2010 Pathway to Parity

I remember when my children were in elementary school. PUBLIC SCHOOL. There was a class trip planned and the children in this class were to sell some items to earn the money to go on this trip. At some point the teacher made it known (it may have been at the beginning, it may have been at the end) that those children who did not have the money to go would be subsidized by those who did (ie. those who sold nothing, or not enough, would share in profit of those who did sell enough). All of the proceeds of those classmembers would be pooled to pay for the class trip for all. My children worked like little maniacs to earn the money to go on the trip. Some in the class did nothing...sold nothing...were probably not expected to sell anything because they were, after all, financially challenged and thus incapable of mounting any sales effort on their own. Not expected to have any initiative, ambition, responsibility or concern. Others would have it for them. Now where do you think this lesson takes us??? My kids paid for their lunches and seldom had money for ice cream. Many/some of those on the "free" lunch program appeared to consistently have the money for sodas and ice cream while some of the "free" lunches went uneaten. Where do you think this lesson takes us???

After many years of battling the idea of BIG GOVERNMENT and championing the cause of FREE ENTERPRISE, SMALL BUSINESS, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, STATE'S RIGHTS, PERSONAL RIGHTS, and more recently, THE FAIR TAX PROPOSAL I have decided to alter my course and amend my strategy.
I am rolling out my 2010 PATHWAY TO PARITY.

I hope to clearly and briefly outline my ideas for you. All, of course, are subject to amendment at a later time, after you accept them.
1. Healthcare Reform - so much energy wasted on this recently. And it isn't really addressing HealthCare at all. What's going on now is the forced occupation of the Private Enterprise of Health Insurance. The private insurance which subsidizes and bankrolls much of the HealthCare Industry in the U.S. OK...if Health Insurance companies in the private enterprise sector of our economy (employing tens of thousands of citizens, as well as providing jobs in overseas call centers) are "bad", inadequate, greedy, malicious, evil.... I say...NO MORE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES OR HEALTH INSURANCE. My great grandfather was a physician in Savannah many, many years ago. There was no Health Insurance. Patients came to him. He treated them. If they could not pay him in cash they compensated him as best they could. Some painted his house or fixed his plumbing or that of his family. Some gave him livestock or food. Some may even have given him a strong handshake and sincere "thank you Doctor Crawford". The point is it got done. One reason it got done is that my great grandfather felt an obligation to serve his community and his fellow-human beings. His patients, most of them, felt an obligation to pay the doctor as best they could. There was a shared sense of responsibility, of pride and honor. Very few patients skipped out on the doctor.

So...as of...oh let's say...November 1st, 2010...There will be no more Health Insurance, private or otherwise. This also means no more Medicare or Medicaid. How can this be??? What will we use to pay those enourmous bills from the HealthCare Professionals...the HealthCare Facilities...the docs, the nurses, the labs...

Oh...that leads into another aspect of the Pathway to Parity.
1.a subpart 1... Lots of people make just too much money in this country. It's been the topic of many arguments in the past 2 years or so. The income level has bounced around a bit as to where hard-working stops and just plain greedy/evil starts buts let's say it's around....
$200,000 annually. That's a little more than 3 times what I make. Why should anyone make more than 3 times what I make. That's greedy and downright piggish. And it is going to stop on November 1st, 2010. As of that date NO ONE WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE/KEEP MORE THAN $200,000 ANNUALLY. If more is made it will be appropriated via wire transfer with no notice given. None need be given as you know who you are and what you did. Be happy I don't make less or your number would be lower. If you cannot live a wonderful life on $200,000 then you are a selfish, self-centered, arrogant pig. If you are married your joint/household income cannot be more than $300,000. I know you are thinking why not double the 200k for 2 people. Well, why is there a marraige penalty in the tax system now???
I don't know, but it's there it's for a good reason so we'll just kinda leave the idea there. Right?
So if HealthCare Professionals (and everyone else) are capped at $200,000 and some of them are now generating $400,00+ think of all that money that will go to support my new system. After all it is for the good of the citizens right? And the HealthCare Facilities will not charge at all. They will be compensated out of a fund that collects the "overage" from all those in the U.S. who have been so greedy and selfish. And since there may be a shortage of HealthCare Professionals in a few years I say that Medical Schools will be free to all. We'll lower the criteria so many more will be graduated more quickly to care for all those in need. You are liking this idea aren't you. Yes you are.
1.a subpart b. And there will be no more medical lawsuits. Not allowed. If there is really a situation where malicious (or just plain stupid) medical error ocurrs we'll just have that HC Pro transferred to the North or South Pole to do research of some kind. Gives he/she something to do (hell, it could turn out to be important) and gets a bad apple out of the barrel. The "injured" party, or heirs, will get 2 times his/her most recent annual income. No income...no money...can't get something where there wasn't anything...duh!!
Pharmaceuticals....can't charge any more in the U.S. than what is charged in other countries. Get those drugs in from other countries. Let 'em compete. If a drug turns out to be dangerous. Stop taking it!!!! Double duh!!!
Let's see...what else is there??? Well, I'm tired of this section for now. Just accept this the way it is. I'll change it later if I think of something better. Since you have already accepted this you have, in theory, accepted my philosophy and as such will like whatever else I come up with. Right?? Thought so...

2. Land Ownership...Don't know why this comes up now but here's what I think we'll do;
Along with the being so selfish and piggy with earned income look how much land is being wasted by being horded by selfish individuals. I mean ... COME ON... I don't own an acre of land so I obviously don't "need" an acre of land. So why should anyone be allowed to horde vast acreage. It's selfish and it's piggish and it's going to stop. Effective November 1st, 2010 no one (including citizens) will be allowed to own more than 5 acres of land. If you own a working farm with real crops on it, and I mean real crops so don't try to blow smoke up my stack by saying you have a "gentlemans's" farm or a "wild life preserve" or some kind of "habitat" thing.
If you have a real farm with real crops (and I don't mean asparagus) then we can talk about some "special dispensation" thing. But to be a real farmer you gotta show me that your broke because we know that all real farmers (especially family farm owners) are all in various stages of being/going broke.
With all this newly acquired land we'll have a lottery. Everyone should own some land. It'll make them feel more important and probably be a better citizen. And those losing the land.. well, not really losing but more like transferring...will be blessed with new neighbors with whom they can bond and forge lifelong friendships and learn all about other ways of life and we'll all get along just fine. 5 acres is way more than any one person/family really needs anyway. I'll certainly be happy to have my 5.

Are we all together on this?? I think we are. And that is good because I'm going to make this into law anyway. Oh don't worry if there are parts of it you don't like. As I said earlier, I'll change the bad stuff into good stuff later on. Trust me on that.

So...No more HealthCare/Health Insurance problems. Everyone has some land. Lots of money in the "excess income spill-over fund" for covering costs associated with stuff like education (I'll set the income levels of all those who love teaching. It won't be much but you'll have free HealthCare and land so I think it's a good deal. And you love teaching don't you?).

I'm tired now. I've solved the big stuff y'all have been worried about so I'm gonna take a short break now. My system is vastly more efficient, intuitive, intellectual and fair than anything I've ever seen come out of DC. So embrace it ... and me...cause I know what's best.

Ooops...gotta run now...blew out a boojang and it's all over the place now..... ciao

More Updates from NAHU (Nat'l Assoc Hlth Underwriters

	Health Care Reform in the Senate — What in the World Is Going On?
It’s been a whirlwind week in the U.S. Senate regarding health reform developments. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that he, along with five more liberal senators (Schumer-NY, Feingold-WI, Rockefeller-WV, Harkin-IA) and five moderate Democrats (Ben Nelson-NE, Carper-DE, Pryor-AR, Landrieu-LA and Lincoln-AR) had come to terms on a plan that would replace the public option in the current Senate bill with a new national insurance plan offered by private insurers, and provide a chance for older Americans to buy in to Medicare. Much like last month when Reid announced he and key moderates and progressives had come to terms on the inclusion of a public option with a state opt-out provision (an idea that is now apparently off the table), no real details or legislative language on the “deal” have been released–even to other senators. However, the group did agree to send information over to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring–a process that is expected to take the weekend and perhaps be completed by next Monday or Tuesday. Reid has told reporters and his caucus that the final details of the proposal, which could be offered as a “Manager’s Amendment” to H.R. 3590 as early as the middle of next week (depending on its cost) will not be released until the CBO has completed its work. Some of the consensus details that are known include: The creation of a national insurance plan to be administered by the federal Office of Personnel Management, which is the same agency that oversees the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Like FEHBP (which is really just the nation’s largest employer-sponsored health plan offering), the insurance options within the new plan would be offered by private carriers. And while the new plan would have many similarities to FEHBP, it would not be an opening of the FEHBP pool to the general public. A trigger option for a government-run plan if private carriers fail to participate in the new program. Expanded access to Medicare allowing people age 55 to 64 to purchase coverage in the program. Details of who would be eligible within that age group are unclear, as is if the rating and pricing for this population would be separate from the rest of the Medicare population. Some of the Senate negotiators have indicated that the buy-in period could start in 2011 (three years earlier than most other market reforms and the exchanges would take effect), but that no subsidies would be available for such coverage until 2014. A medical loss ratio requirement for insurers to spend at least 90% of premium money on medical care, rather than on administrative costs or profits. It is unclear at this time if this requirement would apply to just the new national insurance program or to other markets/the exchanges as well. A reauthorization of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was set to expire on October 1, 2013. It is unclear at this time how the program would be impacted, whether or not this population would eventually move to the exchange, as is proposed in H.R. 3590 and if the mandatory premium assistance provisions in H.R. 3590 (which NAHU strongly supports) will be impacted. While we are waiting for actual legislative details to emerge, NAHU is opposed to all of the components of the compromise deal in concept. A new national insurance option is both unnecessary and a new government expense, and we believe the other significant market reforms under consideration should be given a chance to work before any type of new government-run plan is considered. A buy-in to Medicare would create an enormous adverse selection problem for an already financially troubled program and it would further exacerbate the existing Medicare/private insurance cost-shift, which already costs privately insured American families almost $1800 a year. We believe that it could represent a gateway to the full government takeover of American health care. Furthermore, it is unnecessary, as the new market reforms and high-risk pool provisions in the current bill will provide immediate access to coverage to anyone in this population who does not have it currently. Finally, the 90% MLR idea is completely unworkable and unprecedented—no state insurance market has anything remotely similar, and we have seen the negative impact in state markets that have tried to set MLR levels at lower levels than those proposed. It will result in higher premiums and the loss of necessary consumer services that are not considered direct medical care costs, like claims processing, fraud protections, disease management, and more, not to mention its potential impact on the role of health insurance agents and brokers and the education and service they provide to consumers. [back to the top]

	What's Going On With the Actual Bill on the Table—Amendment Process And Timeframe To-Date
Beyond the compromise discussions, the Senate has continued its work this week on amendments to the original bill, H.R. 3590. Earlier this week, a bipartisan amendment proposed by Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), which would have prohibited public financing of abortion-related services through the subsidies offered in the exchange (and was very similar to the Stupak amendment which ensured the passage of the House-passed health reform bill) was tabled by a 54-45 vote, which effectively killed it from further consideration. Nelson has repeatedly warned the Senate leadership that without the amendment he could vote against ending debate on the overall bill. Currently, the Senate is locked up over an amendment on the reimportation of prescription drugs offered by Senator Bryon Dorgan (D-ND). This amendment, which is opposed by NAHU and many others on both economic and safety grounds, does have bipartisan support. However, the Democratic leadership is worried that it would upset the deal the White House and Senate Finance Committee reached earlier this year with PHRMA and the pharmaceutical companies to voluntarily find $80 billion in cost-savings over time in exchange for their support of reform efforts. Yesterday, Senator Carper (D-DE) announced he had a hold on the Dorgan importation amendment, effectively blocking it from getting a roll call vote for the time being. The Senate also rejected a measure offered by Senator John Thune (R-SD) that would have stripped the CLASS Act provisions out of the bill to create a new long-term care insurance program, but did approve a measure that ensures premiums collected for the proposed long-term care insurance program are set aside to ensure the program's solvency. A proposal by Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) to limit the tax deduction for executive pay for health insurers who participate in Medicare to $400,000 from $500,000 was rejected and one to cover mammograms and other preventive health screening for women at no cost to patients was accepted. They have also accepted measures to ensure that Medicare cost savings in the bill will be used to shore up the solvency of program, lower premiums and improve the quality and to theoretically ensure that the legislation will not reduce or eliminate guaranteed benefits in Medicare. In terms of timeframe, there continues to be a tremendous push to get something passed by the Senate before Christmas, and House leadership has sent signals that they may be amenable to adopting the Senate-passed legislation in order to truncate the conference committee process. However, it is unclear how the still-to-be finalized Senate bill, without a true public option and the Stupak public financing of abortion language, would sit with both the progressive and moderate members of the fractious House democratic caucus. Other complicating factors include other bills on the Senate schedule, such as the Transportation Appropriations Conference Report and other spending bills that have been passed by the House. They also need to address the debt ceiling. Furthermore, the lengthy CBO scoring process, potential concerns with the Democratic caucus about the “compromise deal,” and continued concerns about controversial issues like the abortion financing could derail the Christmas plans. It is still anyone’s guess as to whether or not the Christmas deadline will happen, but it is important to note that the Senate leadership has yet to meet a deadline it has set for itself! [back to the top]

	Reform "Compromise" Details Seem to Please No One
The release by Senate Majority Leader Reid of some details of the “compromise” proposal on the public option and other issues agreed to by five Democratic moderates and five liberals earlier this week has ignited a firestorm of criticism from all sides of the debate. Already, confidential sources in the Democratic leadership have indicated they are tweaking the proposal as a result of member concerns. Within the Senate, in addition to blanket opposition by the GOP leadership, several key moderates have announced varying degrees of concern about the proposal, particularly with regard to the proposed buy-in to Medicare for people age 55-64. Moderate GOP member Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who was not consulted in the most recent negotiating process but is still being courted as a potential cross-over vote, said this week that she was disturbed about the potential increase in the cost-shift to private plans, due to the low reimbursement rates Medicare already pays to providers. She explicitly noted that this provision plus others would in all likelihood ensure her final vote in opposition. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who caucuses with the Democrats but was not included in the recent negotiations either and has repeatedly stated that he would stand with the GOP to block any potential public option, told reporters this week that he was growing “increasingly concerned” about the proposal. “I am worried about what impact it will have on the Medicare program’s fiscal viability and also what effect it will have on the premiums paid by people benefiting from Medicare now.” Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), who was included in the talks but has remained decidedly independent in this whole process, is still wounded by the defeat earlier this week of his bipartisan amendment to prohibit public financing of abortion services. Nelson, who opposes a public option, noted that the Medicare buy-in has the potential to drive the country toward a single-payer system “which I do not like.” He continued by saying, “I wouldn’t be surprised if this thing does not become a viable option. I think it is going to be the lesser of the popular things, but I am keeping an open mind.” Even much more liberal Senators whose votes are considered to be “safe” have expressed concerns about the lack of detail in the proposal and the lack of a true public option and the potential harm to Medicare. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) commented on Thursday, “What is the impact on the stability of Medicare? If we are going to expand it to 3 million people, then how are we going to pay for it? One of the ideas of health reform was to ensure the stability and solvency and benefit package of Medicare.” And even Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), who was one of the five liberal negotiating Senators, has indicated to reporters that he hasn’t let go of the public option entirely and released a statement Tuesday indicating that he has also not signed onto the proposal. In addition to the opinions expressed this week by members of the Senate, many other groups and news media outlets have expressed their strong concerns as well. The private health insurance community is unified in its opposition to the new “plan,” as are key business groups like the U.S. Chamber, the NFIB, the National Retail Federation, the Business Roundtable and others. The compromise is also drawing the ire of leading provider groups. The American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, the Federation of American Hospitals and the Mayo Clinic are all significant provider organizations that have objected to the new deal as described due to Medicare buy-in provisions and the potential payment reimbursement issue. Even AARP, which has previously endorsed versions of subsidized buy-ins to Medicare and the House-passed reform bill, said it did not know enough about the new initiative to take a position. The labor unions also stepped up their criticism of the proposed bill, with the presidents of the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Postal Workers Union and the National Association of Letter Carriers joining with the Communications Workers of America this week to express their unified opposition to the bill’s proposed excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans. The AFL-CIO also indicated its displeasure with this provision this week. Governors and state legislators are beginning to express their serious concerns, too, particularly over the potential expansion of Medicaid and how it could financially cripple the states, most of which are already facing record budget deficits. In particular, moderate Republican New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Democratic Governor David Paterson, both being previous supporters of the reform effort, sent a joint letter on Dec. 8 to New York’s two senators, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, asking them to address problems with the current health care reform bill. “New Yorkers will more than pay their share for increasing health coverage around the country,” reads the letter. “All of the major financing options—from Medicare cuts, to Medicare tax increases, to excise taxes on higher cost health plans—can be expected to extract more revenue/savings from New Yorkers than the per capita national average. And, yet, New York will receive far less than the national average in federal relief.” The news media has also jumped on the compromise details as they are known. One of the most profound editorials came from the Washington Post which opined on Dec. 10, “…the last-minute introduction of this idea within the broader context of health reform raises numerous questions—not least of which is whether this proposal is a far more dramatic step toward a single-payer system than lawmakers on either side realize.” Finally, and most significantly, the American public’s support for the Senate’s work continues to fall. According to CNN’s survey this week, just 36% favor the Senate bill while 61% oppose it. 79% of Americans surveyed also said the bill would increase the deficit and 85% said the bill would increase their taxes. Fox reports this week that their survey shows that 57% oppose health reforms and 34% favor them. Also, their poll indicates 41% want Congress to pass reform while 54% said they'd rather Congress do nothing. A New York Times survey released this week shows that 34% of the public think the current reform proposals will hurt them versus just 16% who think it will help them. According to the Rasmussen polling organization, for the second week in a row only 41% of U.S. voters favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and Senate Democrats. These two weeks at 41% approval follow a week of 38% approval over the Thanksgiving holiday—the lowest extended period of support for the plan yet. Rasmussen reports, “With the exception of a few days following nationally televised presidential appeals for the legislation, the number of voters opposed to the plan has always exceeded the numbers who favor it.” This week’s Rasmussen survey also shows that 51% oppose the plan, including 40% who strongly oppose it, with just 23% strongly in favor.

Recent Updates in Senate Healthcare Arguments

Senate healthcare debate stalls on drug reimportation amendment.

The New York Times (12/11, A31, Pear) reports, "Debating an overhaul of the healthcare system, the Senate found itself tied in knots on Thursday over a bipartisan proposal to allow people to import lower-cost prescription drugs from Canada and certain other countries." According to the Times, Senate Democratic leaders delayed the vote on Sen. Byron Dorgan's (D-ND) amendment, "in part because they feared that the proposal would be approved, potentially blowing apart a deal negotiated by the White House and the pharmaceutical industry."

The Washington Times (12/11, Haberkorn) also notes that Senate debate on the healthcare bill "ground to a halt" due to the amendment. "Some Democratic senators are fighting [Dorgan's amendment] as they, the Obama Administration, and drug companies say the safety of foreign-made drugs can't be verified." However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "tried to set up a vote on the amendment late Thursday, but Republicans objected, saying they had only just seen the 100-page proposal."

FOX News (12/11, Turner) further calls the healthcare reform drive "in a holding pattern" due to the controversy over the reimportation amendment, adding that "Dorgan, incensed by the block, told reporters he is prepared to hold up any action on healthcare reform over the matter."

The Los Angeles Times (12/11, Hook, Hamburger) calls the proposal "seemingly popular," leaving "Democrats divided over whether they should bow to the drug industry's fierce opposition." Support from the industry "is considered a key to passage," according to the Times, and during earlier negotiations with drugmakers, "it was widely believed that the industry would oppose the bill if such an amendment were included."

According to The Hill (12/11, Young, subscription required), "Tension between the White House and Democratic supporters of the so-called drug reimportation amendment is primarily behind the delay, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) said Thursday."

After the vote was put off earlier in the day, Bloomberg News (12/11, Jensen, Litvan) reports that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a supporter of the amendment, "accused Democrats of pandering to the pharmaceutical industry," saying, "If it passes, as it should, and allows drugs to be imported into this country, it breaks the agreement that the White House made."

CongressDaily (12/11, Edney, subscription required) notes that Democratic Sens. Thomas Carper (DE), Robert Menendez (NJ), and Frank Lautenberg (NJ) also have objections to the amendment. Still, "Dorgan said he expects to have the votes to pass his amendment." McClatchy (12/11) also covers the story.

Feedin' Da Beast: Reform Healthcare or Bust

The provincial choo-choo train has quickly morphed into a Bullet Monorail from here to eternity.
Hurry, hurry...come see Dr. Somnambula...his Oil Elixir of Change is new and unique. It will make the tall short, the short tall, the loud silent, the silent loud, the ugly beautiful and the beautiful feel awful. That is the claim. I think it will make the strong weak and the rich poor and the poor ... they will just continue to be poor...but somehow feel better. It's all for one and none for all...of us.
Another boondoggle 2000+ page monstrosity of something from the Twilight Zone of comprehension. Packed with stuff for those whose "need" exceeds there grasp. How benevolent of our fine elected officials to take care of us. We the children of our loving Uncle Sam.
If we were all sitting around the campfire...oops...forgot...global warming, toxic release, tree killing...If we were all sitting around the free-range bioluminescent glow candle and had to agree on the most efficient delivery system for something, on what would we agree???? Hmmmm???
I know... FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY !!!!
Don't know what took "us" so long. Federal (central) Government has historically been the most efficient and creative implementation, administration system. Oh God Help Us! Ooops again...
my bad... I mean Oh non-specific, undefined cosmic deity or otherwise Big Arbiter of all things earthly or semi-human....help!!!
When has a government created a bureaucracy that did not become bloated and inefficient (if it was EVER efficient). Since when did a government bureaucracy not serve those in the bureaucracy more so than the citizens meant to serve? With all the levels of power, prestige, authority, favoritism and power-brokerage...but this will be different! Right??? Somehow we are to believe (with our little child's eyes wide open not really "seeing" when the actor dons the beard and places the scarlet cap on his head and turns to us to exclaim to our delight..."HO,HO,HO") that this latest "gift" will be different. Different because the "players" are somehow "different". Somehow they are under a magical spell that has everybody on the "good" side acting in "our" best interest...with no more greed, avarice or stupidity. No more mega-ego trips and puffed up image of self as King or QUEEN. Different because we now know, more certainly than ever, that the "free market/free enterprise" system, that actually created this country and provided the inspiration and means for growing it, does not work. NOPE!!! It has just been a total failure. And NOW, only now, our benevolent, beneficent and omniscient FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will finally step in (long, long awaited) and straighten out this mess we free citizens, free marketers, free enterprise believing individuals have created. Well thank the Non-Specific, Un-Defined deity of your choice now folks cause we are finally SAVED!!!
It's like our FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has had no part in "free enterprise" until now. Like our Congress never created rules, regulations and laws and "guidelines" to "HELP" us along our way so things would be better and fairer and "more nicer"... GIMMEE A BREAK!!!!!
Let me be clear ... Changes need to be made in our healthcare delivery system, our health insurance system and our reliance on OUR government to give us everything we "need". The debate has begun. Great! Now let the Citizens and Private Enterprise work it out. Oh, no worry, the threat of our Government running the show should provide added stimulus and impetus needed to move it along. If not...we'll all have our Fed ID card and I'll see you in line.
gotta go now... boojang runnin' wild... gotta be reined in.................

Does Anybody See the Emporer's New Clothes?

I clipped the below article from Ann Coulter, an avowed Right-Wing commentator/author person who, in my opinion, is very anti-left. I don't endorse all of her ideas and believe that she usually has the same "I hate everything any Democrat says" mentality (which I believe is just as ignorant as any Democrat who thinks the "I hate anything any Conservative says" is ok). However, she does bring to light, although she is not the only one pointing out that some high profile media personalities jump on every word Palin utters and completely ignore the troublesome "void of reality" comments made by "I can't keep my mouth shut" Biden, how biased some in the media are toward the Obama ticket. When Hillary made her famous "I was under attack when our plane landed in Iraq" comment she was ripped by everyone. Biden says he was under sniper fire on his visit (a similarly fabricated reality) and I don't hear a word. Just treat them the same way...which will not happen....It isn't necessarily Biden's ridiculous comments that bother me...it's the lopsided media coverage that I react to so negatively. If Palin can't tell you the size of Neil Armstrong's moon boot she is portrayed as an Alaskan Buffoon...Biden thinks FDR addressed the nation on TV during the 1929 Great Market Crash and he is a sensitive and brilliant savior.... It's the media that runs this country now...If a citizen doesn't spend the time to research everything on multiple information platforms then they only know what they are told...whether it's Fox or MSNBC or Michael Moore...very scarey... So let's you and I keep digging and talking with each other...maybe we'll be the only ones to notice that the Emporer is Butt-Naked.....
...gotta fly...the 'jang is rumbling........

Here is the clipped [partial] article from Coulter:
While Gov. Sarah Palin is being grilled on her position on mark-to-market accounting rules, the press can't bother to ask Joe Biden if he could give us a ballpark estimate on when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president -- or maybe take a stab at guessing the decade when televisions were first available to the public.
Being interviewed by Katie Couric on the "CBS Evening News," Biden said: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"
For those of you who aren't hard-core history buffs, Biden not only named the wrong president during the 1929 stock market crash, he also claimed a president who wasn't president during the stock market crash went on TV before Americans had TVs.
Other than that, the statement holds up pretty well. At least Biden managed to avoid mentioning any "clean" Negroes he had met.
Couric was nearly moved to tears by the brilliance of Biden's brain-damaged remark. She was especially intrigued by Biden's claim that FDR had said the new iPhone was the bomb!
Here is Couric's full response to Biden's bizarre outburst about FDR (a) being president and (b) going on TV in 1929: "Relating to the fears of the average American is one of Biden's strong suits."
But when our beauteous Sarah said that John McCain was a better leader on the economy than Barack Obama, Couric relentlessly badgered her for evidence. "Why do you say that?" Couric demanded. "Why are they waiting for John McCain and not Barack Obama? ... Can you give us any more examples of his leading the charge for more oversight?"
The beauteous Sarah had cited McCain's prescient warnings about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Couric, the crackerjack journalist who didn't know FDR wasn't president in 1929, demanded more examples from Palin.
We are currently in the middle of a massive financial crisis brought on by Fannie Mae. McCain was right on Fannie Mae; Obama was wrong. That's not enough?
Not for the affable Eva Braun of evening TV! "I'm just going to ask you one more time," Couric snipped, "not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?"
This would be like responding to someone who predicted the 9/11 attacks by saying: OK, you got one thing right. Not to belabor the point, but what else?
Obama was not merely wrong on Fannie Mae: He is owned by Fannie Mae. Somehow Obama managed to become the second biggest all-time recipient of Fannie Mae political money after only three years in the Senate. The biggest beneficiary, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, had a 30-year head start on receiving loot from Fannie Mae -- the government-backed institution behind our current crisis.

Apparently the Community ReInvestment Act cited was altered in 1975 (i believe) when then prez Clinton directed his Sec of Treasury Reich to make it easier for peeps to qualify for mortgage loans. Sadly, although many (including GWBush) raised or claim to have raised warning flags since 2003 concerning the direction of the mortgage lending market, nothing was done, any efforts were seemingly met with the evil eye...."you just don't want poor people to have a house". Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are among those that appear to have had their hands on the wheel...(see video on You Tube 2004 session Democrats Defend Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac from Regulations) but there are plenty of helpers and those who stood silent or had their pockets open receiving money from the mortgage industry. They should, Democrat and Republican, fired and fined. Now we have to clean up the mess. I am not wholly in favor of this "free lunch" bailout. I am, however, a bit nervous like most people since I don't know the extent of the fallout. I do not expect that the government will bail me out if I cannot meet any of my debt obligations. I'm not in the correct socio-economic strata...yet.... Consider for a moment the social engineering involved in having the government, through regulation/deregulation of lending institutions and legislation like the Community ReInvestment Act and more, put every American (citizen or not) into a home...whether or not he/she can afford that home. While declaring that this financial activity is "private enterprise" and simply execution of capitalism (freddie mac and fannie mae), the truth is sadly revealed when the GOVERNMENT jumps in to "save" these "private" financial institutions from themselves and their ignorant, greed-soaked decisions by buying up/guaranteeing all this "bad paper",
with TAXPAYER money. And it appears that, at least, some of the lenders who resisted freeing up funds to the "sub-prime" market may have been tagged as prejudiced and/or discriminatory and "pressed" to join in the movement...be "patriotic"... or else suffer exposure to the media as being EVIL, MONEY-GRUBBING ELITIST.
Plenty of hands in the cookie jar on this one....OUR cookie jar. Not many choc chips left.
Fear not...the sun will rise in a little while...things always look better in the sunlight.

E-mail to Daughter

[I have a very intelligent, very talented, highly educated adult daughter steering her ship through the current storm taking place in OUR country. She wants dialogue. She is trying to separate fact from fiction (Ooooo...that's a tough one when it comes to our politicians). But the great thing is that she wants a dialogue and she is trying not to swallow the Kool-Aid of either camp.]

In the past 8 months or so I have received many emails from friends forwarding Obama and some McCain stories, supposedly factual. In almost all of the Obama cases the stories were not accurate or completely false. After getting bunches of these I started emailing back to tell the friend that I had discovered that the story was false. Then I started suggesting that, at the least, they run the story through Snopes (although not 100% accurate it is a pretty good source...and easily accessible) before spreading it around. I also told them that although I was not voting for Obama it was/is not because of his color or because of this misinformation...it is for other reasons.

There is so much misinformation being spread about all of the candidates how can citizens tell what is true and what is bull. It can take a lot of time. Also, human nature is to more easily accept as fact those things which tend to support our own bias (conscious or subconscious). This is the way it is for most people and we often times go through our lives daily without really recognizing this. Of course, I am no different than you on this. I do feel that I, unfortunately, tend to be in the annoying position of seeing both sides of many arguments, situations, conflicts. In some cases, like with the Obama misinformation, people mistakenly think that I am for a particular thing when I argue some point which seems to support it. As with Obama....I am not FOR Obama... I am against all of the BS "facts" (Oh...there is that "fact" thing you spoke of) that fly around the internet and are all too readily accepted as gospel by those who happen to already have a bias for or against whatever it is.... It is just accepted.... I don't care who the misinformation is about... Several months ago this was bothering me so much I wrote about it on my blog. I have not written anything is a couple of months.
So...Butt-Faced Muffin... I am passionate about defending people....whomever.... Obama, Palin, McCain and Biden (not that much about Biden...something strange about him... but mucho experience in Washington)...
I gonna watch to Sicko flick.... I also gonna be pulling some info from different sources for other issues...where possible I will cite sources....this means I not gonna be having time for some other things....oh well.....I will still have to make time to work...
all for now... I try to remember what the Holacaust survivor told me in 1975 while we were in a poetry writing class at C of C....she said that as a child in Germany she had learned
"believe half of what you see and none of what you hear".
interesting philosphy....from one who witnessed a government perfect the propaganda/misinformation machine to subvert citizens' sense of compassion and destroy others.
Whoa.....I better stop now..... OK...... we will pick this up again.... for now... I happy you are interested in what is happening in your country....
old but not completely irrelevant..........................................."farty"

[gotta go now... no head-ache but I gotta go do my "patriotic" duty (as Joe Biden says) and go to work so I can gen some tax revenue for my government to distribute to those who surely need it more than I. So when the Cancer Society or Heart Association or Relief Fund calls I can truly say
"I Gave At The Office". I really gotta go now. I do feel a head-ache comin' on.]