Is The War In Afghanistan A War Of Necessity?

At the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington wrote about whether the war in Afghanistan is necessary.  Joe Biden and others think that it is not and would, at least, pull our ground forces out of Afghanistan.  McChrystal wants to add more troops and escalate the war.  President Obama must decide whether the war is necessary and then whether to escalate as McChrystal recommends.  McChrystal is responsible only for waging war successfully.  President Obama is responsible for deciding whether to wage this war.

Huffington's post is an excellent discussion of this issue.  I no longer believe this war is necessary for the defense of the United States.  I no longer believe that our presence in Afghanistan will be a benefit to the citizens of Afghanistan.  I hope President Obama decides that this is not a war of necessity.  Read Huffington's post and tell me what you think President Obama should do.  Huffington's post is long but well worth the read.


Why Joe Biden Should Resign

Arianna Huffington
Posted: October 14, 2009 02:32 PM

Joe Biden met with CENTCOM chief Gen. David Petraeus this morning to talk about Afghanistan -- an issue that has pushed the vice president into the spotlight, landing him on the cover of the latest Newsweek.

I have an idea for how he can capitalize on all the attention, and do what generations to come will always be grateful for: resign.

The centerpiece of Newsweek's story is how Biden has become the chief White House skeptic on escalating the war in Afghanistan, specifically arguing against Gen. McChrystal's request for 40,000 more troops to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy there.

The piece, by Holly Bailey and Evan Thomas, opens with details of a September 13th national security meeting at the White House. Biden speaks up:

"Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?" Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. "And how much will we spend on Pakistan?" Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. "Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?" The White House Situation Room fell silent.

Being Greek, I'm partial to Biden's classic use of the Socratic method -- skillfully eliciting facts in a way that lets people connect the dots that show how misguided our involvement in Afghanistan has become.

It's been known for a while that Biden has been on the other side of McChrystal's desire for a big escalation of our forces there -- the New York Times reported last month that he has "deep reservations" about it. So if the president does decide to escalate, Biden, for the good of the country, should escalate his willingness to act on those reservations.

What he must not do is follow the same weak and worn-out pattern of "opposition" we've become all-too-accustomed to, first with Vietnam and then with Iraq. You know the drill: after the dust settles, and the country begins to look back and not-so-charitably wonder, "what were they thinking?" the mea-culpa-laden books start to come out. On page after regret-filled page, we suddenly hear how forceful this or that official was behind closed doors, arguing against the war, taking a principled stand, expressing "strong concern" and, yes, "deep reservations" to the president, and then going home each night distraught at the unnecessary loss of life.

Well, how about making the mea culpa unnecessary? Instead of saving it for the book, how about future author Biden unfetter his conscience in real time -- when it can actually do some good? If Biden truly believes that what we're doing in Afghanistan is not in the best interests of our national security -- and what issue is more important than that? -- it's simply not enough to claim retroactive righteousness in his memoirs.

Though it would be a crowning moment in a distinguished career, such an act of courage would likely be only the beginning. Biden would then become the natural leader of the movement to wind down this disastrous war and focus on the real dangers in Pakistan.

The number of those on both sides of the political spectrum who share Biden's skepticism is growing. In August, George Will called for the U.S. to pull out of Afghanistan and "do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units."

Former Bush State Department official and current head of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haas argued in the New York Times that Afghanistan is not, as Obama insists, a war of necessity. "If Afghanistan were a war of necessity, it would justify any level of effort," writes Haas. "It is not and does not. It is not certain that doing more will achieve more. And no one should forget that doing more in Afghanistan lessens our ability to act elsewhere."

In Rethink Afghanistan, Robert Greenwald's powerful look at the war (and a film Joe Biden should see right away), Robert Baer, a former CIA field operative says, "The notion that we're in Afghanistan to make our country safer is just complete bullshit... what it's doing is causing us greater danger, no question about it. Because the more we fight in Afghanistan, the more the conflict is pushed across the border into Pakistan, the more we destabilize Pakistan, the more likely it is that a fundamentalist government will take over the army -- and we'll have Al-Qaeda like groups with nuclear weapons."

And Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam vet and Biden confidant, told Newsweek that, while "there are a lot of differences" between Vietnam and Afghanistan, "one of the similarities is how easily and quickly a nation can get bogged down in a very dangerous part of the world. It's easy to get into but not easy to get out. The more troops you throw in places, the more difficult it is to work it out because you have an investment to protect."

And doing so, as we've seen, usually means losing more and more of that "investment": each of the last six years of the Afghanistan war has been more deadly than the one before.

Both sides of the Afghanistan debate were represented on this Sunday's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

Sen. Diane Feinstein offered up a few rationales for why Obama should rubber stamp Gen. McChrystal's wishes. First, she said, "there has to be a process of finding out, which of these people can we work with and which can we not." Really? Seven years in and we still haven't checked that one off our to-do list?

Feinstein then broke out the latest trendy, new-for-fall reason why we need to up the ante in Afghanistan -- it's all about the women. " I particularly worry about women in Afghanistan," Feinstein said, "acid in the face of children, girl children who go to school, women who can't work when they're widowed, huddled on the streets, begging, women beaten and shot in stadiums, you know, Sharia law with all of its violence."

This is indeed very tragic, and I share her concern. But missing from the discussion was the fact that "Sharia law with all of its violence" has just been made the law of the land by President Karzai -- you know, our man in Kabul. The Sharia Personal Status Law, signed by Karzai, became operational in July. Among its provisions: custody rights are granted to fathers and grandfathers, women can work only with the permission of their husbands, and husbands can withhold food from wives who don't want to have sex with them. On the plus side, if a man rapes a mentally ill woman or child, he must pay a fine.

Of course, even with America standing guard, only 4 percent of girls in Afghanistan make it to the 10th grade, and up to 80 percent of Afghani women are subjected to domestic violence. As one of the Afghan women interviewed in Rethink Afghanistan sums up the current situation: "The cases of violence against women are more now than in the Taliban time."

So can we please put to rest the nonsensical rationalization that we're there for women's rights? And don't be surprised if that reason is soon replaced by another -- those pushing for escalation in Afghanistan seem to have learned the Bush administration's old tactic of constantly moving the goal posts. Don't like this reason? Fine, here's another one.

Countering Feinstein on Stephanopoulos was Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern, who has taken the lead on this issue in Congress, introducing a bill calling for an exit strategy in Afghanistan.

"I think adding more American forces to Afghanistan would be a mistake," he said. "I think it would be counterproductive. And I think there's a strong case to be made that the larger our military footprint, the more difficult it is to achieve reconciliation."

McGovern then amplified Biden's concern that the real threat is elsewhere:

When I voted to use force to go to war after 9/11, I think I and everyone else in Congress voted to go after Al Qaida. That was our enemy. And Al Qaida has now moved to a different neighborhood, in Pakistan, where, quite frankly, they're more protected. And we're told by Gen. Jones that there are less than 100, if that, members of Al Qaida left in Afghanistan... So we're now saying we should have 100,000 American forces to go after less than 100 members of Al Qaida in Afghanistan? I think we need to re-evaluate our policy.

Or, as Biden put it, "does that make strategic sense?"

In June, Gen. Jones, the president's National Security Advisor, was at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan, meeting with U.S. commanders there. This was shortly after the arrival of the 21,000 additional troops President Obama had sent over. Jones raised the question of what the president's reaction would be if he were asked for even more troops. Well, Jones said, answering his own question, if that happened, the president would probably have a "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment." In other words, wtf?

Well, Obama has gotten that request, but it wasn't a "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment" for him after all. Sadly, Newsweek reports that Obama is typically "looking for a middle way." But this isn't a negotiation for a used car, where you split the difference. It's either in our national security interest to be there or it isn't. It's either a necessary war or it isn't.

Newsweek's profile makes much of Joe Biden's loyalty. He's a "team player," one close friend says. And after he dissented on Afghanistan this spring he "quickly got on board."

I have no doubt that Joe Biden is a loyal guy -- the question is who deserves his loyalty most? His "team" isn't the White House, but the whole country. And if it becomes clear in the coming days that his loyalty to these two teams is in conflict, he should do the right thing. And quit.

Obama may be no drama, but Biden loves drama. And what could more dramatic than resigning the vice presidency on principle? And what principle could be more honorable than refusing to go along with a policy of unnecessarily risking American blood and treasure -- and America's national security? Now that would be a Whisky Tango Foxtrot moment for the McChrystal crowd -- one that would be a lot more significant than some lame, after-the-fact apology delivered in a too-late-to-matter book.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-joe-biden-should-resi_b_320929.html

Confession Of An Anti-Gay Zealot

If God Had Wanted Me To Be Accepting Of Gays, He Would Have Given Me The Warmth And Compassion To Do So

BY JANE KENDRICKS
OCTOBER 13, 2009

I don't question God. The Lord is my Shepherd and I shall put none above Him. Which is why I know that if it were part of God's plan for me to stop viciously condemning others based solely on their sexual preference, He would have seen fit—in His infinite wisdom and all—to have given me the tiniest bit of human empathy necessary to do so.

It's a simple matter of logic, really. God made me who I am, and who I am is a cold, anti-gay zealot. Thus, I abhor gay people because God made me that way. Why is that so hard to understand?

Here, let's start with the basic facts: I hate and fear gay people. The way they feel is different from how I feel, and that causes me a lot of confusion and anger. Everyone knows God is all-powerful. He could easily have given me the capacity to investigate what's behind those feelings rather than tell strangers in the park they're going to hell for holding hands. But God clearly has another path for me. And who am I to question His divine will?

Compassion, tolerance, understanding, basic decency, the ability to put myself in another person's position: God could have endowed me with any of those traits and yet—here is the crucial part—He didn't. Why? Because the Creator of the Universe wants me to demonize homosexuals in an effort to strip them of their fundamental human rights.

I'm sorry, but you can't possibly ask me to explain everything God does. He works in mysterious ways, remember?

Try to understand. If I were capable of thinking and acting any other way, then I'm sure I would, but God seems to be quite adamant about this one. He's just not budging at all. So unless our almighty Lord and Savior decides to change His mind about my ability to empathize on even the most basic level—which I find highly unlikely—then everyone is just going to have to accept the fact that I'm going to keep on hating homosexuals. And I know that He will fill me with the strength to remain mindless and hurtful in the face of adversity.

Which isn't to say that my faith hasn't been tested. Believe me, there have been times when I've drifted from the bitter and terrified life God has chosen for me. When my younger brother told me he was gay, it shook my faith to its very core. But here I am, 27 years later, still refusing to take his calls. Just the way God intended.

It's actually pretty astonishing how many complaints to the school board you can make regarding the new band teacher you've never met when you are filled with the Light of Christ and devoid of any real kindness or mercy toward His other children.

At the end of the day, I'm just trying to lead a good Christian life. That means going to church on Sunday, following the Ten Commandments, and fighting what I believe to be a sexual abomination through a series of petty actions and bitter comments made under my breath. Sure, I sometimes wish God would just reach into my heart and give me the ability to treat all people with, at the very least, the decency and respect they deserve as human beings. But unfortunately for that new couple who moved in three houses down, He hasn't yet.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have God's work to do.

Healthy 4-Month Old Infant Denied Health Care Insurance Because Of His Size

Alex Lange, infant son of a Grand Junction, CO TV news anchor, was denied coverage by his family's insurance company, Rocky Mountain Health Plans, only because the baby's height and weight put him in the 99 percentile of his age group.  The baby's father says that Alex is breast-fed only.  "We can't put him on the Atkins diet or on a treadmill," said his father.

After the denial was made public the insurance company quickly reversed their position and said that they have modified their guidelines so that this will not recur.

Call me a cynic if you will but I suspect that Baby Alex would still be without coverage if his father wasn't a TV news anchor with the ability to broadcast the insurance company's denial across Colorado.

If you are one of those "folks" who still believes that health care reform is an un-American assault on your freedom for the benefit of the undeserving or a socialist take-over of a benevolent insurance industry, think about Alex Lange and then think again about your opinion of reform.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/12/alex-lange-denied-health_n_317337.html

Glenn Beck Compares Fox News to Jews During The Holocaust

I can't imagine that anybody intelligent watches or listens to Glenn Beck except as they might watch the Jerry Springer Show to see how unbelieveably ignorant some people are.  I don't think Beck is stupid enough to believe what he says but does he think that his audience is stupid enough to believe him?

From Huffington Post: Leave it to Glenn Beck to take things too far. On his radio show Tuesday Beck drew a rather over-the-top analogy between, of all things, Fox News and Jewish persecution during the Holocaust. The basis for this comparison was the White House's recent criticism of Fox News' reporting, in which it called the network "the communications arm of the Republican Party" and said that its reporting style is more opinion than straight news. Beck suggested that the campaign against Fox was only the beginning of a full on assault by the Obama administration against the press.  Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/glenn-beck-compares-fox-n_n_318784.html

PolitiFact Update On Obama's Campaign Promises

According to PolitiFact the following is the current status of Obama’s 515 campaign promises after only 9 months in Office.


7 promises broken – 1.4%

• End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000
• Allow five days of public comment before signing bills
• Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials
• Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs
• Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009
• Recognize the Armenian genocide
• Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN

47 promised kept – 9.1% of 515 promises, more than 5 per month

• Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners
• Establish a credit card bill of rights
• Expand loan programs for small businesses
• Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch
• Expand eligibility for State Children's Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
• Expand funding to train primary care providers and public health practitioners
• Increase funding to expand community based prevention programs
• Sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
• Appoint a special adviser to the president on violence against women
• Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq
• Send two additional brigades to Afghanistanc
• Give a speech at a major Islamic forum in the first 100 days of his administrationc
• Grant Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send money to Cuba
• Restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne/JAG) program
• Establish an Energy Partnership for the Americas
• Release presidential records
• Require new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions.
• Remove more brush, small trees and vegetation that fuel wildfires
• Push for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors
• Create a White House Office on Urban Policy
• Support increased funding for the NEA
• Add another Space Shuttle flight
• Use the private sector to improve spaceflight
• Partner to enhance the potential of the International Space Station
• Use the International Space Station for fundamental biological and physical research
• Explore whether International Space Station can operate after 2016
• Enhance earth mapping
• Appoint an assistant to the president for science and technology policy
• Establish special crime programs for the New Orleans area
• Rebuild schools in New Orleans
• Fund a major expansion of AmeriCorps
• Appoint the nation's first Chief Technology Officer
• Work to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear
• Appoint an American Indian policy adviser
• Ban lobbyist gifts to executive employees
• Create new criminal penalties for mortgage fraud
• Weatherize 1 million homes per year
• Invest in all types of alternative energy
• Enact tax credit for consumers for plug-in hybrid cars
• Support high-speed rail
• Invest in public transportation
• Provide grants to encourage energy-efficient building codes
• Get his daughters a puppy
• Appoint at least one Republican to the cabinet
• Raise the small business investment expensing limit to $250,000 through the end of 2009
• Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits
• Reverse restrictions on stem cell research

12 promises compromised – 2.3%
12 promises stalled – 2.3%
122 promises in the works – 23.7%
315 promises no action to date – 61.2%

What You'll Need To Survive The Apocalypse

I stumbled upon a website that provides survival information for an apocalypse.  There are apparently people who are expecting an apocalypse that will destroy civilization.  This is not necessarily the apocalypse of Revelation.  The website I found is hosted by one such person and he provides a checklist of the equipment you will need to survive.  Each item is ranked 1 (least important) to 5 (critical for survival).  I noticed that the list does not include food or water.  The only item with the least important rank of 1 is a gas mask; a harmonica is more important with a rank of 2.  An adjustable wrench and two screwdrivers are critical to survival with a rank of 5 and more important than a knife, a water purifier and a crank flashlight.  A Russian bomber hat is more important than either a radio or fishing equipment.  A Russian Bomber Hat???

I admit that I have no survival training but my common sense tells me that this list is not going to be my guide to surviving an apocalypse, that is, if I decide to prepare for an apocalypse.  But, I could be wrong.  What do you think?  Do you need to be prepared for an apocalypse and, if so, what would you put on your equipment survival list?

Survival Equipment Checklist:

5 Wool Socks
5 Dust Mask
5 Rain Coat
5 Long Underwear
5 Down Coat
5 Gun
5 Matches, Magnifying Glass, Magnesium, Flint and Steel
5 Phillips and Standard screwdriver
5 Adjustable Wrench
5 Compass
5 First Aid Kit
5 Map
5 Canteen for Water
5 Canteen for Fuel
4 Goggles
4 Extra Clothes
4 Mittens/Gloves
4 Iodine Tablets
4 Collapsible Saw
4 Crowbar
4 Hunting Knife
3 Russian Bomber Hat
3 Pump Water Purifier
3 Crank Flashlight
3 Can-opener
3 Needle and Thread
3 Binoculars
3 Tarp
2 Leatherman (folding multi-tool)
2 Fishing Equipment
2 Small Radio
2 Harmonica
1 Gas Mask

My Insurance Company Has Denied Further Coverage Of Interferon

I've been on interferon for 6 months.  My physician submitted a prescription renewal to continue treatment for another 6 months but my insurance company denied it for clinical reasons.  I can't determine from the customer agent what the clinical reason is.  The medication costs $500 per week.  Maybe that is the clinical reason.

I need to take my shot today but I have no medication, it isn't approved yet and if it is approved it will be a few days before it arrives.  I wonder if a gap in the treatment will be a problem.

Sure, we don't need no stinking health care reform.  This is working well for me.

UnitedHealth CEO Is Paid $57,000 Per Hour

This is incentive to deliver large profits not necessarily effective affordable health care. How much is the CEO willing to pay his lobbyists and our representatives to protect his salary?

If the shareholders of public companies set compensation instead of the board we wouldn't be thinking about regulating company salaries.

President Barack Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize

Congratulations! The Nobel Committee is saying "you are leading the world in the right direction, in the right way."

I can hear the GOP leadership and their foul-mouthed talhing heads saying that the award is Obama's 30 pieces of silver for selling out the United States. What a pity! I'll bet Cheney is having a fit in his undisclosed location.

Betsy McCaughey On Health Care Reform: Lies and Name-Calling

Betsy McCaughey and Representative Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) debated health care reform with Dylan Ratigan yesterday on Dylan's Morning Meeting show on MSNBC.  Dylan challenged some of McCaughey negative statements about reform.  Like any liar when cornered with facts, McCaughey refused to answer Dylan's most revealing questions, and finally complained that he was an "unfair moderator."  She was no less unhappy with Rep. Weiner and called him "ignorant."

McCaughey said that the Democrat's proposal for paying for reforms included cost cuts in the Medicare system, which she said would result in higher premium costs and/or reduced services.  Dylan Ratigan and Rep. Weiner both disagreed that cost reductions would require increased premiums or reduced services.  When asked how she proposed to cut Medicare costs to ensure its survival she said she would increase the minimum age to qualify for Medicare from 65 to 70!

That's an ingenious plan.  Everybody that I know who is retired or considering retirement but is not 65 is very concerned about how they will pay for health care insurance until they qualifiy for Medicare.  Most of these people will be or are receiving a monthly retirement benefit from their past employer but health care coverage is not provided.  The cost of non-group health care insurance is $9,000 to $12,000 per year.  Some of these people may not retire until they are covered by Medicare but many others were recently forced into retirement by their employers after the collapse of our economy late last year.  Without Medicare they will be spending a lot of their retirement savings or retirement checks for insurance for the 3 to 5 years until they reach age 65 and some will risk not having insurance for those years.  If the minimum age is increased to 70 it will be a financial hardship to many of the senior I know who are under the age of 70, retired or will be retiring soon.  Many who lost their jobs due to the economy or fear that they will be and some of those who were already retired may have to find full or parttime jobs until they are 70.

Oh by the way, McCaughey was also a major opponent of the Clinton reform bill when Bill Clinton was president.  She has made a mini career out of preventing health care reform.

American Academy of Family Physicians - Health Care Reform Recommendations To Its Membership

The AAFP, which supports the Health Care Reform Bills and the Public Option, provided the following FAQ for their membership.

Why would family physicians support the bills in Congress?

The legislation in the House of Representatives contains numerous provisions that are designed to support primary care physicians. There is a bonus payment to primary care physicians of 5 percent (10 percent if the practice is in a physician shortage area – usually rural areas). The SGR is eliminated (which is good for all physician practices) and the replacement system has higher conversion factors for E/M and preventive care services, which are the ones that most family physicians provide. Primary care services in Medicaid are paid at least at the Medicare rate, which is a substantial increase in some states. The legislation invests in a broader pilot-testing of the medical home practice model. And payments to departments of family medicine and to family medicine residencies are increased, and there is increased tuition assistance for medical students who choose family medicine (or other primary care specialties). The legislation is the first major investment in primary care that the federal government has made in years. Finally, the bill is consistent with our long-term policy of supporting health care coverage for all – and this legislation is a step in that direction.

Many of my elderly patients are concerned that Medicare is going away. What should I tell them?

There is nothing in the current bills that would take away Medicare. Please tell your patients that Medicare will still be there for them – even if health care legislation passes Congress. The legislation does not eliminate the program, nor does it eliminate benefits.

Why is the AAFP supporting a so-called “public plan?” I think that will lead to a single-payer system or socialized medicine.

The legislation preserves the private insurance market, so medicine will not be socialized. But what it is intended to do is to provide some competition for insurance companies, especially in areas where one company is dominant or a monopoly, which are often rural and where many of our members have no leverage in negotiating with the major plans. Members have been asking for years to find some method to give them some bargaining power with the major plans. While this is not the best mechanism, it is a start.  In addition, it is not at all clear whether or not a public plan will be part of any final bill. Many Members of Congress – particularly in the Senate – are discussing the idea of a “co-op,” which would be a non-profit entity run by the members at the state or national level. However, the AAFP Board of Directors discussed public plans at length, since this option has been part of the discussion for quite some time. The Board came up with principles on a public plan option, consistent with those set forth in the New America Foundation document “A Modest Proposal for a Competing Public Health Plan” (12-page PDF file; About PDFs).  These principles are:

• administrators of the public plan must be accountable to an entity other than the one identified to govern the marketplace -- in other words, the authority overseeing the marketplace and responsible for enforcing its rules should not have an incentive to favor a public plan compared with private plans;
• the public plan cannot be Medicare;
• the public plan must be actuarially sound;
• the public plan cannot leverage Medicare or any other public program to force providers to participate;
• the public plan should not be required to use Medicare payment rates;
• insurance market rules and regulations governing the public plan must be the same as those governing private plans;
• the public plan cannot be granted an unfair advantage in enrolling the uninsured or low-income individuals, who presumably will be eligible for subsidies in the new marketplace;
• public and private insurers should be required to adhere to the same rules regarding reserve funds; and
• the public plan would need to contribute to value-based initiatives that benefit all payers.

We have used these principles as a yardstick to measure the public plans in the House and Senate bills. We have found that the bills are consistent with our policy. The bills do not force providers or patients to participate and plans will negotiate rates with providers.

 Do these bills change how I will get paid?

 The House bill includes language that replaces the current SGR formula with another volume-control payment method. This includes better payment rates for cognitive services, like office visits and preventive health services, than for procedural services. The new formula is GDP + 2 percent for E/M and preventive services and GDP + 1 percent for all other services.

This does not benefit primary care physicians exclusively, since most physicians provide at least some cognitive health care services. It encourages the effective use of a physician’s training and skills. Whether it is sufficient is always an open question until the data is in. Our early review of the revised payment structure suggests that it is a step in the right direction for our members and is a good down payment for better enhancement for primary care.

And, without the House bill, physicians get a 21 percent cut in Medicare next year and cuts in the 5 percent range annually for the foreseeable future. This bill is a major step forward out of a failed Medicare formula that has plagued us since 2001.

The Senate Finance committee has not yet released their legislation so we cannot review it at this time.

 Why is my Academy supporting bills that will increase the deficit?

The cost of health care reform may be significant, but part of the reason is that we have postponed dealing with the problem. As significant as the cost is now, it will only get higher if we continue to put off the necessary decisions. Paying for health reform will require a combination of measures like tax increases, reductions of tax benefits, and efficiencies in the health delivery system.b

The goal of the legislation is not to increase the deficit. Specifically, while the House legislation would rebase the SGR, and this money would be added to the deficit, members of Congress continue to seek various means to pay for the reform legislation.

Won’t the comparative effectiveness research give federal bureaucrats the power to make medical decisions for your patients and force rationing of health care?

We do not believe that more knowledge about how various treatments, procedures, and products compare with each other will lead to rationing. Instead, we believe that the more objective information physicians and patients have about health care issues the better their choices will be. It is valuable to have a respected agency like the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality as a disinterested moderator of this information.

How come I’m not hearing anything about medical liability in these bills? Wouldn’t medical liability reform cut costs?

There are clearly additional costs due to defensive medicine. The AAFP’s policy has called for a cap on non-economic damages, and we have signed a letter to Congress, along with several other physician groups that calls for medical liability reform. There are many alternatives that Congress has considered from time to time. For example, we have supported bills that would give some states authority and resources to try out alternative methods of dispute resolution and liability settlements.

Right now, the bills do not contain medical liability reforms, but we know that many Members of Congress are interested in including different reforms. We are advocating that these reforms be added later as the legislation works its way through the process.

What about nurse practitioners? I heard they now will be treated the same way as physicians.

No. Members of Congress are keenly aware of the differences in training between physicians and nurse practitioners. Nevertheless, in an effort to help provide health care access to some rural areas, the House bill does make some changes.

While nurse practitioners are potentially able to head primary care medical homes, this is only in pilot programs and only in states where they have independent authority to practice. In addition, their payment rates under Medicaid – like physicians’ – are increased, but the differential between NPs and physicians is maintained. Finally, both physicians and nurse practitioners are eligible for Medicare payment incentives – 5 percent for selected primary care services. This language is part of the House bill’s overall goal of providing more funding for primary care.

Why won’t employers simply “dump” their employees into any public plan?

In the House bill, employers are prohibited from selecting the public plan for their employees. They are required to provide coverage or pay a payroll tax. Specifically, their options are to continue to buy a group policy as they do today; set up a self-funded plan, or make a defined contribution so that their employees may purchase a plan through the Exchange.

In the HELP bill, there is a requirement that if someone is offered employer sponsored coverage they cannot enter the gateway and thus the community health insurance option unless that offer is unaffordable to them (using a rigorous test). CBO has estimated no net loss of employer-sponsored coverage.

Isn’t the Patient-Centered Medical Home just another version of the failed “gatekeeper” model run by the HMOs many years ago?

Good question and here’s the difference. The medical home model is on which patient care is an integrated team with the primary care physician at the center.

Patients are active participants in their own health and well-being. They are cared for by a physician who leads the medical team that coordinates all aspects of preventive, acute and chronic needs of patients using the best available evidence, appropriate technology, and referrals to sub-specialists when needed.

But, aren’t you taking away the individual’s freedom of choice through a Patient-Centered Medical Home?

The short answer is no. In the medical home model, the primary care physician and the patient decide together which path to take. If they decide that the patient would benefit from a particular treatment provided only by a subspecialist, then the primary care physician would work with the patient to make that happen. Importantly, however, the primary care physician would stay involved, i.e., after a particular treatment, both physicians would discuss next steps, in conjunction with the patient.

What about sub-specialists? What financial incentive is there for them to participate if all money goes to primary care?

As physicians who all have take the Hippocratic Oath, we clearly believe that our sub-specialist colleagues will continue to see patients, even under a reformed health care system that places more emphasis on primary care. In addition, our sub-specialist colleagues will be able to treat those extraordinarily complex cases, in conjunction with the primary care physicians, for which they have been trained.

Nevertheless, there is no simple way to predict how physicians – or the market – will react. Our goal in supporting health care reform simply is to establish the best system that provides the right kind of care for the patient at the right time.

I’ve heard a lot of about “insurance reforms.” What sort of reforms are in the health reform bills?

• Protects patient choice  
• Prohibits pre-existing condition exclusions  
• Requires guaranteed issue and renewal for insured plans  
• Requires parity in mental health and substance abuse disorder benefits consistent with AAFP policy  
• Ensures adequacy of provider networks.  
• Ensures value and lower premiums  
• Requires coverage of essential benefits package including prevention  
• Requires fair marketing practices by health insurers  
• Requires fair grievance and appeals mechanisms  
• Requires information transparency and plan disclosure  
• Requires timely payment of claims c 
• Requires administrative simplification  
• Closes the Medicare Part D donut hole is also big for our patients.  
• Eliminates annual and lifetime caps on losses.

How do these bills help family physicians, like me?

The AAFP is strongly committed to health care reform legislation that will increase the number of family doctors and boost your Medicare payments. c

The House bill offers strong support for primary care in a variety of ways, including medical home demonstration projects, improving Medicare payment for primary care physicians, expanding scholarships and loan programs for those who choose careers in primary care, and reforms the way that Medicare updates physician pay rates that recognized the value of primary care.

The bill that was passed by the Senate HELP committee also includes a number of primary care provisions. While the committee does not have jurisdiction over Medicare – that is handled by the Senate Finance committee -- the HELP bill supports training for family medicine; gives priority to programs that educate students in team-based approaches to care, including the patient-centered medical home; Increases the supply of qualified health care workers by providing low-interest student loans and loan repayment programs and creates a Primary Care Extension Program to provide assistance to primary care providers about evidence-based therapies, preventive medicine, health promotion, chronic disease management, and mental health.

It also funds Community Health Teams to support the development of medical homes and to ensure a patient’s care is coordinate by a team that includes primary care providers.

Republicans Oppose FCC Policy Changes Intended To Ensure Net Neutrality

The Chairman of the FCC has proposed policy changes to ensure Net Neutrality. The Net Neutrality policy changes would ensure that...

• Network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.
• Providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices.

Access to the Internet is made through an ISP (Internet Service Provider).  AT&T, Comcast, Cox Communications, RoadRunner are a few of the many, many ISPs.  When you access information or an application on the Internet you are almost always using not only your ISP but other ISPs as well.  If I send an e-mail from my Comcast account to a friend in El Dorado, Kansas, my e-mail will be handled by both Comcast and Cox Comunications - my friend's ISP.

The proposed policy change states that no ISP can restrict my use of the Internet.  They cannot limit the speed of my communication, so that another user's communication will not be limited by the volume of all communications.  They cannot limit my usage because I use Internet Explorer instead of FireFox.  The can't limit my usage because of the hardware or software that I or my ISP uses.  The ISP's network management practices must be transparent to the FCC so that the FCC can ensure that their policies are not being violated.  This is the same as the FTC's right to know how an investment company manages the money invested by their customers.  You might say that an Internet user's access to the Internet should be as unrestricted as an oxygen-breather's access to the oxygen in the air.

However, the congressional Republicans oppose Net Neutrality.  Senate Republicans have proposed an amendment to an appropriations bill that would allow them to block funding of the new FCC policies but the Senate Democrats are in the majority and will prevent the Republican's amendment.

The appropriations bill amendment is co-sponsored by Senators John Ensign (R-Nev.), Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), David Vitter (R-La.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and John Thune (R-S.D).  The two Republican FCC commissioners oppose the policy changes proposed by the three Democratic FCC commissioners. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, said in a release: 'We must tread lightly when it comes to new regulations.  These new regulatory mandates and restrictions could stifle investment incentives."

How do you feel about Net Neutrality?  Should the biggest and richest oxygen-breather have the right to restrict the smaller oxygen-breather's access to the oxygen in the air?

What reason(s) might the GOP have for opposing Net Neutrality?  Whose interests is the GOP representing?

When Should Sex With An Employee Be Harassment?

David Letterman has had to admit to having affairs with employees of his show. If these women were co-workers rather that his employees or he was not the star of the show with control over every aspect, including who works on the show, then the affairs would only be a personal matter - mostly between Letterman and his wife (he was dating his wife while having an affair on the side). But, he is the star and they worked for him, which makes it a legal matter: sexual harassment of an employee. It doesn't matter, in my opinion, if the woman was willing; Letterman has probably violated the law. I assume, as does the law, that his employer status, not to mention his celebrity and her young age, gave him an unfair advantage over her that should be a legal issue.

How will CBS handle their Late Night Superstar?

What would you do with Letterman if you were in charge of CBS?

Glenn Beck Crying On Cue!

This video shows how Glenn Beck uses Vicks under his eyes to make them look like they are wet with tears.

I wish I could say that Glenn Beck's TV show is only a farce but that is not all.  It's also a tragedy because so many people watch his show and actually believe what he says.  His words and his audience's response to them corrupt our democracy.

Should the Medal of Honor Be Awarded More Frequently?

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) thinks that the Medal of Honor has not been awarded often enough during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  Hunter wants to establish a review board consisting of combat veteran, including some Medal of Honor recipients.  The board will review the Iraq and Afghanistan war medal applications for which a lesser medal was awarded to determine which of those should be upgraded to the Medal of Honor.  The Medal of Honor has been awarded only six times during Iraq and Afghanistan, a rate of 1 for every one million uniformed personnel, compared to a rate of 23 per million in Korea and 29 per million in WWII.  Our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan have also awarded their highest honor as infrequently as the U.S.  The following list indicates the number of Medal of Honor recipients by conflict since the Medal of Honor was established.

• 1,522: Civil War
• 426: Indian campaigns
• 110: Spanish-American War
• 119: World War I
• 465: World War II
• 134: Korean War
• 246: Vietnam War
• 2: Somalia
• 6: Iraq and Afghanistan wars

The grounds for receiving a Medal of Honor, according to the Department of Defense, have not changed, however, warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan is much different than it was in previous wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are largely fought with remote-controlled weaponry and very much less close-combat fighting compared to previous wars. Even the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan use tactics that limit their own exposure.

Opponents, including some past recipients of the Medal of Honor, argue that this will only reduce the meaning and importance of the Medal of Honor.

 What do you think?

GOP Outrage Over Dem's Speech: The Kettle Calling The Pot Black

The Congressional GOP is outraged that Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), in a speech to the House stated, “The Republican heath care plan: "don't get sick" -- and if you do, "die quickly.”

The GOP wants Grayson to apologize to the House and the House to punish Grayson.  It's hard to believe that the GOP could be outraged after they spent the summer name-calling in Congress and in townhall meetings across the country and warning that the Democrats would establish a Death Panel.

Does the GOP think that the American people are so stupid that they won't be immediately reminded of all the GOP death talk???  No voter with common sense, Democrat, Republican or Independent, could re-elect this bunch of self-serving obstructionists.

The following are some of the statements made by the GOP in Congress:

• Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.): "You lie!"
  
• Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.): "Last week, Democrats released a health care bill which essentially said to America's seniors: drop dead."
  
• Rep. Paul Broun, MD (R-Ga.): Reviewed the Democrats public health insurance option stated that it is "gonna kill people."
  
• Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.): Suggested on the House floor that Congress "make sure we bring down the cost of health care for all Americans and that ensures affordable access for all Americans and is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government."
  
• Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas): "One in five people have to die because they went to socialized medicine...I would hate to think that among five women, one of 'em is gonna die because we go to socialized care."
  
• Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa): “They're going to save money by rationing care, getting you in a long line. Places like Canada, United Kingdom, and Europe. People die when they're in line."

The American Way: Take What You Need From The Weak Guy

A 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair Poll asked the following:

California and New York City now require calorie-counts to be printed on fast food menus. Which of the following other things would you most like to see happen to reduce obesity?

• A Fast Food tax
• A Soft Drink tax
• A ban on using food stamps to buy high-fat food
• Scales at restaurant entrances
• A tax credit for liposuction
• None of the above

Question Results:

• 38.86% - A ban on using food stamps to buy high-fat food
• 33.89% - None of the above
• 14.16% - A fast food tax
• 10.04% - A soft drink tax
• 1.70% - Scales at restaurant entrances
• 1.35% - A tax credit for liposuction

This is not a scientific poll but I still think the results reflect the American attitude.  "The poor people are the problem.  They want the government to take care of them and they are getting fat in the process."

"Stop Obesity: Put Poor People On A Diet"

The good result is that one-third of the respondents probably realize that you can't legislate a proper diet.  Sin tax is not a way to correct behavior; it is a way of collecting more tax from people who won't refuse to pay it.

How did you answer the question?

If You Were The President Of The United States...

If you were the president of the United States you would be the most powerful person in the world.  That seems like a great position to be in!  What would your life be like while you are the president?

Your job description is:

• You are the Commander-in-Chief of all US military forces
• You are the Chief of the Executive Branch of the government
• You are the Head of State
• You are the Head of Foreign Policy
• You are the leader of your political party
• You are responsible for the US Economy
• You are the Legislative leader and can approve or veto all legislation

On a typical day you would:

• 6:30 AM: wake, shower, dress, watch TV news and scan morning newspapers
• 7:30 AM: receive Congressional Record for prior day, receive briefing on schedule
• 7:50 AM: breakfast
• 8:15 AM: arrive at office, call budget director to discuss an issue
• 8:35 AM: Sign documents, read and dictate reply to selected letters from secretary
• 8:55 AM: Meet with four leaders of Congress to discuss strategy for passing a bill
• 9:20 AM: receive award from an conservationist society
• 9:35 AM: call a sick congressman; call the leader of a striking labor union; call the OMB director
• 10 AM: meet with two defeated party members who are looking for a job
• 10:20 AM: meet with US ambassador to Sweden and convey your instructions
• 10:45 AM: present Purple Heart award to families of 5 soldiers killed in action
• 11:15 AM: receive national security department briefing on four crises
• 11:50 AM: lunch, personal time
• 2 PM: sign new legislation
• 2:40 PM: meet with Council of Economic Advisors
• 3:15 PM: meet a White House tour
• 3:25 PM: meet with White House reporters
• 3:45 PM: receive top-secret CIA report on developing crisis, call CIA director to discuss
• 4:15 PM: meet with foreign minister of Asian country
• 4:45 PM: meet with congressman requesting the reopening of a military base in his district
• 5 PM: prepares for a dinner meeting at a DC hotel, review speech
• 6:30 PM: meet, eat and speak at hotel
• 10 PM: exercise for 45 minutes
• 10:45 PM: retire to bedroom with reports to read
• 11:45 PM: go to sleep
• (by Howard D. Mehlinger, Hot Topics Publications Inc.)

Nearly half of all Americans disagree with your objectives and methods.  At least half of the news media complains daily about you.

You are responsible for the prosecution of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  You are responsible for the strategy being employed by the military.  You are responsible for maintaining allied support.  You are responsible for funding these wars with money you do not have.  You will write letters to each of the families of soldiers killed in action in your wars.

You will make an average of 200 flights each year on Air Force One.  Its a great plane with very good service but even you will get tired of flying around the world in Air Force One.

If you were President GW Bush you would be accused of war crimes by both Americans and several other nations.  Half of all Americans will think that you stole the election in 2000 and lied about your opponent to win in 2004.  Your party will avoid you and your name while campaigning for the 2008 elections.

If you are President Barack Obama you will be accused of not being a native born American.  You will be accused of being a secret Muslim who plans to convert the US to Islamic rule.  You will be accused of supporting domestic terrorists.  You will be accused of trying to nationalize American businesses.  You will be accused of replacing our democracy with socialism.  You will be accused of selling out to all foreign countries.  You will be accused of promoting abortion, alternative lifestyles, same-sex marriage and the eradication of Christian influence and icons in the public sector.  You will be accused of racism.  You will be likened to a chimpanzee, a gorilla, Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini.

Half the country demands that you deliver on your promises of Change.  The other half of the country threatens to impeach you if you deliever on your promises of Change.

Historians will give you an approval rating between 40% and 60%.  You have a 10% chance of being remembered as a great president.

You can expect two attempts to assassinate you.  You have a 14% chance of being shot by an assassin.  You have a 9% chance of being assassinated.  You will be surrounded constantly by the Secret Service for the rest of you life.

You will receive a salary of $400,000 per year and a $50,000 expense allowance.  Your salary will be less than one-half of 1% of the average salary of the top 20 CEO's in America.

Last week you lead the United Nations to issue a resolution demanding that Iran accept inspections to ensure that it is not developing nuclear weapons or weapon grade nuclear material.  This week you must decide how to respond to Iran's test firing of missiles to demonstrate that it will not agree to inspections and nuclear disarmament.

When you take vacation, at least half of Americans will think that you are screwing off and spending too much money!

Do you want to be the President of the United States?

Did Glenn Beck Actually Throw A Frog Into Boiling Water?

Watch the video and tell me if you think Glenn Beck actually throws a live frog into boiling water.  I think Beck went to great lengths to make the viewer think that he throws the frog into the boiling water but I can't believe that Glenn Beck, in spite of everything else I believe about him, would do it.  Good trick or vicious act?

2009 Value Voters Summit - Know and Beware Of The Participants

The 2009 Value Voters Summit is underway through Sunday, Sept. 20th.  Several leaders of the Republican Party and various organizations with socially conservative agenda attended and spoke.  Whether you are conservative, liberal or moderate, you should know the people attending this summit and what they are promoting because they intend to retake the White House and Congress and legislate their social doctrine.  Get informed and take a position.  You might be voting for or against one or more of these people in 2010 and 2012.

The following are the titles of several of the sessions at the summit:

• TRUE TOLERANCE: COUNTERING THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
• OBAMACARE: RATIONING YOUR LIFE AWAY
• MARRIAGE: WHY IT'S WORTH DEFENDING AND HOW REDEFINING IT THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
• GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA: THE NEW FACE OF THE "PRO-DEATH" AGENDA
• SPEECHLESS - SILENCING THE CHRISTIANS
• THE NEW MASCULINITY (an anti-Feminist movement)
• THUGOCRACY - FIGHTING THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY
• DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD
• ACTIVISM AND CONSERVATISM: FIT TO A TEA (PARTY)

I collected some background information on only a few of the speakers.  Know what they have said and done so that you will know where they would lead you.

Gary Bauer, President of American Values (ran for U.S. President in 2000 as a Republican)

• More $ for defense & police; less $ for welfare & arts.
• Spend surplus on defense, debt, & Medicare; not education.
• End funding of NEA.
• End affirmative action
• If not prayer, recite Declaration.
• The law recognizes and encourages heterosexuality.
• Posting Ten Commandments will reduce crime.
• No same-sex marriages.
• Ban gay hiring.
• Miranda rights not as important as victim rights.
• Allow Ten Commandments in schools & disallow Nazi salutes.
• Vouchers for home-schooling as well as private schools.
• Africa: Needs better governments, not bailouts.
• Restrain and reverse liberal judicial activism.
• No campaign contributions from Hollywood.
• Legislating morality ok, if it’s our best values.
• Require teen moms to live with parents.
• "I don't see why Christians should censor themselves out of any forum in which our perspectives can be heard. I disagree with the theology of many groups that I address; Jews, for example, who do not accept Jesus, or atheists."
• Nine members of Bauer's 2000 campaign staff quit in a month’s time, including Charles Jarvis, Bauer's campaign manager, and Tim McDonald, former chief of advance operations. Jarvis and McDonald said publicly that they resigned in protest of Gary Bauer's "inappropriate" behavior in travelling alone and spending time behind closed doors with a 26-year-old deputy campaign manager. The boards of two religious groups long connected with Bauer, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, have warned him to not travel alone with her or meet behind closed doors for extended periods.

Kris Mineau, Massachusetts Family Institute

• “Many citizens who oppose gay marriage also oppose civil unions. The coalition believes it is confusing and unethical to restrict citizens to one vote on two opposing issues, which this amendment would have done.”

Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.)

• Mike Pence is a member of House committee called Operation Offset. They proposed a $543 billion military spending-cut to offset the cost of the Hurricane Katrina "relief and reconstruction effort" of the Gulf Coast. They are, for instance, asking troops to 'accept reduced health care benefits for their families.' Additionally, 'the stateside system of elementary and secondary schools for military family members could be closed.'
• Wants to enact legislation that will prohibit any president from appointing so-called Czars. Has called for a background investigation of Obama’s czars. Czar is a term coined by the news media. It is not an official title. The first czar was appointed by Roosevelt during WWII; he was responsible for finding enough rubber for the military. GW Bush had 46 czars.

Governor Mike Huckabee, 2008 Republican Presidential candidate

• Won the straw poll at the Values Voter Summit as the favorite Republican Presidential candidate for 2012. Tied for 2nd place in the poll are: Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Mike Pence. Top issues identified by the straw poll voters are: abortion, protection of religious liberties, same-sex marriage and tax cuts.
• As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee used his influence to prevent an investigation of his son’s killing of a dog by hanging while working as a camp counselor. Huckabee’s son was fired. The local prosecutor asked the state police to investigate. Huckabee’s chief of staff and personal lawyer asked the director of the state police to deny the request for an investigation. The director refused. Seven months later Huckabee fired the director because “I couldn’t get you to help me with my son when I had that problem.”

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)

• Has repeatedly boasted that he will “break” Obama by defeating health care reform.
• Has made a habit of comparing government under Obama to fascism.
• Favors eliminating the Internal Revenue Service and Federal income tax.
• Openly gay people should not be allowed to teach in public schools.
• Single mothers who live with their boyfriends should not be allowed to teach in public schools.

Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)

• Accuses Congress of being un-American and calls for an investigation of its members.
• "We're running out of rich people in this country."
• “The recovery package is part of a Democratic conspiracy to "direct" funding away from Republican districts, so Democratic districts can "suck up" all federal funds.“
• Thinks that President Obama is possibly trying to control the nation's food supply.
• Calls on Americans to "make a covenant, slit our wrists, be blood brothers” against health care reform.
• In a speech to the House, connected the 1970s swine flu outbreak to Democrat Jimmy Carter being president, even though it was actually Gerald Ford in office at the time.
• “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, “Having a revolution every now and then is a good thing.””
• Argued in the House that the threat of manmade global warming doesn’t make any sense because “Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.”

Kelly Shackelford, Chief Counsel, Liberty Legal Institute

• Opposes same-sex marriage.
• “I think the idea that Texas is going to somehow suffer because it's not becoming like Massachusetts is silly. Texas is attractive for many people for the reason that it is not like Northeastern states. Those kind of traditional moral beliefs that provide children with both a mom and a dad are the reason that people are attracted to Texas.
• Warns that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are going to destroy religious freedom by passing the Freedom of Choice Act, repealing DOMA, reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, passing hate crimes legislation and, most ominously, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Carrie Prejean, Former Miss California

• “I am disgusted at the way that some people can be so intolerant. It disgusts me.”

Stephen Baldwin

• Baldwin’s organization, Operation Straight Up (OSU), distributed “Freedom Packages” to soldiers serving in Iraq. The package included the video game “Left Behind” whose players wage a violent war against United Nations-like peacekeepers who represent the armies of the Antichrist.

Rev. Dr. Ken Hutcherson, Senior Pastor, Antioch Bible Church, Kirkland, WA

• Urged Christians to buy up Microsoft stock then dump the stock at the same time to drive the stock price down to punish Microsoft management for supporting gay-rights legislation.

Representative Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

• Blunt told the following story at the Values Voters Summit to explain the state of pandemonium in Washington. “A long time ago in India, Blunt said, a group of British occupiers set about building a golf course from what was formerly a stretch of wilderness. Much to their surprise, as soon as the first balls were played, monkeys would run out and play with them. The monkeys might throw a ball from fairway to sand, from sand to fairway -- or even back at the golfer. Eventually, the golfers had to agree to a new rule, never before used in the game. "You have to play the ball where the monkey throws it. And that is the rule in Washington all the time."
• Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation.
• Voted NO on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects.
• Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance.
• Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror.
• Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health.
• Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility.
• Voted YES on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay.
• Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients.
• Voted YES on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage.
• Voted NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US.
• Voted NO on restricting no-bid defense contracts.
• Opposes the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

Bill O'Reilly Supports A Public Option For Working Americans

I applaud Bill O'Reilly's support of a Public Option within Health Care Reform.

The Huffington Post  9/17/09:  Bombastic Fox News host Bill O'Reilly made a rather notable policy pronouncement on Wednesday's show: he supports the creation of a government-managed health care plan if it provides working Americans with an affordable option to other private insurance plans.

In other words, he supports the public option now being hotly debated in Congress.

As noted by DailyKos' Jed Lewison, O'Reilly had the following exchange with the Heritage Foundation's Nina Owcharenko:

O'REILLY: The public option now is done. We discussed this, it's not going to happen. But you say that this little marketplace that they're going to set up, whereby the federal government would subsidize insurance for some Americans, that is, in your opinion, a public option?

OWCHARENKO: Well, it has massive new federal regulation. So you don't necessarily need a public option if the federal government is going to control and regulate the type of health insurance that Americans can buy.

O'REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.
Indeed, supporters of the public option do so for the very reasons O'Reilly notes. A study by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund found that "a public coverage program similar to Medicare would reduce projected health care costs by about $2 trillion over 11 years, and reduce premiums by about 20% on average. Within about a decade, 105 million people would be enrolled in the public plan, and about 107 million would have private insurance, according to the Commonwealth Fund."

See Video and full post.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/bill-oreilly-backs-public_n_290658.html

Will The Extreme Rhetoric Of Anti-Obama Demonstrators Lead To Violence?

For the second time since Obama's innaguration the GOP and the Democrats are at odds over whether anti-Obama sentiment and rhetoric could result in violence.

In April, the Homeland Security Department issued a report that warned that Obama's presidency could give rise to an increase in right-wing extremist group membership and activities.  The GOP demanded and received a retraction and an apology from Napolitano of Homeland Security.  However, future events proved that the warning was valid and the GOP's response was wrong.  Membership in extremists groups has increased, right-wing demonstrations are increasing in number and the demonstrators are becoming more angry and threatening.  Some demonstrators have brought firearms to townhall meetings and political demonstrations.  Right-wing violence has also increased with the murder of a security guard at the Halocaust Museum in Washington, DC and the assasination of a prominent abortion doctor.

This week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed a concern that the rhetoric of right-wing demonstrators could incite violence.  Pelosi said that similar rhetoric in San Francisco in the 1970's preceded the assisinations of the mayor and a council member.

In response, Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, stated, "the Speaker is now likening genuine opposition to assassination. Such insulting rhetoric not only undermines the credibility of her office, but it underscores the desperate attempt by her party to divert attention away from a failing agenda."

The GOP was wrong when they opposed the first warning and they are wrong now.  The intensity of the demonstrations is continually increasing and demonstrators and GOP politicians are using increasingly threatening rhetoric - many are calling for secession and armed revolution.  The GOP wants Americans to believe that these demonstrators represent the majority of Americans and as such have a constitutional right to resist acts of oppression by the Left-wing and the Obama administration.  The GOP is only using the extremists to advance their agenda to defeat all efforts by the Democratic lead Congress and Obama.  The GOP is only serving the interests of the corporations and industries that support them financially.  For that the GOP is willing to accept the violence that will ultimately result from the extremists that they are inciting.

Carrying Firearms Near The President

One of Chris Matthews guests on Hardball, today, is a university professor. The subject was the recent public statement by President Jimmy Carter that some of the extreme protesters at rallies and townhall meetings oppose President Obama because they do not accept an African-American as their president. The GOP and conservative pundits are calling the statement outrageous. The Democrats, including the White House, are politely disagreeing and as usual prefer to avoid a serious discussion of racism in the US.

Joe Scarborough, on Morning Joe, said that President Carter is wrong. To support his opinion he pointed out that Obama won the election and early on had an approval rating of 70%. If only one-third of the 30% that disapproved of Obama did so because he is Black, I think that is a significant population. One that could easily account for many of the extreme political demonstrators. To further make his point against President Carter, Joe Scarborough asked Pat Buchanan for his opinion. What a joke. Pat has personally spewed racist remarks on Scarborough's show about both President Obama and Justice Sotomayor. Why didn't Scarborough ask David Dukes if the demonstrators are racists or just fervent patriots opposed to health care reform.

I agree with President Carter. I think that many of the protesters are opposed to a Black as president rather than just health care reform. If I was Obama, I would probably rather see the issue dropped rather than to have it debated since getting health care reform legislation passed is far more important and may be jeopardized by accusations of racism from the White House. Nothing will get the Whites that are on the fence to join the racist element more than to have a Black president accuse White Americans of racism.

I know a racist when I hear one. I'm not saying that every person prejudice person is a skinhead, but I do think that a lot of the anger and distrust is fueled in part by the protester's prejudice.

Chris Matthews' guests, the university professor and a past-president of the NAACP both agreed with President Carter and both, especially the professor, thought that it was a mistake for the Democrats to pretend that racism isn't a factor. They also thought that the GOP was making a very bad mistake by not calling on the demonstrators to stop the racist demonstrations before violence occurs. The GOP has instead attended these demonstrations without urging the demonstrators to be civil and even used the same rhetoric as the demonstrators.

The university professor on Hardball was especially concerned that the demonstrations would turn violent or inspire others to violence. He said that bringing firearms to a townhall meeting was unacceptable. He said the government should enact legislation that makes it illegal to carry a firearm within one mile of the president. In fact, the professor thought that 80% of Americans would support such a law. From what planet is the professor visiting our Earth?

You couldn't get 80% of Americans to support that law even if the president was a White Republican and you don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting half of America to approve of such a law if it is being promoted by a Black president that is accused by so many of masterminding a Socialist-Communist-Fascist-Nazi-Muslim Terrorist take over of the United States.

Acorn - A Frenzy To Condemn

A major issue within Acorn was recently revealed by a conservative sting that Acorn and some liberals call entrapment. The sting consisted of a young man and a young woman portraying a pimp and a prostitute looking for a loan to purchase a house to be used for prostitution. The couple asked for and received advise from some of the several offices that they visited. The couple was advised on how to borrow the money for an illegal business without being caught. Some of the Acorn offices either refused to talk to the couple or called the police to report them. But, a few offices gave them the advice they sought.

No matter how you look at this the Acorn employees/volunteers that advised the couple were very wrong to do so. I find it hard to believe that an honest person of average intelligence could be lulled like innocents into committing this wrong. The Acorn staff that advised the couple were either stupid, dishonest or a combination of both. If this is entrapment, then it was well deserved.

This doesn't prove that Acorn management promotes or condones such acts but it does strongly suggest that Acorn is not adequately managing their organization down to the local staffs. How are these people hired, trained and supervised? The size of an organization is no excuse for allowing it to get out of control to the extent that it is abusing, if not violating the law.

The government agencies that employ Acorn are also at fault for not ensuring that Acorn management had the systems in place to properly hire, train and supervise their employees/volunteers. Acorn has been working for the government for 15 years. The Federal government has paid them about $53 million during that time period. The government agencies using Acorn should cease doing business with Acorn while they evaluate its management systems to determine whether to continue using Acorn in any capacity.

You can find violators of policy and the law in every large organization. During my 30+ years with a large corporation, there were several instances of illegal activity. Each of the violations was committed by one or a few mid-management personnel. The offenders were punished by the company and/or law enforcement and policies adjusted as necessary. The corporation did not deserve to be dissolved because of these violations, which were neither widespread nor frequent. The same might be true of Acorn.

On the other hand, investigators might also find that Acorn is thoroughly corrupt as was Arthur Andersen, which was the accounting firm for Enron. In which case, Acorn deserves the same end that Arthur Andersen met. Arthur Andersen voluntarily surrendered its licenses to perform accounting in the US after having become one of the largest accountants in the world.

Some of the politicians that had not taken action to adequately investigate Acorn when there were already suggestions of misconduct, are now in a frenzy to be seen and heard condemning Acorn. Typical. One of them is U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), who was a guest this week on Joe Scarborough's show on MSNBC. Shelby stated that he has been following Acorn for a long time. Shelby believes that the government should permanently cease doing business with Acorn and that Acorn should be investigated. Shelby stated that Acorn is thoroughly corrupt. Scarborough asked Shelby what departments of the government actually use Acorn. Shelby didn't know. Scarborough asked Shelby for specifics about the corruption but Shelby said he only knew that the corruption was widespread. Scarborough asked him how many organizations like Acorn are providing similar services for the government and how much the government has spent on them. Again, Shelby didn't know.

If Shelby has been following Acorn for a long time and knows that the corruption in Acorn is widespread such that they should be disqualified as a government contractor, why doesn't Shelby know everything about how Acorn is used, how much they have been paid and the other instances of corruption?

Could it be that Shelby is just blowing off his big mouth for political purposes?

If Acorn has been working for the federal government for 15 years for a total compensation of $53 million, the the agencies of the federal government that employed Acorn deserve to be investigated if corruption within Acorn is actually widespread as "reported but not substantiated" by Richard Shelby, Big Mouth Political Opportunist.

Employee Free Choice Act: Card Check

Unions and most Democrats want to replace the current National Labor Relations Board process by which employees of a company can unionize with Card Check.

The current method for workers to form a union in a particular workplace in the United States is a sign-up then an election process. In that, a petition or an authorization card with the signatures of at least 30% of the employees requesting a union is submitted to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), who then verifies and orders a secret ballot election. If over 50% of the employees based on the secret ballot elect to form a union then the NLRB will order the employer to recognize the union. Two exceptions exist. If over 50% of the employees sign an authorization card requesting a union, the employer can voluntarily choose to waive the secret ballot election process and just recognize the union. The other exception is a last resort, which allows the NLRB to order an employer to recognize a union if over 50% have signed cards if the employer has engaged in unfair labor practices that make a fair election unlikely.

Under the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), if the NLRB verifies that over 50% of the employees signed authorization cards, the secret ballot election is bypassed and a union is automatically formed without requiring a secret ballot election. Under The EFCA, if over 30% and fewer than 50% of employees sign a petition or authorization cards, the NLRB would still order a secret ballot election for union representation. In other words, the current threshold to have a secret ballot election is signatures from 30% of employees. The EFCA would keep that threshold, but make a new threshold of signatures from 50% + 1 of employees to bypass the secret ballot election and automatically be unionized. Therefore a petition signature would have the same weight as a "yes" vote in a secret ballot election.

I personally believe that employee bargaining through unionization is often necessary to ensure that employees are treated fairly. I also believe that some unions abuse their power almost as much as the employers did prior to unionization and employee protection laws. Card Check would eliminate the need for a secret ballot if more than 50% of the employees sign a public petition or authorization cards.

I used to belong to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. I had no reason to believe that the IBEW was a corrupt organization that bargained unfairly. However, I did witness and was often affected by abuses by the local union leadership of both employees and union members. Local unions leaders and members alike use intimidation to contol how their membership votes. A union member that does not agree with the politics of the union leadership can find himself unemployed or working on jobs with the least hours and the worst conditions.

Later, I worked 30 years for a Fortune 100 company that owned dozens of manufacturing facilities and roughly half of those facilities are unionized. I saw abused by both the local union members and some of the plant managers. I was never aware of abuses originating within the senior management of the corporation. I was aware of intimidation of employees by employees when union certification or decertification was to be voted on.

Therefore, removing the requirement for a secret ballot, except when the NLRB has proof of unfair employer practices that could impact a secret ballot, puts too much power in the hands of the unionizers and the employees, who favor unionization, who can and, in my opinion, often will intimidate employees who oppose unionzation or are undecided about unionization. The secret ballot is fair to both the employees and the employer. It protects the employees from harassment by either the unionizers or the employer.

What is your opinion?

Family-Values Legislator Resigns Over Sex Scandal

By JULIET WILLIAMS, Associated Press Writer Juliet Williams, Associated Press Writer – Thu Sep 10, 7:47 pm ET

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – A scandal involving a family-values legislator caught boasting about his sexual escapades with his lobbyist mistresses created an embarrassing distraction for lawmakers Thursday, further diverting attention from California's major policy issues in the crucial final days of their session.

Republican Mike Duvall resigned Wednesday after a videotape surfaced in which he described to a colleague in lurid detail his sexual conquests, including a spanking fetish, the skimpy underwear of one mistress and his carrying on two affairs simultaneously. He sought to deny the affairs on Thursday.

The fallout from the scandal began to emerge, with calls for an outside investigation in addition to the internal ethics probe to determine whether the alleged affairs might have influenced his votes.

California lawmakers, who face growing public distrust and few accomplishments for the year, were hoping for a flourish of activity on major issues such as water and prison reform as their regular session drew to a close this week.

But the scandal filled the Capitol with gossip and distracted many legislative staffers from the more important business at hand, while further tarnishing the image of an institution that is seen as increasingly ineffective.

"This is a real black eye," said Derek Cressman, regional director for the government watchdog group Common Cause. "I think it's imperative that the leadership of both parties take this very seriously and address it in a fast and strong way."

The videotape shows Duvall during a break from a July 8 committee hearing detailing his extramarital exploits to fellow Republican Assemblyman Jeff Miller of Corona. He is overheard on an open microphone bragging that he slept with an energy industry lobbyist who wore "eye-patch underwear" and that he enjoyed spanking her when they hooked up. He told Miller, a longtime friend, that he also was sleeping with another lobbyist.

"Oh, she is hot!" Duvall said about the second woman.

The 54-year-old married father of two issued a statement denying he had affairs and saying his only offense "was engaging in inappropriate storytelling."

The lobbyist Duvall refers to in his comments reportedly works for Sempra Energy, a San Diego-based energy services company. The allegation that Duvall slept with a lobbyist who does business before his chief committee prompted calls for an outside investigation and tougher rules of conduct for lobbyists.

Duvall was the vice chairman and ranking Republican member of the Assembly Utilities Committee. Duvall, a Farmers Insurance agent in Yorba Linda, also was a member of the Assembly Rules Committee, whose responsibilities include overseeing lawmaker ethics and ensuring sexual harassment laws are followed within the Legislature.

Former Interrogator Rebukes Cheney For Torture Speech

Former Interrogator Rebukes Cheney For Torture Speech

Cheney, said Matthew Alexander, a 14-year US military interrogator, fundamentally misunderstands the way America is viewed around the world. The American principles of freedom and democracy are cherished in the Muslim world and the idea, at least, of America is still a seductive one. But it is the behavior of the Bush administration at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and secret prisons around the globe that undercuts that image, allowing Al Qaeda to make the argument that America isn't what it stands for.

"Remember," said Alexander, "one of Al Qaeda's goals, it's not just to attack the United States, it's to prove that we're hypocrites, that we don't live up to American principles. So when we use torture and abuse, we're playing directly into one of their stated goals."

The Plutocracy That Pretends To Be A Democracy

We don't have government of the people, by the people and for the people as our founders intended. The US was designed to be a republic but it has long been evolving into a plutocracy. The wealthy have a disproportionate influence over the government. As our political system evolves economic inequality increases giving ever increasing control to large corporations/industries. Large corporations are controlled by an elite class whose objectives are to protect and grow the corporation and increase their. The elite control the corporations from their positions as corporate executives and Board directors. Appointments to the Board and the compensation of the Board members are determined by the Board not the shareholders of the corporation. I believe the GOP only represents the corporate plutocrats although it claims to represent fiscal conservatives, social conservatives (Christian conservatives) and Nationalists. While the professional politicians of Democratic party are not above being influenced by the plutocrats, its base of liberals wants to replace our plutocracy with democratic socialism to ensure Social Justice for all.

How long has it been since we had a fiscally responsible Republican leadership? They talk small government but in the last 30 years they've outspent the Democrats. They preach Nationalism while supporting their corporate sponsors who have moved much of our manufacturing offshore and driven up immigration limits to hold down domestic labor costs. Nationalism is just an excuse to spend taxpayer money on the Military-Industrial Complex, which as Iraq has taught us, only increases Corporate profits. The Corporations are even supplying a Mercenary Army whose soldiers we seem unable to control and who make 10 times as much as our Enlisted Soldiers. They call for increased border security but refuse to control illegal immigration through which we have a low income labor force.

They claim to be our moral leadership but care nothing for Social Justice. How Christ-like is that? They oppose all social programs. They opposed the creation of SCHIP and its refunding. They oppose Health Care Reform because reform will reduce Corporate profits - not because they want to protect Grandma from the Death Panel. Starting with Reagan the maximum income to qualify for social assistance was decreased and thus the Near Poor class was created - too poor to enjoy a minimum standard of living but not poor enough to qualify for assistance. It forced some borderline Poor-Near Poor families to choose between "working and having less" versus "not working and having more." Marie Antoinette is supposed to have said, "let them eat cake" when she was told that the peasants had no bread to eat. Ronald Reagan showed the same lack of compassion when his administration declared ketchup to be a vegetable so that they could reduce the cost of Head Start school meals. Yes, indeed, a true American Hero!

The Republicans demonize the poor in the eyes of the middle-class so that the middle-class blames all taxation on the poor. They Republicans leverage this Class hate to generate the votes to maintain their power in the government. When they enact tax cuts, its only the rich that see the direct benefit, the middle-class and the poor will benefit from "trickle down." Has anybody seen any of that action?

Obama and the Party of Change want to reduce if not eliminate Social Injustice. To stimulate the economy, which the Corporate Plutocrats had raped, Obama spent money on infrastructure projects to create jobs and immediate spending. He subsidized local and state governments whose tax revenues had shrunk, threatening to close schools and layoff firemen and policemen. The Republicans solution would have been another tax cut for the rich. Why they cried should the middle-class allow Obama to spend its hard earned money on extended unemployment benefits and road and bridge repair. Their argument has been very successful. They have convinced half of America that Obama's stimulus spending is doing nothing but putting the middle-class in deeper debt. Does the middle-class think that tax cuts for the rich would have been less costly and stimulated the economy more quickly?

The rich and the Republican Party that serves them is laughing all the way to the bank.

Why Gun Rights Advocates Scare Me

I don't have a problem with guns and gun owners as long as the guns are reasonable (no assault rifles) and the gun owners are rational and use their weapons reasonably.

But, I know that the above is not true. Why?

• Some of the guns that owners want to possess and carry are assault rifles. I see absolutely no justification for owning an assault rifle or any automatic weapon. Such weapons are not needed for hunting or personal protection. Anybody that feels that an automatic or assault weapon is needed for their protection is, in my opinion, not rational and shouldn't own a firearm of any type.
• Many demonstrators showed up at townhall meetings with a weapon and at least one of them was an assault rifle. These people brought a open carry firearm into a large crowd which was already angry and demonstrative. This was an exceptionally irresponsible act. This is the act of a person whom I do not want to own a firearm.
• While flying on business a few neatly dressed men in business suits and cowboy hats boarded the plane and one of them sat next to me. He was in his mid-fifties. He told me that he would prefer to be carrying his .45. He then added, "I would feel safer if everybody on this plane was carrying." I assure you that I felt much safer "knowing" that he was not carrying a firearm. If the gun advocates could have their way, they would carry all the time and every place. There is nothing about this man's attitude that is, in my opinion, mature and rational. I don't want anybody with such an attitude to own any firearm.

I'm not opposed to firearms because I think they kill people. Rather, I think people kill people. Firearms in the hands of a responsible person who uses the firearm reasonably is not an issue for me. However, I think that the people who are most interested in protecting their gun rights and who will not tolerate any regulations on gun sales and type of gun are neither adequately mature nor responsible enough to own a firearm.

The United States does not own more firearms per capita than all other developed countries but the percentage of our population that is killed each year with firearms is much higher than in any other developed country. It isn't because we own firearms, it is because of the people who own the firearms. As long as immature and irresponsible people can possess a firearm then I am in favor of enacting strict regulations on the type of firearms that may be owned, how it is sold, who may own it and for what purpose.

Let's grow up. We no longer need guns to defend ourselves from the British, French, Spanish or Mexican invaders or marauding American Indians. Even Wyatt Earp knew that if you let everybody carry a gun in Dodge City some of them will be killing each other for no good reason. In my opinion, anybody that still needs to bear arms for the purpose that our Founding Fathers intended is least qualified to own one.

Words Of "Wisdom" From Glenn Beck

Here is a short list of Glenn Beck statements that confirm that he is a racist whose words are dangerous.

• “Every night I get down on my knees and pray that Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames.” (2003)
• "I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it." (2005)
• "When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining." (2005)
• “The only [Katrina victims] we’re seeing on television are the scumbags.” (2005)
• “Let me tell you something, there ain’t [nothing] better than looking at a hot, naked chick.” (2006)

Please add other Beck gems in your comments.

Birther Will Deliver GOP Response To Obama's Address To Congress

Louisiana Rep. Charles Boustany has been selected by the GOP to deliver their response to President Obama's address to Congress on health care reform. Relatively unknown, Boustany may have been selected because he is a medical doctor. The GOP is obviously unconcerned that Boustany was a cosponsor of "The Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act of 2009" that would require Medicare to pay doctors for providing end-of-life counseling, which the GOP has labeled the "death panel" in its argument against health care reform. The GOP must also be unconcerned that Boustany is one of several Congressional Republicans who do not accept that President Obama was born in the United States and thus qualified to be the president.

The GOP's choice to respond to Obama's first address to the nation was Bobby Jindal who, prior to his speech, was a 2012 GOP Presidential hopeful. Jindals's disappointing speech, among other things, quickly ended his presidential aspirations. But, this selection seems to be an even poorer choice than their first. The majority of Americans are smart enough to believe that Obama is a natural citizen of the United States. How many of them will question Boustany's qualifications because he is a Birther?

Why does the GOP feel that Boustany is the best choice? Will Boustany testify that reform legislation does provide for a "death panel" because HE proposed it? Will Boustany also deny Obama's citizenship?

Is the GOP a piece of "work" or what? This fine group of quasi-racist, bible-quoting, corruption-riddled obstructors of all Democratic legislation is hell bent on doing anything to restore their majority position in Congress in 2010 and defeat Obama in 2012 as soon as they identify who in the RNC is the best choice to be their Great White Hope, to quote Republican congresswoman Lynn Jenkins of Kansas. And while they accomplish these self-serving goals they MUST also defeat health care reform for the health care industry that so generously contributes to many GOP members of our Congress. What will they be doing for the American people? Nothing!

Fighting In Sporting Events

The Oregon football player that Sunday punched an opppnent on the field has been suspended from play for the rest of the season. I agree with the suspension and I think most people do. However, I soon realized that punishing this player is inconsistent with the on-field conduct of professional athletes who are role models for amateur athletes.

Fighting among professional athletes is not only tolerated, it is expected in some sports, especially hockey and baseball. Hockey teams have their enforcers. Pitchers intentionally "brush back" the batter by throwing the ball at the batter who is often struck. Then the dugouts empty as both teams entertain the fans with a brawl in the infield.

I have always thought that fighting on the field should be dealt with like fighting off the field. Both, in my opinion, are criminal conduct.

As long as we accept fighting in professional sports we should expect our amateurs to do the same.

What do you think? Should we continue to condone fighting in professional sports? If so, should amateurs be allowed to do the same?

Ann Coulter vs Al Franken - Which Historical Figure Do You Admire The Most?

In 2007 Ann Coulter and Al Franken appeared on the CT Forum. They were asked,

• who in history do you admire the most and think had the most fun?
• who in history would you be and what would you do as that person?

Ann Coulter's response is no surprise. Franken's sense of humor makes Coulter look like the ass she is.

Enjoy the video. I certainly did!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susZ2ceEHwk&feature=related

Palin Invited To Testify Before NY State Senate

New York State Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz, a conservative Democrat, has invited Sarah Palin to testify before the Senate Aging Committee as they determine the impact that Obama's proposed health care reform will have on senior citizens of New York. Several officials from the fields of medicine, politics and insurance will also testify.

Senator Diaz invited Palin after reading a tweet she posted on her Twitter page regarding the "death panel" which she says will be created by Obama's health care reform.

Senator Diaz is as much an idiot as Sarah Palin.

Michele Bachmann Wants Us to Slit Our Wrists

In a speech at a Denver fundraiser on Monday, Michele Bachmann, congresswoman from Minnesota's 6th District, said in regard to the effort to defeat health care reform,

"What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass. Right now, we are looking at reaching down the throat and ripping the guts out of freedom and we may never be able to restore it if we don't man up and take this one on."

I guess that the praying and fasting that Michele called for last week didn't pay off as soon as she expected. Did she only lose her patience with God or did she lose her faith?

Bachmann is indeed the Queen of the Wingnuts. It's hard to believe that anybody not in a straight jacket would believe anything that Bachmann says, anymore, but it appears that as long as Bachmann has a spot for fishing along the shallow end of the gene pool, she'll be able to hook plenty of supporters.

Healthcare Reform Misinformation From The Church

My in-laws attend the St. Lawrence O'Toole Catholic Church in Brewster, NY. This past weekend the church distributed with its bulletin a two page warning about specific New York State and Federal proposed legislation. NY State bills are the Marriage Equality Act and the Reproductive Health Act. The Federal bill is Health Reform. Part of the misinformation distributed by the church appears to have been generated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has distributed multiple letters and videos (YouTube.com) attacking health reform.


Any church and its members have the right to disagree with any legislation and to publicly oppose it. However, it is very disappointing that this church has chosen to disseminate misinformation. Apparently this church is willing to break one commandment in order to defend another.