayers. That doesn’t sound like an unfair burden on the bottom half.

But, Perot fails to mention that 32% of all taxpayers have a zero or negative tax liability and 90% of them are in the bottom 50% of wage earners.

Thus only 29.9 million of the 69.5 million taxpayers in the bottom 50% are paying 3.2% or $30 billion of the total federal taxes.

Therefore, the actual taxpayers in the bottom 50% are not paying at a rate of only 3.1%. They are actually paying at a rate of at least 7% which is about the same rate as 75% of the taxpayers are paying.

Another way that Perot might have looked at taxes is according to wealth. The bottom 50% of all taxpayers holds only 2.8% of the wealth of the country based on all assets while paying at least 3.2% of the total taxes. While the the top 10% of the taxpayers pay 68% of the taxes and hold 69.8% of the wealth. When compared to wealth the tax burden by income class seems more proportional. However, since less than 57% of the taxpayers in the bottom 50% are actually paying tax a disproportionate amount of the tax burden is still borne by the lower income wage earners.

I think a consumption tax on all purchases except necessities would be more appropriate than an income tax. It would encourage people to save more of their income and it might discourage the use of credit cards.

What do you think?

School Vouchers - Update

I am opposed to federal vouchers that allow some students to opt out of their neighborhood public school and attend a different public or private school. The system as proposed by GW Bush and operating in Washington, DC is offered only to children of low income families. The objective is to make a better educational environment available to children in failing public schools whose families cannot afford to move their children to better schools. The expectation is that these students will perform better if they attend better schools, which without exception are private schools (72% are parochial schools). My issue is that a disproportionate amount of federal funding is spent on the few students that use vouchers, which leaves far less money to support and improve the public schools. How can we justify abandoning the majority of public school students to underfunded schools so that a small percentage of students can attend private schools?

Although the expectation is that these students will receive a better education in a better school, the reality is that these students are not performing better than they did in their neighborhood school.

The federal government subsidizes the Washington, DC schools as they do all school systems. The subsidy is intended to improve the educational system, i.e. more and better teachers, more and better equipment. Washington, DC receives an educational subsidy of $74 million of which $18 million is earmarked for the voucher system. The Washington, DC school system serves 71,629 students in public schools (37% attend charter schools). Private schools in Washington, DC serve 17,562 students. A total of 1,903 students attend private schools using vouchers.

Students using vouchers are only 2.6% of the total of public school students yet the voucher system receives 24% of the federal funding to Washington, DC schools.

One parent of a voucher student, Breanna, said the prospect of turning her daughter over to a public school was frightening. "I didn't feel that was a good environment," Ms. Walton, a single mother of two, said. "But I couldn't afford to send her anywhere else." Breanna is now a 6-year-old first-grade student at the private Rock Creek International School, where the average class size is 12 and the student-teacher ratio is 7-to-1. She has as classmates the children of international corporate executives and foreign ambassadors. Breanna's curriculum is the International Baccalaureate program, and she is taught regularly in English, French, Spanish, and Arabic. Trips abroad - to Europe, Africa, South America, the Middle East - are part of the curriculum, and Breanna will participate. The school's facilities are bright, colorful, and clean, on a quiet, tree-lined street in Georgetown. According to Ms. Walton, it's a far cry from what awaited Breanna at her local public school.

Although most if not all parents would prefer that their children attend such a school. It is not and never will be available to all the Washington, DC school children. The "children that are left behind" in the public schools can only expect that their educational experience will worsen as more vouchers result in less funding of the public schools.

In my opinion the voucher system is the means by which the federal government diverts educational funding from the public school system to the private school system. Is the ultimate goal to privatize education?

In January GW Bush will be out of the White House. Congress does not plan to extend the voucher system. I hope the next president will focus on improving the public school system rather than abandoning it.

Vote or shut up!

We all know one or more people who have decided to not vote for president. All of them that I know personally say they don't like McCain but they can't vote for Obama. That's throwing away one's greatest right and responsibility as a citizen of the United States of America. If we don't like the choices, voting is the only way to change the process that nominated the presidential candidates. If we don't vote we reduce the Power of the People.

Don't throw your hands up in disgust because none of the candidates suits you. Study the candidates - there is a difference - and cast a vote for the one that suits you the most or differs with you the least.

Voting for candidates is not your only responsibility. Make sure you know what your government is doing between elections. Let them know whether you support what they are doing. Don't piss and moan to your neighbor. Piss and moan to your representatives, your mayor, your governor.

If you don't like the party system that nominates political candidates, change it. Support legislators and legislation the will ultimately transfer the power back to the People and out of the hands of the political parties. If you like the party process but you don't like their choices, get involved in your party - don't just join, participate.

If you don't vote, don't complain and I don't want to hear a peep out of you after the election. If you opt out of the democractic process, if you don't express your opinion by voting then keep your opinion to yourself. It's only worth hearing if you will act on it.