"Track the Truckers: Keep them honest ..."

Contractor-Truckers in Afghanistan. Armed Xe (formerly Blackwater) Contractors and others (all over the place).

I am not a big fan of contracting out security forces in the two war zones. We have read and know about horror stories and their high pay, etc., over the past 8 years that is not pleasant news.

Their involvement smacks too much like Mercenary work.

There are numerous reports of violations of not only their written contracts, which we the taxpayers fit the bill for, but cases of Contracting Officers taking bribes, and downright murder and rape, not even counting the wild drinking parties.

Now the latest reported on here. Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) has begun an investigation of eight trucking companies that hold a combined $2.2 billion in DOD contracts in Afghanistan as mentioned in this article.

Stay tuned.

"Wrong-Way, or Which-Way Bill Owens????"

"Will the real Bill Owens please stand up ..."

No, this question is not from the old TV series, "What's My Line" that featured a real professional, and two imposters. On the TV shows, the audience and a panel of guest stars were challenged to select the real one after a series of questions was posed to all three. Sometimes the audience and panel got it right, but often the imposters were so good that the audience failed to spot the real McCoy.

There appears to be a growing feeling today that the public, like the audience of that show, is being challenged to distinguish between real financial planners, Wall Street bankers, and their own Representatives in Congress.

Take our Rep., Bill Owens, and his recent "No" vote on H.R. 4154, which is explained in more detail below:

* H.R. 4154 passed the House (225-200 vote), and as I said, Mr. Owens voted “No.” That bill has now gone to the Senate.

* The bill's title is: “Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009,” and it makes permanent the 2009 estate tax exemption level of $3.5 million for an individual, and $7 million for a married couple, with a maximum tax rate of 45%.

* Additionally, the bill maintains the so-called step-up in basis tax rules, which protect many heirs from paying additional capital gains taxes on inherited assets (the so-called "death tax"). The House version provides the certainty families need to make long-term decisions and avoid the estate planning roller coaster that will result from current law.

* For calendar year 2009, the estate tax exemption amount is $3.5 million, and $7 million total for a married couple, and the maximum tax rate on estates is 45%, so H.R. 4154 permanently extends this estate tax exemption amount and tax rate.

Impact:

* Absent any change, the estate tax is scheduled to enter one year of full repeal in 2010 followed by a return of the estate tax in 2011 with much lower exemption amount ($1 million) and a much higher maximum tax rate (55%).

* In addition, the one year of estate tax repeal was coupled with enactment of so-called carryover basis tax rules, which will require heirs in 2010 to pay capital gains taxes on inherited assets based on the decedent's original purchase price.

* Under step-up in basis rules, continued under H.R 4154, the value of the asset is calculated at the time of the decedent's death. Preserving the step-up in basis rules will protect small businesses from paying an estimated $34 billion in capital gains taxes.

Summary: This bill is good for farmers and small businesses. According to the United States Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service, the $7 million exemption for couples will help the vast majority of family farmers, as the average farm household net worth ranged from $586,000 for small farms to $2.2 million for very large farms in 2008. Only 100 small business and farm estates would owe any estate tax in 2010 if the 2009 rules were extended, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Good News: By making the 2009 estate tax level permanent, it will make the estate tax go away for 99.75 percent of all percent of families, farmers, and small businesses.

So, why did Owens vote “No” since we have lots of farmers in this district who could or could not have been impacted by such a change in the law?

Ironically, or coincidentally, “Freedom Works” sent a plea to members of congress and asked them to vote “No.” Important, or not, and who is Freedom Works?

Take a peek: Freedom Works has two well-known individuals at the top: Former GOP House Majority Leader, Dick Armey (R-TX), and billionaire, Steve Forbes.

FYI: Freedom Works has been behind or along side (and funding) many of the "Tea Party" near riots we saw over this past summer. Does any of that matter in this case? Plainly, we do not know at this time; but we need to find out. Stay tuned.

"Health Care is Needed: At what Cost???"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

GOP Senate Minority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Pelosi and Reid were all smiles at one point about the prospect (finally) of health care for everyone that is accessible, affordable and something we all can get and keep no matter what our health conditions are, and not lose (if we are willing to pay for it). Now, however, it looks like they and majority DEMS have failed the test of bold leadership that the public wants.

McConnell with that sign in the background reading: "START OVER" is indicative of the entire lock-step GOP (minus one lonely Rep. in the House and maybe one in the Senate) who oppose any plan as they say will be "government-run or government take-over."

BTW: Why does McConnell always look down in the mouth, like he just ate raw duck?

Anyway, there is no plan or set of plans yet. But, be assured, as always, there will be "winners and losers," and overall the way these things fall out of government, most people will lose, big business (in this case the Insurance industry) will win.

We are told that is not true from one side (the DEM side), but yes, true, but not government-run, private business the way it should be (from the GOP side).

Don't let anyone fool you. We need health care for everyone that is: affordable, accessible, can't be taken away, can be taken from state to state, or from job to job, stays with you even if you lose your job, and does not discriminate against you if you have a pre-condition or simply need a plan, or if you suddenly get very sick and need to sell your home to pay the bills.

That is the outline for a plan that our country needs ... after all, we rank dead last in offering a public plan in the free, industrial world. That is shameful, too.

So, will it happen? Not likely. Am I cynical? Yes, I am. Those in Congress and especially the few who have worked their own deals behind the scenes or with Insurance giants, etc., will come forth and brag about what they did or didn't do and say things like this BS reelection line:

"I fought for you and the American people and our future and our kids and grand kids and that's why I want to stay in office and continue to work to improve this bill. It is not the best, but it is now and I'll work to make it better."

That message will be signed by the likes of Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John Boehner, and of course the 99.9 % of the entire GOP seeking reelection next year, and natch: the Dems also seeking reelection next year.

Campaign for health care looks like it is dead. So, I say, the next campaign should be one to kick out everyone who was against the most-logical solution that the public wanted: A public option.

With what is coming, we still will have 20 million without any care. Of course the ER is still there, right -- and isn't that where we are now?

The winners: all the arrogant incumbents in the pockets of the Insurance giants and apt to win reelection.

The losers: all those who need health care coverage and still won't have any because the incumbents in office didn't listen to them when they told pollsters: "We want a public option."

The Dems will lose big time over this failure, as well they should. They could not get it done.

The GOP will win like they always do, based on fear and hype as they appease big business with more and more big breaks all the while they say they work for you, but don't.

Hypocrites. Plain and simple -- and it basically is both sides, minus few who really are loyal the people.

"New and Innovative War Escalation ..."

George W. Bush (March 2002) and Barack Obama (today)

Former President George W. Bush on March 15, 2002 in a speech to soldiers gave them a big voice of thanks for their mission in Afghanistan that ended with this summary remark: "The Taliban is out of business."

UPDATE (December 1, 2009): The Taliban are "Out of business?" Um ... take a look:

* This has been the deadliest year (2009) of the conflict for U.S. Forces, with nearly 300 killed, with casualties that started to climb soon after Mr. Obama decided to deploy an additional 21,000 U.S. troops earlier this year.

* NATO forces have also posted a higher death toll in 2009 than in any previous year, with more than 500 killed.

The clip of Mr. Bush's remarks can be seen at the 3-minute mark in this 12-minute video provided from a segment of the Rachel Maddow Show (on MSNBC, November 30, 2009).

President Barack H. Obama will announce on December 3, 2009 in a speech at West Point that 30-35,000 more troops are on their way to Afghanistan to ... to well ... [you fill in the blank] ...

Obviously, the growing Taliban and few remaining al-Qaeda, hiding in caves since 2001 (???), are still a threat, and just as obvious, "they are back in business," or they never left the business in the first place?

Also preparing for the "new" mission are these military personnel already in Afghanistan: Medics and Air Force pilots at their main base are gearing up for the grim reality of this new war strategy —escalation in not only the number of more troops but of new and expected battlefield casualties in this war that is seeing an increasingly bloody battlefield.

Does any of this sound familiar or really necessary? No nation has ever occupied for any effective period of time the territory of Afghanistan... the terrain is God-awful and the consists of Tribes mostly still living in the 18th Century with few paved roads, indoor plumbing or even the desire for such modern conveniences.

Extract from the Financial Times:

"There are probably as many differences as similarities between the US wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. But the parallels in the decision-making processes of two presidents, Lyndon B. Johnson and Barack Obama, as they contemplated escalation in the respective conflicts are striking. In 1965 as today deliberations were protracted, lasting months and, a few leaks apart, mostly closely held. Both policy teams had more hawks than doves and both had field commanders wanting more troops but neither promising success. Both presidents were deeply ambivalent, neither wanting to sacrifice ambitious domestic agendas on the altars of war in far-off lands."

"Mr. Obama, unveiling this new strategy, must be feeling as LBJ did in the summer of 1965 in deciding to send 44 more battalions to Vietnam. Mr. Obama resists the comparison, saying in a September interview:

“You have to learn lessons from history. On the other hand, each historical moment is different. You never step in the same river twice. And so Afghanistan is not Vietnam."

I note: that sounds a whole like the call of way back-when of: "No more Vietnam's..." Sadly, Mr. President, it ain't so.

I know that feeling: I was in one of those 44 battalions (2nd BN, 1st Marines) that LBJ ordered to Vietnam ... I served in combat there from September 1965 - September 1966 (my first tour) at the rifle squad, platoon, and company levels.

Mr. President: This may be your Vietnam. Then coupled with an awful economy, deficit and budgets way out of sight, it could also be your first and last term in office. That, too, is a reality and would be a shame.

But, even with that in mind as a political tool to be used against you (and be assured it will be), politics MUST not enter into this mess ... we have had enough of that already (in 1965 and now today).

It will get worse.

"This Picture Causes Vietnam Flashback ..."

Photo Caption: "President Obama faces skepticism from his own party as he prepares to commit up to 35,000 more troops to Afghanistan" AP Photo
x

It comes by way of Politico.com - the story is here.

I don't know the details of this photo, things like which unit it is; what their mission was; where they were heading to, or returning from; or any other specific. I do know that as an old timer (Vietnam combat Vet with two tours of infantry duty with two different Marine battalions) that just seeing that photo raised the hair on my neck.

I imagined the Taliban and others on the high ground to the left and right, dug in and ready to ambush this patrol. Look at the terrain. If the patrol were fired upon from either side,or worse, from both sides at the same time (from the high ground) and assuming there were no flank patrols out on the high ground, that the picture does not reveal, then it would be a blood bath. What possible cover could the troops take? They would have one option - charge the enemy. If they hit the deck and fired, they would still be in the open as far as I can see.

Maybe the situation on the ground was different than I see in this picture. If so, good. If not, bad.

We are about to hear the President speak about a new round of escalation of troops to Afghanistan in his speech at West Point (December 1, 2009).

Then time will tell. But, the patrols had better do a better job than that shown in this picture as I describe what I think it shows.

"Potpourri & Tidbits from Around the World..."

Troops on Patrol in Afghanistan; Cheap Camel Meat (maybe); Dubai on the Brink; and Condi Rice was wrong before, during, and after 9/11 (and still wrong today).

1. U.S. will get out of Afghanistan by 2017 says White House.

Implications? The White House has estimated it will cost $1 million per year for each additional soldier sent to Afghanistan. With the U.S. deficit hitting $1.4 trillion and fueling Americans' concerns about high government spending, sending more troops to Afghanistan could be a politically risky move for Obama. Obama's fellow Democrats, who control the U.S. Congress, face potentially difficult midterm elections in November 2010, with Republicans eager to exploit Americans' unease about the country's ballooning deficit and high unemployment.

The GOP will eat the DEMS alive on the slogan: “Dems are the party of tax and spend.” It has worked well for decades, so why not now? The DEMS are supplying plenty of fresh ammo, too.

2. Be leery of any “good deals on Camel meat from Down Under" over the next few months.

3. Is Dubai on the brink? If so, maybe they should change their name to “Do Not Buy?”

and this story:

4. Assume this story has merit and is true — if so, I wonder: Why our government (government of, by and for the people) can't level with us? We are big enough for the truth. But, I guess they are not, however.

That story got my attention big time: Christopher Meyer, former UK PM Tony Blair's U.S. envoy from 1997-2003 said former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice raised Iraq in a telephone call on Sept. 11, only hours after the attacks. Remember how Rice told our Richard Clarke she didn't have much info about 9/11 and stuff (including the August 6, 2001 NIE report that told Bush that "Bin Laden was determined to attack the U.S.")?

"The Unemployed & Downtrodden Need Help..."

U.S. unemployment is over 10 percent (depending on whose numbers you trust); Unemployment compensation has been extended to help; but the banks are doing just fine, and so is India ...

God bless them.

This story : India may get $1 billion in IT outsourcing contracts needs to be tracked closely over the next few months. But, a lot of damage dates back to 2003 and before that in some cases. Below will address that era.

MUMBAI, INDIA(Reuters) – Leading Indian outsourcers such as Tata Consultancy; Infosys; and Wipro stand to gain contracts worth about $1 billion in the next one or two years as U.S. banks emerge from the troubled asset relief program (TARP). JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley have received approval to buy back government stake worth $68 billion earlier this year are among the firms seeking operational efficiencies by outsourcing non-core IT and back-office projects to India. American Express, Bank of New York Mellon, and Capital One, which have started repaying government debt, were also considering outsourcing.

Flashback to the 2003 story from Forbes.com. The highlights:

IBM plans to move some of its software design jobs to India and they say they are simply following its rivals.

Dozens of blue-chip companies, including Microsoft; Oracle; Bank of America; JP Morgan Chase; and GE have all set up shop in India.

Consulting firm Forrester Research predicts that 3.3 million service-sector jobs will move from the United States to India and other nations by 2015.

Remember this story is from 2003.

Kinda scary isn't it? So, what is our government doing about the obvious disconnect? Not much. The Taxpayers? Taking it in the shorts [again].

I am not advocating protectionism, not a all, but a little help at home would sure make the home town folks happy to see their government actually working for them for a change (and just small change, either).

So, we can assume that TARP worked ? At least for India?

"Raping America — Says: [fill in the blank]..."

Talk Radio "hosts" and those who listen and opine to and about their filth from the likes of Michael Savage; Rush Limbaugh; Glenn Beck, or Liz Cheney and her video "Say no to Gitmo detainees coming here,"' and others, all peddle basic fear and hype. They obviously distrust government, if it's not GOP-run.

They spread their hate via a ton of misinformation or worse, disinformation. They all have a deep-seated anger and distrust of just about anything regarding the country and our time-tested system.

They are plainly nasty and evil. Worse, all the while they say they are doing what has to be done to keep us safe, free, and united. It is sickening.

This clip (the first few minutes of this 6-minute clip) is a snapshot of the rabid Rightwing and their latest rant ...

My question is simple: "How much more of this can the country tolerate?"

Ladies and gentlemen: This is not free speech -- this is hate speech designed for one purpose and when you figure that out, then you will know what I mean.

It is just as harmful as someone "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" knowing there is no fire, or passing out anti-government leaflets in time of war to stop the draft. Those forms of "speech are NOT protected."

That which flows over most of Talk Radio, and shown in the clip linked above should not be protected, either.

I believe that speech and the way a lot of Talk Radio "hosts" and certain cable TV "TelePrompter readers" yap the "news" is another example of a "clear and present danger" to our national welfare. You may not believe it, but words do have meaning.

Leadership would be to meet this hate speech head on and say it is harmful and wrong. So, why won't our elected leaders do that?

The answer is simple: Most Talk Radio "hosts" and certain cable TV outlets would fry them on the airwaves and turn right around and call it their "freedom of speech."

So, who is afraid of whom?

"Conservative GOP Death Panel ..."

Fox "News" (News: Ha); Voices of "Reason" (Ha Ha); Public "Airwaves" (a joke).

Thank goodness for MediaMatters.com - re: the story in part:

Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck have linked a recent task force's recommendation that fewer women younger than 50 receive regular mammograms to the widely debunked smear that Democratic health reform bills include "death panels." (This story will not be the last, bet on that as the health care reform bill moves through the legislative process).

As expected and predicted, these three skip over the facts, like "... the panel recommendations are not legally binding on health care providers or insurers." In short, nothing will change. The choice as in the past, is between the woman and her doctor -- the way it should be.

But, these three yahoos are not about to let a good red meat story be overshadowed by the facts, truth, or reality... not when ratings are at stake.

If there are any "death panels" at play here, it would be headed up by these three nitwits, FOX cable, and rabid Talk Radio — who are dealing a death blow to common sense and rational thinking on most topics as they skip the facts and head for irrational spewing of garbage.

Here is what needs to be watch -- not government -- but how will the private insurance companies react to this report (i.e., jack up premiums, not coverage mammograms for any woman under age 50?).

"The task force presented some new evidence for consideration but HHS policies remain unchanged," said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Then she added: "Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action."

Stay tuned.

"How much more hate can we take????"

These two screen shots are from the Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC.com) regarding the first slide article in the Christian Science Monitor. The article addresses the latest personal attack on President Obama which asks people to pray for Mr. Obama as they cite Psalms 109:8, which now appears on all sorts of commercial products (for fund raising by the fringe Rightwing of the GOP one presumes).

The exact language of the verse is very unnerving to say the least. It comes at a time when reports from the Secret Service and others like the NY Times say that threats against Mr. Obama is 400 times higher than at any other time in the last 52 years.

The quote is clearly identified on the right slide by Frank Schaeffer, renowned author and former "hardcore Rightwinger" who has since changed direction and writes and speaks out about the various views and actions and tone of the so-called "Christian Right" that he and many others consider wrong and dangerous.

The video segment can been seen here (at about the 3-minute mark of this 10-minute video). It is worth your time. It may not change your view, but it certainly will make you think, or at least it should.

"How much more hate of this can we take????"

"Dede Scozzafava hits it big time: As a verb..."

You have to watch this video segment from the Rachel Maddow Show (on MSNBC.com) to get the real flavor of this story - so, enjoy.

The Dede part starts at the 2:17 minute mark of this 5:41 clip.

What a way to become famous, or is it infamous? I post, you decide.

"The War in Afghanistan: No improvement..."

Recent Army Troop Morale Survey results from the sixth Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) survey of combat units. It's not a pretty picture -- the story from here:

_ Junior enlisted soldiers reported significantly more marital problems than non-commissioned officers, stating they intended to get a divorce or that they suspected their spouses back home of infidelity.

_ Exposure to combat, long recognized as a strong factor in mental health problems, was significantly higher this year than rates in 2005 and similar to rates in 2007 for the combat units.

_ Combat units reported significantly lower unit morale in the last six months of their tours of duty, more evidence of the wearing affect of long deployments.

_ Troops in their third or fourth deployment reported significantly more acute stress and other psychological problems, and among those married, reported significantly more marital problems compared to soldiers on their first or second deployment.

_ Soldiers on their third or fourth deployment reported using medications for psychological or combat stress problems at a significantly higher rate than those on their first deployment.

_ It was significantly harder to get behavioral health care this year than in 2005, a finding that may be owing to the fact that troops are spread out at hundreds of posts around the rugged terrain of Afghanistan.

_ Troops who spent two to four hours daily playing video games or surfing the Internet as a way to cope helped lower their psychological problems, but spending time beyond that — three to four hours — had the opposite effect. Those who exercised or did other physical training decreased their mental problems, regardless of the time spent.

_ Troops reported more and better training in suicide prevention and other mental health programs the Army has been increasing over recent years in an unprecedented effort to focus on the force's mental health.

_ The mental health care system in Afghanistan is understaffed based on the Army doctrine of one mental health worker for every 700 troops.

Where does Mr. Owens stand on this survey?

Ironically, he never discussed the two wars during his run for the seat... said he would look out for Vets (which is fine and dandy), but where does he stand on the two wars, torture of detainees in our custody, and things like that?

One wonders, since Owens never said for sure where he stands. I guess it depends on where he sits?

"Line 'em up & count 'em — Rep. Owens votes..."

Which Owens did you vote for? (The one on the "left" or the one on the "right")?

Rep. William L. "Bill" Owens (D-NY-23) was sworn into office, Friday, November 6, 2009 after winning the seat in a special election on November 3, 2009 against Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

Owens will serve out the remaining term of office left vacant when former Rep. John M. McHugh (R-NY) left to become the 21st Secretary of the Army after he was appointed by President Obama.

One day in office and Owens has already voted on a few bills, namely the House's version of the health care reform bill. Debate may end in a vote on Saturday, November 7, 2009, assuming the House Dems can garnish the necessary 218 votes out of their 258-member caucus. But, rumor has it that the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats (those with more conservative views) may bolt and vote "No" along with the expected entire GOP delegation (177 members). That would ensure defeat.

That final vote will be updated and posted here as it becomes available.

Owens' current string of votes is listed here from the Washington Post which tracks votes by members that are easier to read and analyze than those listed at the House clerk's site [seen here] where you have to click and open each Roll Call vote to see the stats and make comparisons.

"Owens to cast first votes soon..."

Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) sworn into office as family members watch Speaker Pelosi administer the oath of office.

Now the heavy lifting begins... the House is taking up debate on its version of the health care reform bill.

Mr. Owens says he will support it in this media release. One part needs clarification, however.

"During his campaign for Congress, Owens showed consistent support for legislation that would end pre-existing condition exclusions, reign in spending, protect small businesses and keep middle-class taxes low."

That part may be true, but he never said openly that he would support any public option. If he said it in private then the voters never heard it.

"Last Man Standing - Owens wins 23 Race..."

Democrat Bill Owens (now official Democrat) beat Conservative Doug Hoffman after Republican Dede Scozzafava dropped out and backed Owens.

Scozzafava drew about 6 percent of the vote and Hoffman lost by 5 points ... ouch.

Now, Rapids can track Owens as the new Rep. from this district to see how he performs in office.

Good luck to him.

"NY 23 - the Focus of the Planet..."

Conservative HOFFMAN; not yet a DEM (current INDY) OWENS; and former GOPer, SCOZZAFAVA,

dropped out and threw support behind the non-DEM, Dem.

Down to the wire? Doubtful. But, I could be wrong (have been in the past).

DEDE SCOZZAFAVA, the GOP pick, dropped out 3 days before the election and threw her support and asked others to vote for BILL OWENS (the non-DEM who can only be a valid DEM after the election — he is a registered INDY right now). Thus she skipped over the Conservative (a Republican) DOUG HOFFMAN — who BTW, doesn't even live in this District. Now the entire GOP turned on her and rallied behind HOFFMAN.

Meanwhile, she has become persona non grata. The GOP (mostly on the far right led by the likes Limbaugh on the radio ranting as usual) are calling her every name in the book. She may end up leaving the NY assembly or join the majority DEM party in Albany and get some "bennies from them." We shall see. I think she may leave office. This election is one for the history books.

I voted today and voiced my concerns and choices. Click image above for larger view of the new ballot we used today for the first time. Some glitches, but minor. I always vote — I hope everyone does.

"GOP candidate folds her 'Big Tent' ..."

GOP Candidate Dede Scozzafava gave up on her campaign with only 3 days until election night. Conservative Doug Hoffman (center) will face off against INDY (not yet a legal DEM) Bill Owens.

* Hoffman has caught fire recently thanks to big outside names throwing endorsements and money his way.

* Owens for his part has raised and spent a little over $500,000.00 to date. That amount is in addition to the million or so that the DCCC, DNC and others ( mostly big outside money) have provided for his slick Ads and fancy fliers.

The Tea Party is going nuts about Hoffman, flying in people from all over the country. Oddly enough, Hoffman doesn't even live in the district and legally can't even vote for himself.

Owens can't legally become a Democrat until after this election (e.g., NYS election law) since he is a registered Independent.

What a mess. Scozzafava was too moderate and/or too liberal on a couple of issues. That made the "Big Tent" crowd very uncomfortable.

She was trailing in money and the latest poll put her some 20 points behind Hoffman. Seems the GOP "Big Tent" folks only have room for those who toe the line and stick to GOP mainstream (read: rabid Conservative) principles. Sorry, moderates -- take a hike.

"Myth & Hype vs. Facts & Figures..."

Tort reform (frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits) vs. Hogs at the trough?

This topic always gets attention (among the GOP mostly still seeking issues that push and keep hot buttons pushed as they seek their way out of the wilderness of "No ideas").

I found this excellent article from a concerned MD, "I'm a doctor, So sue me. No, really."

He hits the subject head on. It is worth your time to read it [HERE].

Will our candidates take to read this -- I wonder. If they read this and further research this "red meat" topic, I hope they keep an open mind and focus in these kinds of facts:

"Researchers reviewed nearly 1,500 claims from five different malpractice insurers. First, they reviewed the merits of each case by determining whether a patient was injured and, if so, whether it was due to physician error. Most of the suits were not frivolous: Almost two-thirds of cases involved errors by doctors. Second, they followed each claim to see if the legal system acted appropriately. The majority of the time, it did. Seventy-three percent of injuries in which a doctor committed an error resulted in payments. Seventy-two percent of cases in which there was an injury not due to physician error did not result in payment. Those conclusions do not paint the picture of a medical-legal system burdened by ambulance-chasing lawyers and their litigious clients. Instead of a swamp of frivolous lawsuits, what the data shows is a system that functions." (emphasis is mine)

"Who started this? Fox or the rest of us???"

The absolute worst network anywhere that claims to be "Fair and Balanced." The absolute three worst human beings at FOX who live and breath the same air as you do on Planet Earth.

The FOX network and these three guys, as well as a few others, sling their crappy propaganda all day and night, 24/7, and sometimes it's repeated on the weekends.

They stand on the stage of public opinion with crap dripping off them and sheepish grins. They read from a well-prepared narrow-minded, biased scripts that are repeated by other script readers. They have buckets of crap sitting along side them. And, all the while, they have the unmitigated gall to say others made the first move, or worse, "We don't know what's wrong with America and the direction we are heading. But, the blame can be squarely laid at the feet of the Democrat party and their leftist ways leading us to socialism or worse."

They act like the public is stupid, and for those who worship at that alter, I guess they are correct. But, there are a Heluva lot of others who follow this stuff who are not stupid. Media Matters.org is an excellent tracker of these things.

WATCH their short 5-minute video montage of their bullshit here. Then see if you hold the same view about FOX afterwards. Listen closely to the FOX team of speakers shown. Then if you support FOX, that's okay, too. Nothing I write or post or what anyone else says would change your mind.

But, if your view does change, or the video reinforces your previous views about FOX, then pass the video link along to others.

And, then fire off an Email, or fax, or letter, or blog note, or Tweet to FOX and tell them: "This is what is wrong with America — stop blaming others."

"Candidates are Mum - why???"

CEO pay cuts ordered (those who took public bailout money). The candidates: GOP Scozzafava; Conservative Hoffman; and INDY (not yet a legal DEM) Owens.

The story can be seen here. The candidates can be seen above. So, where to they stand on this?

I suspect, but don't know exactly, but I suspect that the two Republicans (Scozzafava and Hoffman) are against CEO cuts? Owens: who knows really. He ducks most other issues, so ducking this one is not surprising.

The issue is a no-brainer: if anyone wants taxpayers' help (like those 7 did) then they are obliged to play by the rules -- they can't take millions in pay and bonuses (i.e., AIG CEO got $38 million in 2008) and then need bailed out with public help (from the taxpayers) and then snub their snooty noses at the public as they count their private jets and homes in the Hamptons.

The political stance is also simple: They take public money, then they play by the public rules.

The public should ask them. Ooops... they seldom appear in public to address issues and the one TV "debate" they have agreed to - not live. It will be aired a day or so before the election.

The stealth/PR campaign. Why open you mouth and spoil the plan, right? Sad.

"White House Shadows — Your stance???"

"Shadowy White House (Bush, redux). GOP Scozzafava; Conservative Hoffman; INDY (not yet a DEM) Owens.

The Obama White House seems to be in some critical cases adopting or keeping many Bush left-over policies that many, many people thought were just flat out wrong.

This article from the Nation outlines some of what I mean. This sample illustrates my point:

"The Obama administration makes vague, reassuring noises about constraining executive power and protecting civil liberties, but then merrily adopts whatever appalling policy George W. Bush put in place."

"We appear to be on the verge of doing the same with national security surveillance."

"Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee seemed to abandon hope of bringing any real change to the Patriot Act. A lopsided and depressingly bipartisan majority approved legislation that would reauthorize a series of expanded surveillance powers set to expire at the end of the year. Several senators had proposed that reauthorization be wedded to safeguards designed to protect the privacy of innocent Americans from indiscriminate data dragnets--but behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the Obama administration ensured that even the most modest of these were stripped from the final bill now being sent to the full Senate."

These moves and a few others are very troubling. The question now is: "Where do our candidates stand on this?" Their silence is deafening. So, who exactly will we be sending to DC in this "special election" to represent us, the scared, fearful, but "safe" and hyped public? I wonder.

"The Candidates on Health Care Reform..."

[click to enlarge]

Hoffman; Owens; and Scozzafava.

Owens in detail here.

Scozzafava in detail here.

Hoffman stands this way:

Q: "Where do you stand on health care reform?"

A: "Although universal health care sounds great in theory, we can’t afford to do everything at once… especially when it means adding an additional trillion dollars to the deficit we are handing to our children and grandchildren. I believe our first step should be to bring the spiraling costs of healthcare under control so the cost of healthcare does not destroy the budgets of hardworking families and retirees. Then, as the economy picks up we can work to insure everyone."

Almost to the member, Labor supports a "public option." Owens does not, or seems evasive enough to show he is against one. Scozzafava, who always has labor support, doesn't even hint at it at her homepage. Hoffman would rather die than even use the word "public option."

On election day, think about that, then vote wisely. If you favor a public option as 77% of the general public does, then who can you support on this number 1 critical issue?

"Know your Enemy!" What enemy????

(Top): Soldiers on patrol in Afghanistan.

(Middle): Marines on patrol in Afghanistan.

Candidates: Conservative Hoffman; not-yet a DEM, Indy Owens; and GOP Scozzafava.

Let's ramp it up a bit, shall we?

The situation is not only bad and hotly centered in Afghanistan, although that's the attention these days, but also next door in Pakistan (on one side) and Iran (on the other side).

Now, Scozzafava and Hoffman both are playing the “give the General all the troops he wants and let's go get 'em" card. Sadly, that hand has been played before, and it is about 8 years too late.

Former president Bush said: “And as a result of the United States military, the Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free.” (Applause) in a speech Sep 27, 2004 in Springfield, Ohio. So, how'd that work out? Funny way to describe "free" isn't it?

Afghanistan is our second Vietnam any way you measure it. The one difference? The lousy terrain (shown above in the two military screenshots) is the second enemy. By most accounts, we are chasing less than 100 al-Qaeda. So, for Scozzafava and Hoffman, I say: Knock off the fear and hype rhetoric. We’ve heard it all before, and the cost paid has been dear.

Up to date for now: "Rampant government corruption may derail the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan even if as many as 80,000 additional U.S. troops are sent to the war," says the top military commander, General Stanley McChrystal, who has concluded according to U.S. officials briefed on his recommendations. His conclusions are part of a still-secret document that requests more troops even as he warns that they ultimately may not prevent terrorists from turning Afghanistan back into a haven.

So, why are we there? Tell me one more time.

Put that aside for a moment. The most-worrisome and immediate focus should be Pakistan. They have a nuclear arsenal of some 80 weapons, and all the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist group needs is to get their hands on one ... just one.

We are in an almost “no-win” situation — one that greatly benefits the enemy. “Know your Enemy” is a great thought and it works fine, if you actually know your enemy. Right now, our enemy knows us better than we know them or ourselves.

We are losing.

My message for Mr. Owens: Say something ... take a stand that is clear and simple and easy to understand. If you want to go to congress, then you have to take a stand and tell the people what it is. You need to stop this soft shoe tap dancing and fluffiness in your slick expensive Ads. The decision on war is not yours yet. But your view about it is important. So, tell us. You may have to vote on funding for more troops.

"Symbiotic or Mutualism: Political Money..."

Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman; INDY (not yet a DEM) Democratic candidate, Bill Owens; and GOP candidate, Dede Scozzafava.

Let's get to the heart of this "race" shall we? Well, actually it's more of a PR "race" than anything else in the traditional "race" category or definition (and that favors the candidates: dodge, duck and deceive the voters as much as possible and hope to glide into office on November 3rd).

It may be a special election, but there is nothing special about it at all. My analysis:

Most of those in Congress and most of those seeking a seat in Congress play by the same “Golden Rule” – or set of rules that they write and thus, in turn feel they can break. When they do break the rules, all they do is just make more and better rules (for themselves) believing in this credo ut intelligam (I believe so that I may understand).

“Everyone in office will be insulated and protected by each other this way: If you are in office, remember who helped you get here (lots of big money from outside sources). For those with the big outside money, remember, we are here to help you.”

It’s a bizarre kind of symbiotic relationship best described this way = “If you scratch my back give me tons of money to stay in office, I’ll provide the back scratcher; that is the rules and regulations that will benefit you.”

They live by this simple Golden Rule: “Don’t kill the goose with the gold.”

Don’t falsely assume that just because money comes from either the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) or the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) that it is not big money poured in from those big outside moneyed interests. Also, even though money comes in from other members in office (from their so-called “leadership PAC”), it got there from the big outside donors. It’s all linked into one grand equation: Money and Greed and that equals Power. They win; you lose.

If we were to shut off the all big money (from outside the home district or home state) we’d have a system that favors the people whom those in office and those seeking office always say they serve. But, without major change and complete overhaul of the current laws and mindset (court views), we will continue to be stuck with the current status quo that is badly broken, and when repaired, it is by those in office who still swear to serve the people, all the while they wink and nod and rake in big outside money.

Expecting those in office who broke the system to fix the system is like asking Al Capone to come up with a new income tax solution to help the IRS catch tax cheats like Al Capone.

Locally with these three candidates?

Scozzafava and Owens travel to DC to rake in dough.

Thus far, according to some press reports, Owens has spent $303,000 on television ads, and Hoffman has spent $124,000; Scozzafava lags far behind. We won't the total amounts they have spent or raised from any source until just a few days before election day.

To add insult to insult, these three will not even debate in public (they are too busy fundraising and making new fresh, slick, expensive, and nasty Ads).

Will it work? Probably — it always does.

"Candidates: Where do you stand on this???"

Flying off to war -- coming home from war (after 8 long, miserable years).

From this story - highlights: Soldiers in Afghanistan are losing their morale, say chaplains Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division's 2-87 Infantry Battalion and Captain Sam Rico, of the Division's 4-25 Field Artillery Battalion. (from The AP)

From this story (our three "candidates") - this story highlights: The three candidates seeking New York's 23rd Congressional District seat are all taking a cautious stand on the future of American military involvement in Afghanistan.

I say, caution be damned. Let the public know your view, especially Mr. Owens with his answer, which is very, very weak and evasive (I guess speaking that way will make him fit nicely in Congress?). He said in part: "I'd rather first be elected and more informed on the matter so I can make a more informed decision."

Oh, I see. Unless you're in safely in office, you can't have or hold a few about war and this request for more troops?

How novel — his brand of old tap dancing. Some might even call it clever lawyer-type bullshitting. I would.

"The more you read, the more you will know..."

We all strive for a nice nest egg at the end of our working life: A steady comfortable retirement income, good health, little or no mortgage, a nice car, nice weather, time and places to go and visit and more time to spend on the golf course, shopping the spouse and visiting our kids and grand kids.

At the end of our lives, to be laid to rest without burdening those we leave behind - that is insurance to cover the "preparation" cost for our interment or other method we choose.

Most people prepare that themselves and don't have to rely on others. But, boy oh boy, do a little research and that can be dangerous. How many of you have heard of "Coli Insurance?" No, not insurance for treating E. Coli, either.

Corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) is life insurance on employees' lives that is owned by the employer corporation, with benefits payable to the corporation. COLI was originally purchased on the lives of key employees and executives by a company to hedge against the financial cost of losing key employees to unexpected death, the risk of recruiting and training replacements of necessary or highly-trained personnel, or to fund corporate obligations to redeem stock upon the death of an owner. This use is commonly known as "key man" or "key person" insurance. The practice is now used worldwide. Once, COLI was used for masses of non-key employees in order to get tax benefits, a practice known as "janitor insurance" or "dead peasant insurance". Congress and the IRS set some guidelines and limits on this practice. Today, COLI is most common for senior executives of a firm, but its use for general employees is still practiced. Recouping the cost of losing an employee versus actually profiting from their death at a level higher than their earning potential in particular raises questions.

The most notable benefit to a company that institutes a COLI policy comes from the benefit to after-tax net income. This benefit arises when the cash value of the policy becomes larger than the premiums paid.

According to an industry survey conducted in 1999 and cited by New York Life Insurance Company, 68% of the Fortune 1000 companies use COLI programs.

What do you think about this? Opinions are welcome. I kinda think it stinks.

Maybe we need "NOFI Insurance" (Neighbor-Owned Fire Insurance). Under this plan, you, the kindly neighbor would pay for the fire insurance premium on your neighbor's home, and then you would be the plan's beneficiary should their house burn down.

Isn't that a good idea? Except it might cause a lot of neighbors to go into the "fire starting business," and that would be bad. So, Corporations buying life insurance on us is okay? I hardly think so.

The more you know the scarier it gets. Watch this short presentation on "coli insurance" he explains for better than I in this short 5-minute video.

"Who will first renounce this stuff????"

[Click image or photo to enlarge]

Fox "analysis of Obama's first 100 days in office." (l-r) Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman; INDY (DEM candidate nominee) Bill Owens; and GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava.

So, which candidate will first renounce (formally declare) that this sort of GOP-Rightwing stuff has to go?

The 5-minute clip is here - and it's very enlightening. So, place your bets -- who will step forward first? tic toc, tic toc, tic toc...

"Mr. Pakistan: More billions ... be careful ..."

More billions for Pakistan. One view from Pakistan last year. Ooops.

Between 2002 and 2008, while al-Qaeda regrouped, only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military, two army generals tell The Associated Press in this story.

On top of that story is this update: Legislation to triple aid to Pakistan and stem the tide of radicalism and anti-Americanism in that Asian nation cleared Congress and moved to President Barack Obama for his signature. The bill, approved by a voice vote in both the House and Senate, would provide Pakistan with $1.5 billion in aid a year over the next five years focused on democratic, economic and social development programs.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) had this to say: “The United States has an enormous stake in the security and stability of Pakistan. We need to forge a true strategic partnership with Pakistan and its people, strengthen Pakistan's democratic government and work to make Pakistan a source of stability in a volatile region.” The final bill was crafted by Berman on the House side and the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chairman John Kerry, D-MA, and Dick Lugar (R-IN).

It was also endorsed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.

The only ones who should now say, “Hell no” – would be the American taxpayers.

The worst part of the passage of this new money: "A record of each representative's position and vote was not kept." I wonder why not?

Surely this can't be representative democracy, can it?

Where do our three candidates come down on this story? I know they are not in Congress and did not vote for the new money ... but will any one of them step forward and call to rescind the money now based on the story about the massive loses of money and lack of accountability before? I wonder. Let's ask them, shall we?

"Give back the money, or resign..."

This young man from Billings, Montana [click photo or here to see his story at the 5-minute mark] needed open heart surgery but had no insurance. His family and friends held bake sales to raise money for him. He could not afford a private plan. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) is my senator (see remarks below).

Update: Another prime reason far for Schumer to step down and leave office on top of that which follows (his callous attitude about the young man in the picture) is this re: Penalty mandate for health care.

Topic: The penalty for people who decline to buy insurance, Republicans and even some Democrats have warned of a potential backlash without changes.

Sen. Schumer proposes lowering the threshold for requiring coverage to 8 percent of income, a level that he acknowledged would result in an estimated 2 million additional individuals and families staying uninsured in comparison with the original bill. For those still covered by the requirement, Schumer also proposed reducing the penalty for failure to comply. "These are people solidly in the middle class," he said.

Currently, those ignoring the purchase requirement would pay a maximum penalty of $750 for individuals and $1,900 for families. Under Schumer's change, no penalty would apply until 2014, when the maximum would be $475 for individuals and $950 for families. The amounts would rise the following year.

I ask? Is this man insane, off the deep end, or so phoney that everyone in NYS is blind to the crap he is pulling that is listed on this page? I wonder. - more - I'm sure.

Update (September 29, 2009): This young man asks in a TV Ad where this screenshot was taken, and directs it towards Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), his senator: "Senator, with all the insurance money you are taking ($2.9 million), and you are against the public option, I have to ask, whose side are you on?" (He still owes over $100,000 in medical bills. He said he could have afforded a public plan had one been available, but not a private plan).

Sen. Schumer was asked on the Chris Matthews Show (Hardball) about the Ad [in this 13-minute video -- see the 5-minute mark] if that kind of Ad was helpful to his cause. Schumer basically said, "No, it is not working. Is is hurting us. And, I wish wish they wouldn't do that."

Based on this callous view of Sen. Schumer, which I find totally disgusting, and the post that follows about his big money from Wall Street, makes me more dedicated to seeing that Schumer is tossed out of office. This has my blood boiling.

Original Post: I say, give back the money as reflected in this story, or in this story, or resign from office, Senator. On top of that, I also ask Sen. Gillibrand, the appointed and not elected senator, and your colleague, who got $886,000 from Wall Street to also return hers, or resign along with you.

What's just as pathetic is this from Schumer's spokesman, Brian Fallon, who says his boss “... calls the shots the way he sees them” — regardless of who’s giving him money. “The financial services industry is a vital part of New York’s economy, but he doesn’t hesitate to go after the institutions when they are wrong, such as with credit cards, corporate governance and overdraft fees.”

I bet Schumer does call the shots, so Fallon might be correct: "Give me lots of money, or else ..." Like this, maybe?

“We are not going to rest until we change the rules, change the laws and make sure New York remains No. 1 for decades on into the future.” — Senator Charles E. Schumer, referring to financial regulations, Jan. 22, 2007.

The story continues:

WASHINGTON — As the financial crisis jolted the nation in September 2008, Sen. Schumer was consumed. He traded telephone calls with bankers, then became one of the first officials to promote a Wall Street bailout. He spent hours in closed-door briefings and a weekend helping Congressional leaders nail down details of the $700 billion rescue package.

The next day, Mr. Schumer appeared at a breakfast fund-raiser in Midtown Manhattan for Senate Democrats.

Addressing Henry R. Kravis, the buyout billionaire, and about 20 other finance industry executives, he warned that a bailout would be a hard sell on Capitol Hill.

Then Schumer offered some reassurance: The businessmen could count on the Democrats to help steer the nation through the financial turmoil.

“We are not going to be a bunch of crazy, anti-business liberals,” one executive said, summarizing Mr. Schumer’s remarks. “We are going to be effective, moderate advocates for sound economic policies, good responsible stewards you can trust.” The message clearly resonated. The next week, executives at firms represented at the breakfast sent in more than $135,000 in campaign donations to Schumer. (So, that's calling the shots, right Mr. Fallon)?

So, where do you stand on these two issues? Where do our three congressional "candidates" stand? The public has a right to know.

You now know where I stand, so let me hear from you and the candidates.

"Election Set for November 3rd... finally..."

Conservative Doug Hoffman (CPA); INDY (to run on DEM line) Bill Owens (Lawyer); and GOPer Dede Scozzafava (NY Assemblywoman).

Gov. David A. Paterson today (September 29, 2009) called for a special election to be held November 3 to replace GOP Rep. John M. McHugh (who recently was appointed as the new Secretary of the Army) for the House seat in the 23rd Congressional District.

Let the mud start flying ... ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.

"Drive a truck through thi$ loophole..."

Money Trail or "Slush Fund" path to power? Watch your step.

I have always said this about Congress: "They write the rules, so they can break the rules." They just keep on going, going, and going. Just like that darn Energizer bunny. This is about an ABCNews exposé on the so-called Congressional "Leadership PAC" (what an oxymoron, right?).

Outrageous examples follow:

1. House GOP Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) spent $550,000 on travel and entertainment expenses around the country from his "leadership PAC" -- more than any other lawmaker (cite: ABC News/ProPublica analysis of his disclosure data). In the past three years, Boehner has travelled to Palm Springs, CA; Boca Raton, FL; and Scottsdale, AZ to raise money for his PAC (which in turn funded the outtings ... that's the loophole).

2. GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) (the guy who smeared Max Cleland in his Senate run about his war injures - loss of three limbs). Now get this: Chambliss spent more money from his PAC on golf outings, $225,000, than on donations to other political campaigns $204,000 (for which these "leadership PAC" were dreamed up and designed). Adding insult to injury, around Capitol Hill, this "leadership PAC" is known to some as a "Golf PAC."

And, the GOP is not alone -- over 400 members of Congress have such "leadership PACs." Click here for the Top 20 -- and search window for the entire list -- smiling faces included.

3. Senate DEM Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) used his "leadership PAC" money to throw a $39,000 inaugural party. Reid also spent 53 percent of his "leadership PAC" money on campaigns he was supporting. That's $1.1 million.

4. DEM Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) paid $64,000 for an oil portrait of himself from his "leadership PAC" kitty.

5. Of course a famous payout from his "leadership PAC" was from former NC DEM Sen. John Edwards for payments to his mistress (for her video work ($114,000) on his failed presidential run -- wink/wink???).

6. Then there is the famous (or infamous) case of GOP Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) who had his mistress on the payroll of his "leadership PAC."

The Sad Part: More than 400 members of Congress now have opened their own "leadership PACs," and there are virtually no limits on how they spend it. FEC election laws (which members of congress write for implementation of the PAC rules) even allow members of the Congress to spend the money on themselves or their friends and families. In fact, Senate rules do not even mention "leadership PACs" (I wonder who not?), although hundreds of millions of dollars pour into these funds every election cycle.

So, yes, they write the rules and they can "break the rules, too." Now argument says, "we don't break the rules, how dare you make such a comment. The rules are written in such a way that they are never broken, stretched a bit, but with loopholes big enough to drive three semi's side-by-side through with room to spare."

The really sad part? They have the audacity to call that loophole "Leadership" PACs. Leadership would mean to me, closing that damn loophole and showing some spine and gall to serve the people not the money. But, then how would they survive in office without all that money? Oh, the choices, those nasty choices?

So, where do our three 23rd District candidates come down on this? I'd wager they can't wait to establish their own "leadership PAC." Then we would have 401 members with such slush funds.

Let's ask them, shall we?

"Who'll Bend First: Dede, Doug or Bill????"

Door #1; Door #2; and Door #3

Some people don't like or trust polls -- and some say polls are only valid in Poland; others say polls can project or show anything you want them to show (the good, bad, or ugly, depending on what you want to prove). I think polls if taken with the proverbial grain of salt can be helpful, if not entirely truthful. Polls are after all, only a snapshot in time of any question posed.

The question in this latest CBS/NY Times poll (three screen shots grabbed from the Countdown show on MSNBC.com today) is about the public health care option and Republican respondent's answers.

In a nutshell, it looks pretty bleak for the old GOP ...

First, 65 percent of the general public favor a public option (i.e., a public health care plan that will compete with private plans and thus give competition for better deals). Additionally, 64 percent of all Republicans favor a public option.

Door #1 shows that 51 percent of all Republicans oppose any reform that does NOT have a public option. (Pssst: Are GOP members in Congress listening)?

Door #2 presents a bleak picture for those in Congress on the GOP side of the aisle: 43 percent of the folks back home think their own party members are playing politics, and only 49 percent think a public option is bad for the country.

Door #3 is very interesting. It shows that a total of 47 percent of all Republicans favor a public option, 43 percent oppose, and 11 percent still aren't sure.

These numbers do not bode well for the GOP as they continue to resist reform that includes any public option (* that competition thing they used to argue in favor of like for the 1996 TelCom Act).

So, where do our three candidates come down, or better, where will they come down on this question? Let's ask them, shall we? Their answers are sure to prove interesting if not totally deceptive.

Why do I say that? Already, Mr. Owens, the INDY, not yet a DEM, does not favor public option. Neither does Mr. Hoffman, or Mrs. Scozzafava ... so, oops ... so why bother to ask them?

I'd have to say, "To watch them sweat and tap dance as they pander for votes."

"Front Man for Scared, Slimy Businesses..."

Watch this short clip from CBS' 60-Minutes [click here], and then we'll go from there.

This story is starting to get some attention. It underscores how big companies, listed in the story and site hire Richard Berman to "front" for them against various things that they do not like. He is paid very well. His latest attack: ACORN. Or as his site calls them: Rotten Acorn

The site is exposed by addressing the RottenACORN.com link as "... a site dedicated to spreading misinformation about ACORN, the nation's largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people."

Other news about ACORN is here. So, whoever is paying Berman for his work against ACORN via his RottenACORN.com is damn sure getting their money's worth! (as reported by Rachel Maddow in this clip).

Then check out his HowMuchFish.com site which is "... a Center for Consumer Freedom project funded by the food-and-beverage industry seeking to counter scientific evidence on the dangers of mercury levels in fish." Now, how's that grab you?

So, hate the minimum wage fight? Against Unions? How about those who work to keep food mercury free? Don't want to see yourself directly involved? Hire Berman... he's slimy enough to do it for you - for a nice fee, of course. The man has no conscience, but he does have a nice "tax-free" bank account. Neat, eh?

Some might say it is simply Mr. Berman and his "employer(s)" exercising their "Freedom of Speech." I wish it were that simple. If it were, then this blog would be out of business. But, it's not that easy -- that's a cop out, and it's also a crock!

So, how will one of our three candidates, if elected, fight against this sort of stunt? Let's ask them, shall we?

Tic toc, tic toc, tic toc...

"Ka-ching: $weetheart deal for what????"

Update (September 24, 2009): The following two links are provided to supplement the original link below (Rachel Maddow Show) from Politico.com [click here] and as co-published with Politico and appeared in its print and online editions on Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2009 by ProPublica.org [click here].

Now TPMMuckraker.com [click here] has picked up and is starting to ask questions... Rep. Ross for his part, is highly pissed... for good reason, or to cover his well-paid ass?

So, why is Rep. Ross really angry and all upset? Is it due to the various reports and media focus about his deal, or (in my view and more likely), he got caught?

Now, the official inquiry of this deal has been requested by Citizens for Ethics.org (CREW) [click here].

I'm not a journalist, but as they say in media circles: "This story has legs."

Original Posting: Rep. Mike Ross (D-Arkansas)... a "Blue Dog" Democrat who is firmly against any public health care option.

To date, he has received more than $900.00.00 in campaign contributions from the health care industry.

Now this sweetheart deal as reported on The Rachel Maddow Show at [click here]. The slides that show the deal are above (click for larger view).

Mr. Ross for his part says through a typical Rep. press release in part that, "This deal is perfectly legal ... yada, yada, yada." Of course it's perfectly legal - why wouldn't it be legal - lawyers, assessors, Real Estate Brokers, et al all made it legal ... that is not the issue.

In the final deal summary (see chalkboard above) Ross and his wife made over a million dollars on a piece of property originally assessed at $263,700. Maybe it is legal, but it's not real ethical ... and it sure raises plenty of questions. Questions that the House Ethics Committee should examine at once, especially in view of the buyer who also does not want any public health care option.

To top off the deal, the buyer, USADrug, kept Mrs. Ross on their payroll as some sort of consultant or advisor.

So, where do our three candidates running to serve in the House with Mr. Ross stand on this deal or similar deals?

We deserve to know. Shall we ask them and see what "canned answers they provide?"

I wait with bated breath.

"The CINC v. the General: Showdown????"

President Obama, the Commander-in-Chief (CINC) and Army General Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.

A showdown or a smackdown? Is it coming to that? This assessment from Robert Dreyfuss writing in The Nation.com alerts us to that possibility [click here]. In part, Dreyfuss writes:

"General McChrystal has thrown down the gauntlet (from the NY Times), saying that he needs more troops in the coming year or else the war "will likely result in failure."

"In his 66-page report [click here - from the Washington Post], he added: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

I note the General's use of the words "failure" or "defeating the insurgency is no longer possible"

Funny in an cynical and/or ironic way is the fact that in the past many in government or running for election could not even define "victory" (whether in Iraq or Afghanistan); but, now without more troops "failure" is not the option, but the alternative?

So, where do our three candidates stand on this issue?

We deserve to know now because one of them will be voting on troop funding, more troop increases, and such while in Congress ... and if you believe what Rep. Boehner (R-OH) has promised, Dede Scozzafava will be the GOP ranking member (in the minority) on the House Armed Services Committee -- so we really know her views on this more than ever, right?

Of course, knowing Mr. Owens' or Mr. Hoffman's views are important, too, should one of them manage to pull off a victory in this race.

So, press them for an answer. This is very serious stuff.

I believe we missed the chance to have "won there" when CINC Bush took his eye off the ball with his "victory speech about winning in late 2001." He got all greedy about the upcoming invasion of Iraq ... and the "enemy" there has regrouped, surged, and re-surged, and now we are paying a higher price.

My question is simple: "How much more are we expected to pay in blood and money for "saving" Afghanistan -- a country that has never been stable or saved from much of anything? And what happened to the original mission statement: Get bin Laden and the 9/11 culprits?"

However, that's just my view -- but a view I've held for over 40 years since my days in combat in Vietnam. What is happening in Afghanistan now, or about to happen again there, could be the final footnote to that sad chapter in our military history. We are about to see.

"Most-Important Word: Accountability..."

GOP candidate, Dede Scozzafava; Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman; and INDY candidate (after the election will be an official DEM), Bill Owens = take note.

The single most-important word the voters should focus in on is, in my view, the word: Accountability.

It is defined in many places this way: "... the concept of ethics with several meanings and used synonymously with other concepts such as: responsibility, answer ability, enforcement, blameworthiness, liability, and having the expectation of account-giving. As an aspect of governance, it has been central to discussions related to problems in both the public and private worlds. Accountability is defined as when "A person" is accountable to "B body of persons" and therefore obliged to inform B about A’s present, past or future actions and decisions to justify and/or defend them, and to suffer any punishment in the case of eventual misconduct regarding a lack of accountability. In leadership roles (like elected office or running for elected office), accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility for actions, products, decisions, and policies including the administration, governance, and implementation within the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, explain and be answerable for resulting consequences about everything the candidate (in this case) has been involved in."

In short: There should be no dodging, ducking or deceiving about questions raised or asked with fancy and well-funded sound bytes, or slick political Ads on TV. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to ask on Dragnet, "Just the facts."

In this race, we have seen and read and heard a lot of questions and facts being raised. Some are being answered, piecemeal, some are being defended, with talking points, but over all, most are not being fully addressed as they should be. A few non-truths here and there are not sufficient; we need honest answers.

It would very unfortunate to see one of these three elected to Congress, and let's face it, one of them will win, and to reach that plateau without having been held accountable. Right now, it's developing that way. The natiness has started and with big money behind the scenes (as always) it will get worse. Which one of these three will call for a cease fire?

Don't hold your breath waiting, however.

"Oversight Needed: Now more than ever..."

Background: Wells Fargo got $25 billion in TARP money from the taxpayers. Now as Paul Harvey used to say, "The rest of the story."

Bernie Madoff wiped out thousands of families when they trusted him with their investments and he didn't deliver for them.

A case in point: The Lawrence and Linda Elins family. They owned a $12 million dollar beach home in Malibu, California. They were wiped out. Wells Fargo foreclosed on their home and the Elins' moved out.

Their home was never put on the market, never offered up for sale, or lease or anything else. Instead, and this is sad part of this story, one of their top executives, in fact the one responsible for foreclosures, spent her weekends in the house hosting eye-catching parties, all the while spurning offers on the home.

The Wells Fargo executive in question, Ms. Cheronda Guyton, was a senior vice president. She rightly so has been fired by Wells Fargo, who issued this statement, in part: "We don't discuss specific team member situations/or issues for privacy reasons." They then said they would "conduct a thorough investigation of the allegations."

The issue at stake here: A need for strict government oversight over such deals to protect not only taxpayers' money (the TARP loans) but to protect people wrongly treated like the Elins family.

What do we see lately? We see some Republicans in and out of government criticizing President Obama for wanting to keep those who seek government money honest and in line as being too harsh.

One wonders if they favor such greedy business practices, or they just don't like government accountability at all, and simply prefer a "give us the money and leave us alone policy?"

Part of the deal, if anyone seeks government money (which is actually the taxpayers' money), is to accept accountability, to be responsible, and accept oversight. We must demand it, and they must accept it, otherwise it's "no deal."

Let's ask our candidates where they stand on this issue, shall we?

"Like it, or hate me: Wait in Line ..."

Top (L-R): GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava; Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman; Independent candidate (running as a Dem, which he is not) Bill Owens.

UPDATE (September 15, 2009): This update on the topic health care and what do you support comes from reporter Jimmy Vielkind at PolitickerNY.com [click here]. Highlights follow in response to this question: "Would you support the public, nonprofit option that Obama said he wanted?"

INDY, acting like a DEM, Bill Owens: His four criteria are that any bill (1) not add to the deficit or "place burdens on small businesses," (2) bring down insurance costs, (3) provide access to coverage for those without insurance, and (4) ensure those with pre-existing conditions are insured. Owens has said this before, but it's not on his web site, which provides no information about his biography or positions.

GOP, Dede Scozzafava: She wouldn't say whether she would vote against a bill that contained a public option, but expressed concerns, (1) "it has the potential to crowd out private insurance companies." She said there needs to be a "safety net," and she believed it (2) should be provided by a non-government entity, and any reform should (3) open up state lines to allow people to purchase insurance from different states, and (4) that tort reform should be looked at (Owens and Hoffman also agreed on this point).

Conservative, Doug Hoffman: Hoffman was as close to an unequivocal no than anything else by saying, "If it was truly competitive I would [support the public option], but I really worry whether it would be truly competitive. I'm worried that it would be designed to put the private sector out of business." [spoken like a true conservative - worry wart in advance].

ORIGINAL POST:

The health care story that follows featuring: Former Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM); former First Lady, Nancy Reagan; and Cindy McCain -- all Repubicans. The story comes from a very good article written by Joe Conason via Salon.com [click here]. It speaks volumes about the view held by many, many Republicans ... trouble is, most of them won't admit it, and others won't listen.

Conason writes, in part:

"[but] why then do nearly all of the Republicans in Congress find it so difficult to empathize with the tens of millions of their uninsured and under insured fellow citizens -- and so easy to contemplate the ruin of reform yet again, even though that means condemning hundreds of thousands to sickness, bankruptcy and even death? Why would they still insist, after 40 successful years of Medicare, that government must have no further role in ensuring decent health care for every American? Perhaps the problem is that a certain kind of Republican -- often with a connection to the White House or Capitol Hill -- will only endorse government action to remedy the adversity they have experienced for themselves."

"The most recent example is Cindy McCain, the wife of the Arizona senator, who announced the other day that she suffers from migraine headaches, which she considers a disability.he is outraged that the United States government only spends $13 million annually for medical research on migraines, and is bent on increasing that amount drastically. She is determined that a remedy will be found someday soon -- with federal money. I'm missing a large part of my life. I want to stay active. I want a cure," Mrs. McCain says.

I cannot add anything except to say, please take the time and read the whole article, do your own research, and then read this summary one more time:

"If the Republicans (mostly on their rabid right) manage to kill healthcare reform this year, then perhaps some brave Democrat should introduce a new kind of bill -- one that cuts off every member of Congress from their "public option" that NOW provides and protects them and their families."

And, then ask Mr. Owens (I): "Why won't you support a Democrat's public option proposal?"

Then ask Mrs. Scozzafava (R-I) and Mr. Hoffman (C) the same question.

Then watch their eyes glaze over as they begin to tap dance.

* This election, as most, are supposed to be about three things: Choices, differences, and consequences (the consequences of keeping a failed Status Quo, or who offers no change, or selecting someone you like but doesn't know squat about problem solving).

We are getting change in this race -- "shortchanged."

— dmf

"Special Election? Nothing special here..."

[Click image for larger view]

This invite to that event is sponsored by VP Joe Biden to be held in a Syracuse law firm office.

It pours more salt on a very open wound for many DEMS in this district already stunned and amazed about why an INDY (not registered DEM) was chosen to the be the nominee once the date for this special election is set. For starters: Syracuse IS NOT in this district.

The worst part is the sentence in red, which reads in part... "$2,400 for the special general election AND $2,400 for the 2010 primary election."

That presumes, I think, that Owens will run as the incumbent in 2010, and that there will be a primary election?

What arrogance; what utter, raw and shear arrogance.

When this upcoming vacancy was announced, there were many people who actually thought this special election could be, or better, would be about "change." With this sort of event early on - it will be anything but change. One might say "same old, same old."

If there is any change, it would be "small change" for voters, but lots of big outside money to gain and retain power for Mr. Owens and his DNC/DCCC handlers.

To me, and I suspect to others (although not as vocal as I am), this is NOT change -- not one bit.

But, it is a shame nevertheless.

"Obama's fate in these hands???"

The GOP's share of the "Gang of Six" -- Sens. Grassley, Enzi, and Snowe (R)...

The DEMS' share: Three Dem Senators are from Montana (Baucus), New Mexico (Bingaman), and North Dakota (Conrad) -- and as noted they are states that together account for just over 1 percent of Americans.

Here's the focus of the story from Politico.com [click here for full story]:

"As Congress waits on the president’s health care speech Wednesday, Barack Obama is in the unusual position of waiting on six senators most of the public couldn't pick out in a crowd. They’ll decide whether Obama has any hope of getting significant Republican votes for health reform — or whether he will have to go it alone with only Democrats, a politically risky path. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) gave the bipartisan Gang of Six until 10 a.m. Wednesday to submit ideas on his compromise health reform bill. At that point, he will decide whether to continue the talks or possibly abandon hopes of a broadly bipartisan bill. The goal is to have a decision ahead of Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress — and whatever Baucus decides could chart the course of health care reform in the Congress."

Baucus you will note here, receives the most private insurance money of anyone in Congress.

Q: Where will Baucus land or come down?

A: Wherever he needs to land, I suspect.

But, the huge pile of insurance green stuff (money) should help break his fall.

Finally, I ask: "Would the GOP bend overbacks like this to gain one, two, or three DEM votes on a piece of important legislation that they wanted, even as the entire DEM party was against them? The short answer is a resounding: Hell no!!"

"U.S. — #1 in What: Cost, Care, Quality???"

This chart from the Kaiser Family Foundation via Salon.com link [click here] is an eyeopener. This graphic shows the rise and contribution levels of cost of worker health care plans between 1999 and 2008.

The rest of the study is at the link and it's very revealing about our position in the world vis-à-vis other countries. It's worth your time to check it out.

Two Examples:

National per capita spending on health care, 2007:

United States: $7,290 (#1)
Norway: $4,763
Switzerland: $4,417
Luxembourg: $4,162
Canada: $3,895
Austria: $3,761
France: $3,601
Germany: $3,588
Netherlands: $3,527
Belgium: $3,462
OECD average: $2,964

Life expectancy for these nations, 2006:

United States: 78.1 (#1 in a poor way)
Norway: 80.6
Switzerland: 81.7
Luxembourg: 79.4
Canada: 80.7
Austria: 79.9
France: 80.7
Germany: 79.8
Netherlands: 79.8
Belgium: 79.5

The other stats (heart attack deaths, deaths from cancer, diabetes deaths, etc.) are also very interesting including the health of our citizens compared to other citizens around the world (obese, number of doctors, etc.).

"GOP Ad: Seniors Bill of Rights..."

Screenshot taken from the GOP /RNC homepage it has not not been doctored in any way (go see for yourself).

What amazes me about the GOP and these schemes or gimmicks (and, yes, the DEMS do it sometimes, too) is those catchy phrases or slogans they use like "Senior's Bill of Rights," or "Contract for America," or "The USA Patriot Act," or "'Take Pride in America Act," or "The Death Tax Elimination Act," or "The Patients Bill of Rights," or "The Paycheck Protection Act," or "The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act," etc. etc. ad nauseam.

This latest GOP gimmick may take the cake, in my view. I would aptly label it, "The Seniors Path to Death."

The woman in the Ad leading the old geezer with his back to the rest of us (Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Betsy McCaughey, or Michelle Malkin would be my first guess) might be saying and thinking: "Right this way, sir, the Obama death camp is behind us now. Safety is just down the road with us. Don't worry, we will protect you and the future won't hurt a bit — only when you smile — we Republicans will make sure you don't end up in any of those nasty old Obama health care death camps. Trust us."

Re: that GOP "Contract for America" and how the GOP back then intended it to really work, reflect on this Article from the Chicago Sun-Times, Article date: June 10, 1996, Author: Garry Wills, written in part that says:

"The Wall Street Journal reported a very significant memo that Newt Gingrich had drawn up for the guidance of all Republicans in the House. It instructs the representatives to ask questions like this about any bill being considered before the fall election: "Are there any Republican members who could be severely hurt by the bill, or need a specific district item in the bill? The memo singles out some special areas of electoral concern, such as this one: "What impact will the bill have on California?" California is a state now generally expected to go for President Clinton, endangering Republican candidates there. [from HighBeam here].

Oh, btw: The Wall Street Journal, back then, was not owned by Uncle Ruppy Murdoch (Note [from Crooks and Liars]): "Rupert Murdoch succeeded with his $5 billion bid for Dow Jones, owners of the Wall Street Journal, according to sources acting for the Dow Jones board. Negotiations have been completed and the board is confident the terms of the deal will be accepted by the Bancroft family, which controls a majority of voting shares in Dow Jones, over the next few days. A formal announcement is expected next week) ... that was in July 2007."

Um, one has to wonder why this leading GOP cheerleader would want the WSJ? Not to stop them from releasing any further anti-GOP memos like the Gingrich memo noted above would it?

Naw, couldn't be that — that's too easy ... LOL

"The truth will set you free — so they say..."

Press-Republican, Plattsburgh filephoto of Dede Scozzafava.

GOP Congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava stopped in Plattsburgh to talk about investing to help the economy. That story is here.

Her dealing with her brother and his business dealings linger according to the story:

"Scozzafava's opponents have charged that she holds at least $1 million of preferred stock in Seaway Valley Capital Corp., a company owned by her brother that reportedly owes $192,000 in back taxes. Scozzafava said adamantly that she is a passive investor in the company and has never held a managerial or corporate position."

I have news for her — that's a flat out lie and here is the proof from her NYS Assembly Homepage — is that a lie, the truth, or is what you have been saying a lie, or the truth. We are confused. Are you confused, to?

I draw everyone's attention to this sentence in the "About Dede" section: "Dede is the Chief Operationg (sic) Officer for Seaway Capital Partners and Corporate Secretary for Wise Buys Stores."

That does not sound like a "passive investor, or one who never held a managerial or corporate position" to me -- how does it sound to you? But, maybe that's her "gosh darn way" of explaining how to invest. So, maybe she'll fit in Congress just fine -- we could use another slick BS'er, right?

Are these harsh words, or just the truth? Harsh, perhaps, but needed to be spoken. We need more light on this situation -- that will go a long way, or as she hopes, just go away.

"She needs to 'fess up." Along the way, the GOP, Conservative, and especially the DEM party need to reassess these three candidates -- they do not, in my view, show the stuff to effectively serve the people of Upstate NY in any capacity in any office at any time, and especially in Congress.

But, that's just this Blogger thinking out loud [again].

"Pop Quiz: Who said these things????"

Bill Owens, Independent who will be on the DEM ballot; former DEM President Bill Clinton; and Dan Francis, former DEM Candidate who competed for the DEM ballot against Owens and others.

Question A: Who said this? "We need to pass a bill this year. Doing nothing is not only the worst thing we can do for the economy, it's the worst thing we can do for the country. It's also the worst thing we can do for the Democrats.''

Question B: Who said this? "We need to make sure that we, who hold the House by 80 seats, and Senate by a slim margin, and the White House pass health care reform this time around otherwise it will be just like 1994 and the GOP will get the voters to kick us out of office -- in short, this will be worse than 1994, if we do not pass health care at this time."

Question C: Who said this? "Do not support a public option. Some of the plans in Congress no longer include the idea of a public option. That stance is gaining some traction in the Senate. It changes every day - the various iterations. The bill I would vote for would have a couple of elements to it. It would cover the uninsured, eliminate the ability to exclude for a pre-existing condition, and focus on cost-reduction, but no public option."

Answer to A: Former President Bill Clinton, speaking at a dinner held by the Tennessee state Democratic Party in Nashville, August 30, 2009.

Answer to B: Dan Francis, speaking to the Democratic Party screening "convention" committee members at Blue Mountain Lake, August 10, 2009.

Answer to C: Bill Owens, speaking to a reporter Monday evening, August 10, 2009, and right after he was chosen as the DEM candidate in this upcoming race (his first interview as a candidate). The reporter was Jimmy Vielkind from PolitickerNY.com [click here for story].

Who is right, and who is in line with the vast majority of the public on this issue? Who will be proven right in the end?

The choice is in the hands of the voters — and those DEMS in Congress — good luck on both counts.

"Let's start to focus, shall we????"

Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party nominee-in-waiting, marks "Cost of Government Day in New York." (at this press conference in Plattsburgh recently).

Hoffman's main point was a vow to oppose increased government spending.

Wow! Stop the press ... another conservative for congress who "opposes increased government spending?"

But, you know what? It all sounds familiar. "Do, say, try, lie, or imply anything to get into office," and then do whatever you want to stay there. Conservatives are masters at that game. Let's ask their #1 "Compassionate Conservative," George Walker Bush shall we?

The Bush Non-Legacy: "Less spending and tax cuts." And, we got what?

Two wars at $10 - $12 billion a month and no way out; Tax cuts for the top (who didn't bother to trickle anything back to the bottom as the GOP always promises); A fiscal and economic mess to the Moon and beyond, and one that DEMS will once again clean up, and yes, with more government spending.

And, all in spite of the many GOP roadblocks (solving heath care spending as the #1 culprit to good reform).

That kind of conservatism? Yea, right.

"And, that's all I have to say about that." (said with Forrest Gump accent).

"A Novel Idea: Serve the People..."

Democrat Bill Owens; GOP Dede Scozzafava; Conservative Doug Hoffman.

New Poll: Nearly 8 in 10 (new high: 86%) Americans support the idea of a federal health insurance plan for those who can't afford a private health care insurance plan, or can't get private health care insurance for any number of other reasons. However, only 37 percent could actually define "public option" correctly.

That new majority said health care insurance should be available to everyone regardless of health history.

This poll was conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates. The poll was released in conjunction with an AARP forum at the Tattered Cover Book Store with Charlie Cook, distinguished publisher of The Cook Political Report.

Cook told a crowd on Tuesday (August 25) that President Barack Obama's biggest mistake may have been passing off health care reform to Congress because Congress has a lower approval rating than the president.

The message as I see it: This may be a cases of a missed opportunity and poor PR on Mr. Obama's part. That would be very unusual for him since he obviously is a great communicator. On the other hand, Congress makes laws — the president signs them into law, or vetoes them.

But, there is still plenty of time. However, Mr. Obama must re-sell the idea now to a Congress (mostly to the GOP who still resist any change) that takes money away from the private health care sector and their campaign coffers.

It appears to be that old "trickle down" theory at work again: Republicans argue that the way to help struggling working people, or in this case, sick and uninsured people, is to give more money to the wealthy — and that they, and not government, will take care of you. Shall we ask Bernie Madoff?

In any case, it IS the M O N E Y, and tons of it. It is N O T your good health.

Start from that premise and then work to get a public option — something we all could benefit by.

Are these three congressional candidates listening? To me, it doesn't seem like they are.

"Candidates & Citizens = Pay Attention..."

Democrat, Bill Owens; GOP Dede Scozzafava; Conservative Doug Hoffman

"Fear is the most powerful enemy of reason. Both fear and reason are essential to human survival, but the relationship between them is unbalanced. Reason may sometimes dissipate fear, but fear frequently shuts down reason.” — Al Gore (from: "The Assault on Reason")

Major update (August 23, 2009 - late posting): Without health care reform, health insurance premiums could almost double by 2020, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, a 90-year-old non-profit health care charity. Click here to see individual state charts from the study.

This should give all those who resist any kind of reform or needed change a time to pause and reflect on the future and what that means vs. the fear and hype they have laid on the table right now.

Added (August 25, 2009): This is a must watch — surely: "IT IS THE MONEY"

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Today – the story headline: "Seniors Medicare Drug Prescription Program is trouble."

More than 32 million people are in the Medicare prescription drug program. So, why is it in trouble?

Average monthly premiums are set to go from $28 this year to $30 next year, though they vary by plan.

About 6 million people in the program have premiums deducted from their monthly Social Security payments, according to the Social Security Administration. Millions of people with Medicare Part B coverage for doctors' visits also have their premiums deducted from Social Security payments. Part B premiums are expected to rise as well.

Under the current law, the increase cannot be larger than the increase in Social Security benefits for most recipients. There is no such hold-harmless provision for drug premiums.

Flashback: September 2003: The average annual cost of prescription drugs per Medicare beneficiary rose from $1,610 in 2000 to $2,322 in 2003 (report from the Kaiser Family Foundation). Average out-of-pocket spending grew even faster during that period, from $644 to $999.

Congress will return from their August recess to face the daunting job of reconciling the House and Senate versions of the massive Medicare-reform bills passed in June. At stake: a long-awaited prescription-drug benefit, something traditional Medicare lacks.

It has already become a bitter debate, as politicians, health-care providers and 41 million Medicare beneficiaries struggle to understand the costs and trade-offs. “It's simply unclear how people will be affected,” said Robert M. Hayes, president of the Medicare Rights Center. But even if legislation is passed this year, full drug coverage will not kick in before 2006. For seniors struggling to afford medication, the wait is far from over.

The Fight and Politics: September 2003:

The House and Senate Medicare-reform bills share some important features:

Both would create a voluntary prescription-drug program administered by private insurers, with an estimated monthly premium of $35.

Both have convoluted co-payment formulas.

The Senate: Under the current Senate plan, after a $275 deductible, insurance would cover 50% of annual drug costs, but only on expenses of up to $4,500. Once a senior has paid $3,700 out of pocket, the program would cover 90% of the tab.

The House: That plan has a similar formula: a $250 deductible, 20% coverage for drug costs of up to $2,000 and 100% coverage after seniors spend $3,500 a year.

That coverage gap in the middle, widely described as a “doughnut hole” concerns advocates for the elderly.

Current Law and this Question: “Is this bill the private insurer and drug company’s best friend?” Some answers and analysis from here. President Bush signed the bill into law, on all days, December 7, 2003 - when the GOP had control of the entire government.

The real winners under this legislation are private insurers and drug companies. Rather than providing the public drug benefit directly, the Act uses public funds to subsidize seniors’ purchases of private insurance within the multi-payer U.S. system.

The Act provides nearly $90 billion in subsidies to employers to maintain existing employer-sponsored private drug insurance outside Medicare. Such coverage has been shrinking as employers, in the face of rising drug benefit costs, have scaled back or dropped drug coverage for retirees. Beyond the drug benefit program, the Act also introduces new provisions to shore up Medicare Part C, (called “Medicare + Choice”) an existing option that allows beneficiaries to choose (with public subsidy) a private plan for hospital and physician insurance rather than traditional Medicare. Enrollment in these plans has been shrinking in recent years as the cost to beneficiaries has increased.

For private insurers, the Act authorizes a demonstration project to pilot a competitive market approach to insurance for seniors; this features a considerably expanded role for private insurance within the Medicare program.

From the AMCP (Managed Care Rx folks (August 20, 2009):

The House Energy and Commerce Committee's version of H.R. 3200 “America's Affordable Health Choices Act” includes a provision that would require the federal government, rather than Medicare Part D plan sponsors, to negotiate prescription drug prices in the Part D program. (The government wants to try and save money, cut costs and manage the Rx program themselves by taking it out of private care hands – something the GOP has been against since 2003 and earlier). AMCP concludes: That if adopted, the provision would remove the responsibility that Part D plan sponsors currently have to negotiate drug prices and fundamentally undermine one of the plans' principal tools that allows them to design a meaningful and affordable drug benefit for seniors. The AMCP is urging all members to immediately contact their lawmakers and ask them to oppose the inclusion of this provision in the final health care reform legislative package.

Now the Heart of the Issue (sorry it took so long to get here – but this is the best part – so, all you seniors and those about to be seniors or anyone concerned about seniors, pay close attention): The following comes from this very good research site.

A Quick Read:

1. Since 2006, a privatized Medicare prescription drug program has been offered to seniors.

2. The Part D program provides drug coverage through numerous private companies, and it seeks to control prices through competition between the plans.

3. Unfortunately, seniors face a complex and confusing array of choices in this program, and few have been able to effectively “vote with their pocketbooks” for plans that offer the best value. Due to the difficulty involved in comparing plan offerings year after year, only a small percentage of beneficiaries change plans, which undermines market competition.

4. Drug prices continue to increase at alarming rates.

5. Under the current Part D program (which is now again in the news), seniors are given only six weeks each year to make difficult decisions about their prescription drug coverage, and they are then locked into the plans they select for an entire year.

6. It is only during an open enrollment period (Open Season) that most seniors are permitted to enroll in a Part D plan, drop Part D coverage, or switch to a different plan. While most seniors will be locked into the plans they select for the entire year, plans are allowed to make significant changes to their prices, formulas, and benefits throughout the year. In addition, many plans have already announced significant changes to their coverage for the next year.

MCPSSM goes on to link the best answers available to the questions most frequently asked by seniors and their caregivers in order to help the American public better understand this program. Links are at the main site linked.

Summary: We have three candidates in this race to represent all of us in Congress: One is unsure about his stand on health care reform. One is pretty much against most parts of any reform bill. One seems to be against all of it. One thing is also clear: Big money in health care going into politican's pockets is killing reform as much as disease or lack of care. It must stop - will these three candidates work to stop that flow? We shall see, and we will be watching, too.

No matter what, on this issue, all candidates should understand this: Past reform measures have failed, or have not worked as intended. The stalling tactics has been too long and too ugly. The status quo is broken and no longer works. Change is needed now. We must do it together, period. Insist on it.

"NY 23rd District = Special Election..."

I encourage everyone to view this 16-minute video from MSNBC. It is an excellent review and rundown of many critical events and decisions after 9/11, starting in October 2005. Events in the clip are timely and related to the remarks and contents of Tom Ridge’s new book, which has caused a stir about the events leading up to the 2004 election.

Members of Congress and those seeking a seat in Congress should keep a copy of it handy and carefully review it, too.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Candidates: Bill Owens (Democratic party); Dede Scozzafava (Republican party); and Doug Hoffman (Conservative party).

I have started to add issues here, and at separate posts (follow this post). Thus far (and yes, it is still early, but not too early for some critical issues to be discussed like the the two wars: Iraq and Afghanistan). Some of these issues are very serious and they need to be discussed now -- and later -- they are tough issues, and the next Rep. will have to face them in Congress. So, where do they stand on those tough issues now -- we need to know. Enjoy your visit here, and thanks for stopping by.

Update: (August 20, 2009): I detect some spine from the White House, yes, spine, NOT spin. From The AP via Yahoo! News [click here].

Everyone should focus in on this statement from the President: "What we've said is that there are a number of components to health care. I see nothing wrong with having public option as one choice and no one should be obligated to go into a public plan." I would add, Amen. I have said this all along: It's about choice; not mandates.

Second Update (August 20, 2009): This from Politicker.ny.com (Owens and possible Labor support) [click here].

The issue at stake here: Owens has said he is against a "public option," and this is what labor says about that:

Finnegan (Kevin Finnegan, political director for SEIU 1199) told Politickerny.com (reporter J. Vielkind), that he had spoken earlier this week with Owens, who said "his position is a little more nuanced than that (against any public option)."

My note: Nuanced? Now, flip-flop, wishy-washy, or what? Nuance def: "... delicate shadings." Kinda like like fancy footwork. Get the nomination and then change. That is NOT change. That is the same old, same old staus quo, and that's what's wrong in Congress today. Duped [again], however, does come to mind.

ISSUES

Iraq: (August 19, 2009) -- BAGHDAD -- (The AP) A truck bomb exploded across the street from Iraq's Foreign Ministry near the Green Zone, knocking out concrete slabs and windows and leaving a mass of charred cars outside as a wave of explosions around Baghdad killed at least 95 people and wounded more than 500.

A suicide truck bomber also targeted the Finance Ministry minutes earlier in the deadliest apparently coordinated attack in Iraq so far this year — a major challenge to Iraqi control of Baghdad. A steady escalation of attacks following the June 30 withdrawal of U.S. troops from urban areas has heightened fears that government troops are not ready to provide security.

Afghanistan: Our troops losses grew in July to more than at any other time since we invaded in late 2001 [click here for update]. Recall that former president Bush said we "won" there since women could vote and little girls could go to school. Shall we ask the dead about that?

I note that neither of these three have any war time, and especially any combat experience. Now some will argue that military experience is not important, and I agree; but, in time of war like now (two wars) and no end in sight and with nasty vibes from other places (North Korea, Iran and Pakistan), I think war time experience and especially combat experience is critical. These three do not have it - that's unfortunate.

The Owens selection story from PolitickerNY.com follows here [click here].

Background (August 11, 2009): This is the day after the Democrats at Blue Mountain Lake picked Bill Owens as their nominee for the upcoming open seat to replace Rep. John M. McHugh (R) in the House as he moves up to be the next Secretary of the Army. Highlights from this story (paraphrased in parts with my editing):

* William “Bill” Owens secured the nomination of the Democrat Party after impressing the district's 11 Democratic county chairpersons during a full-day interview Monday at Minnowbrook Conference Center at Blue Mountain Lake on August 11. He bested nine other applicants, including fellow finalists John T. Sullivan Jr., Green Island, and Brian McGrath, New York City (both also attorneys). The Democrats' official press release said in part, “We believe that Bill Owens best shares the values of the communities across our district and will be an effective, independent voice for our priorities."

* Mr. Owens is not a Republican, but he's not a Democrat, either – he is a registered Independent. As such, he will need a Wilson-Pakula “certificate of authorization” [click here to see copy from the NYS Board of Elections] (an explanation of court challenges is below) to run as a Democrat. Owens. He is a native of Brooklyn and lives in Plattsburgh where he stayed following his service in the Air Force. He is a 1971 graduate of Manhattan College, and he received his law degree from Fordham University in 1974.

* The GOP nominated state Assemblywoman Dierdre “Dede” K. Scozzafava from Gouverneur as their candidate on July 22. The Conservative Party followed suit and picked Lake Placid accountant Douglas L. Hoffman as their nominee on August 7.

Wilson-Pakula: According to NYS law, Owens will need a Wilson Pakula authorization, given by the Democrat Party (or any other party in NYS) to their candidate for public office which allows a candidate not registered with that party to run as its candidate in a given election. The name refers to the Wilson-Pakula Act of 1947 that was authored by Assemblyman Malcolm Wilson (Republican from NYC) and Senator Irwin Pakula (Republican from Queens) which forbids candidates from receiving the nomination of a political party if they are not registered as a member of that party. The authorization certificate gives them the authority to run as the nominee.

Past Challenges to Wilson-Pakula's Constitutionality: Challenges to the law have been made and denied in a number of cases in New York State. In Werbel v Gernstein (1948), the court held that “... the Wilson-Pakula Law was designed to protect the integrity of political parties and to prevent the invasion into or the capture of control of political parties by persons not in sympathy with the principles of such political parties.” (emphasis is mine).

Mr. Owens publicly stated he does not support the Obama health care reform proposal. President Obama, as president of the United States, is the head of the nation's Democrat Party. Mr. Owens even by his statement thus, does not hold the principles of the head of the party or for a major principle for the party that supports a common need for national health care. (If Mr. Owens feels no need for such a program, then he should have run as an Independent or Republican - as both are opposed to the Obama plan). That is not change!

Mr. Owens on the issue of same-sex marriage is even to the right of his Republican opponent Dede Scozzafava and of the Conservative nominee, Mr. Hoffman. Owens does not support full marriage for gays and he opposes any federal action on the “states rights issue” – saying to one reporter, “I fully support equal rights for everybody, and certainly civil unions are in that mix. For religious reasons, I have difficulty with the use of the word marriage in that process.” That is not change! I told the committee during my interview, which followed Mr. Owens, and which got a big laugh was, “Let gay people marry and suffer the same pitfalls and joy, to include divorce, as men and women who marry and pay their taxes as married couples. Many gay couples have been together for 50 years (or longer a lady on the panel said).” That would be change!

I firmly believe that the Democrats made a huge mistake by picking Mr. Owens for many reasons, including the most important one: He is not a Democrat.

Mr. Owens is not a Democrat, he's never been a Democrat, and he has supported a long line of Republicans including former Senator Al D'Amato. Now, he will have to run and act like a Democrat while acting moderate as he outflanks the Republican and Conservative both?

Is this the "new DEM trend" to nominate candidates: To bypass party loyalists and go for a win, no matter how many bodies you leave along the way (of party loyalists)? If so, that is by itself is an insult to those who have worked hard for not only this nomination, but for the party and Democratic candidates in the past, or who have been lifelong Democrats in tough times as well as good times.

If the Democrats had wanted an actor, or a pretend Democrat, then should have said so right up front and maybe one could have been brought up from Broadway. This decision, I believe, will give the GOP and Conservative candidates plenty of ammo for their attack machines. That is something, on top of everything else, that the Democrats do not need; more turmoil and flack. Issues should have mattered, but I think they did not in this process. That is not change! I also believe that the end result is that we have three candidates who sound alike, talk about issues alike, and probably will run alike (safe and typically on message - the same old, same old style we've seen for decades around here). That is not change! They all want to win and thus it may end up being a nasty, slug fest of similar ideas with nothing positive put forth to give the voters any real choice, see any real differences, or measure any consequence of any choice.

Finally, I told the committees that if the outcome of the 2006 and 2008 elections proved anything to any Democrat anywhere that it was that the country, and especially the people, wanted and expected change, including this district, which Mr. Obama won.

(Note: This ties directly to the update above about health care (choice and option), which I am for, and Mr. Owens and the other two candidates are not).

If a public option, choice is not available, then that by any measurement is not right, and it is not change, and it would go against the will of the public!

Stay tuned.

— dmf

"Defining Issue = Yes, or No????"

Two gay men. No gays here, or here, right? Two gay women.

[Click to enlarge photo]


Is gay marriage legal, right, justified, or not and if not, why not? And, do some people just hold a biased view against gays in general, whether on the issue of marriage, the military, any gay-related issue, gay lifestyle, or any other reason (personal, religious, political, "traditional" — whatever that means, I'm not sure)?

I base this post on this story from The AP [click here] that got my attention — it should get your attention if not your interest as well.

The Highlights:

AP -- The Obama administration filed court papers Monday claiming a federal marriage law discriminates against gays, even as government lawyers continued to defend it.

Justice Department lawyers are seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a gay California couple challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The administration's response to the case has angered gay activists who see it as backtracking on campaign promises made by Barack Obama last year.

In court papers, the administration said it supports repeal of the law. Yet the same filing says the Justice Department will defend the statute in this case because a reasonable argument can be made that the law is constitutional.

Wow -- talk about two positions on the same subject by the same folks?

DOMA 101: "The law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states."

Remember how the folks from Nevada paid millions to get the California law overturned and stop gay marriages — how about states rights in that case?

Gays in the Military? There has been gays in uniform since the days of Genghis Khan, under George Washington, George Patton, George Marshall, and yes, even under the two George Bush's.

How the military handles gays is a totally different issue. It had always been until "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and to some degree even still is today, that it was a "conduct issue: homosexual activities were unlawful according to military law (the UCMJ)" and are basically stated this way:

"Homosexual Conduct. Homosexual conduct is grounds for separation from the Military Services."

"Homosexual conduct includes homosexual acts, a statement by a member that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, or a homosexual marriage or attempted marriage. A statement by a member that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts is grounds for separation not because it reflects the member's sexual orientation, but because the statement indicates a likelihood that the member engages in or will engage in homosexual acts."

"Generally, a member's sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter, and is not a bar to continued service under this section unless manifested by homosexual conduct in the manner described below."

"Characterization of service or description of separation is based on the conduct and performance of the individual. When the sole basis for separation is homosexual conduct, a characterization of "Under Other Than Honorable Conditions" (discharge) may be issued only if there is a finding that during the current term of service the member attempted, solicited, or committed a homosexual act in the following circumstances:

"By using force, coercion, or intimidation; With a person under 16 years of age; With a subordinate in circumstances that violate customary military superior-subordinate relationships; Openly in public view; For compensation; Aboard a military vessel or aircraft; or In another location subject to military control under aggravating circumstances noted in the finding that have an adverse impact on discipline, good order, or morale comparable to the impact of such activity aboard a vessel or aircraft."

Summary: It is this part that has the gays in the military and those wanting to serve in the military up in arms, so to speak: "You can be gay, live a gay style and go all the things that you want to do as a gay person, just do not break those rules and keep it to yourself out of sight (more or less)." Just keep your sex life private, not open, and do no "out" yourself as an expression of being day. In short, according to gay folks: Live the lie.

My message to all members of congress — and for those running for congress — you MUST take a firm, clear stand one way or another on this issue — no dodging, ducking, deceiving, or fancy PR statements.

Either you support gay rights, or you do not, period! I support gay rights — it is a right that cannot legally in my view be disputed.

"Blame whom? Blame what? Why blame?"

Like I said, "who to blame, what to blame, or why blame at all?" May I suggest a lot of us check the nearest mirror -- therein lies both cause and solution.

Take the health care debate, if we can call it debate -- it's more like a riot just before a prison break.

The Obama team appears to be leaning towards taking the "public option" off the table without actually saying they had to take it off the table.

Check out this story from Politico.com via Yahoo! news -- see if you agree with any of this latest news [click here]. The parts that got me thinking were:

President Obama and his top aides are signaling that they’re prepared to drop a government insurance option from a final health-reform deal if that’s what’s needed to strike a compromise on Obama’s top legislative priority.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on the Sunday TV rounds that the "public option" was “not the essential element” of the overhaul, and just a day earlier, Mr. Obama downplayed the "public option" during a Town Hall meeting in Colorado -- referring to it as “just one sliver” of the debate. Mr. Obama even went on to chide Democratic supporters and Republican critics for becoming “so fixated on this that they forget everything else” — this was a dig at some liberals in his own party who have made the "public option" the main rallying cry for any health reform.

I don't like to predict things because I'm NOT too good at predicting things. But, this all reminds me of 1994 and I know that race very well -- I ran for a House seat and got whupped as they say and the Clinton health care was dead center of the shatter back then, on top of the nasty "Contract for America" gimmick that no one on the GOP sides likes to even talk about.

So, here we are again -- surely history does repeat itself and now, like then, the DEMS are caving and I predict they will pay a heavy price in the 2010 midterm elections.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so. The DEMS should have not allowed this non-debate, debate to get this far and especially this out of hand.

The GOP has improved greatly in the mud-slinging, fear and hype, and nastiness game of political PR. They once again hold have a position like a pro that they did back in the Nixon era -- he would be proud of them.

They just added a new chapter to the Karl Rovian Book of Dirty Tricks on this issue.

They should be proud and the Democrats should be ashamed.

Pass the mirror, please.

"IRS Rules = Rich Crooks Can Escape Jail..."

Question: What do IRS rules, Swiss bank rules (current UBS scandal), piles of "secret" money, and Honey Bees have in common?

Answer: Sweet deals for the crooks caught hiding $15 billion off-shore to avoid IRS rules and thus, taxes, who can escape jail time (prosecution) if they come forward, pay a fine (hefty, I guess?), and continue on with their rich lives.

Update (August 19, 2009): This is breaking news from The AP via Yahoo! News [full story here]. The highlights (my comments in red).

WASHINGTON – Swiss banking giant UBS AG agreed Wednesday to turn over to the IRS the details of 4,450 accounts suspected of holding undeclared assets by American customers, ending an intense trans-Atlantic legal fight. IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said the accounts held $18 billion in assets at one time. Many have since been closed, he said. The deal will give the Internal Revenue Service thousands of long-sought account names, and is expected to provide even more UBS clients who voluntarily disclose their financial details to the agency, Shulman said. UBS has an estimated 52,000 accounts of U.S. customers. The IRS chief said the 4,450 accounts being relinquished to the agency were the ones most suspected of containing undeclared assets.

"I believe this agreement gives us what we wanted — access to information about those UBS accountholders most likely to have been involved in offshore tax evasion," Shulman said. He said that other account holders appear to be in compliance with U.S. tax laws.

I would further note: The American public needs to see all of those 4,450 names -- they must be made public -- no deals, not lawyering up, no pleas, nothing of the sort to weasel out, or buy their way out of jail. That is one absolute must. The public must insist on it through their elected officials -- the time to act is now -- privacy is NOT an issue when it comes to crimes of this or any other magnitude.

Update (August 16, 2009): This update comes from The AP and is provided via Yahoo! news [click here for full story]. Highlights from the story:

In March, the IRS began a six-month amnesty program that sweetened the offer with reduced penalties for people with undeclared assets. IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said the response has been unprecedented, but he wouldn't say how many people have applied so far. But the IRS said 400 people applied to voluntarily disclose undeclared assets in a single week in July, compared with fewer than 100 applications all last year. The amnesty program, which ends September 23, is part of a larger effort by federal authorities to crack down on international tax evaders.

Further updates on the background of this story are below and indicated in RED:

The story: Swiss bank giant, UBS, has "admitted conspiring to defraud the Internal Revenue Service and paid some $780 million to settle a sweeping federal investigation into its activities."

According to this NY Times story, UBS agreed to release the names of some 52,000 Americans who have been secreting away cash in their bank. The Justice Department has been investigating about 19,000 accounts, as UBS has now agreed to release the other names. [Note] Jack Blum, an offshore tax specialist said in that article, “The Swiss are saying that this is the end of Swiss banking as they knew it. Nobody will trust the security of the Swiss bank account.”

[My memo to Mr. Blum: "Any bank, anywhere and at anytime that is in cahoots with anyone to defraud their own country and evade taxes with billions should NOT be trusted in the first place; you sir, are flat out wrong].

Now the IRS has asked a judge to demand that UBS turn over the names of around 52,000 clients. UBS says it will "vigorously challenge" the new request. [Update (from article dated July 1, 2009) [click here]. "UBS must release names of all suspected tax cheats," the Justice Department says].

It is unclear what will happen after the additional names are released, but Marketwatch reported back in February, that the IRS plans to go after the American citizens who have used UBS accounts to avoid paying taxes with this statement from IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman:

"These taxpayers should note that today's agreement states that the U.S. Government will continue to seek enforcement of the summons. People who have hidden unreported income off shore need to get right with their government."

Summary (two questions): First, I wonder who is on the list of tax cheats? Once the names are released, I predict the country will be in total shock when they see the names.

Second: "Will these ultra-rich pay to keep their stories and names out of the news - seems IRS rules might allow that if they come forward and 'fess up. That, too, should not be allowed.

My message to Congress or anyone running for Congress: "Move now to make all the American names public - we do have a right to know who crooks are, don't we?"

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) applauded the administration's efforts, but said more can be done to catch tax evaders. He has introduced a bill that would direct the treasury secretary to maintain a list of nations that "impede U.S. tax enforcement" and give him authority to impose financial penalties against uncooperative countries. Levin's initial list of 34 countries and other jurisdictions includes Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Hong Kong and Panama.

This story will grow. Stay tuned.

"Why Won't DEMS Discuss This????"

Former Army PVT Lynndie England (left, today) and at Abu Ghraib (in 2003, 2004).

She's back and here's the recent story from The AP [click here]. The highlights in part:

WASHINGTON (August 15, 2009) – A lecture by the woman who became the public face of the Abu Ghraib scandal was canceled Friday at the Library of Congress after threats led to concerns about staff safety. Former Army reservist Lynndie England had been scheduled to discuss her biography as part of a veterans forum on Capitol Hill. The book by author Gary S. Winkler is called "Tortured: Lynndie England, Abu Ghraib and the Photographs That Shocked the World."

Members of the Library of Congress Professional Association, the employee group holding the talk, received an e-mail from president Angela Kinney saying the event was canceled due to staff safety concerns. A spokeswoman for the library said Kinney would not comment further. The group had received "numerous expressions of protest" about the lecture from its members, the e-mail said.

David Moore, who organized the event, said he was disappointed by the cancellation but supports the decision because of safety concerns. "We can't have an event here that's going to develop into a brawl like a town hall meeting. Free speech in America is pretty well dead," Moore added.

My Memo to Mr. Moore: "Free speech is not dead in America not at all; but common decency is alive and well; and so is the exploitation of crap like this for name, fame and fortune. But, that's okay with you and others, I surmise?"

Yes, it's true, England served her time and should be able to get on with her life, but the memories will linger forever about the way she and others, on orders or not, treated detainees in our custody. What they did were war crimes and many of them paid with prison time - as well they should have. But, others should have, too thus far have escaped, or better, skated justice, and that includes those at the very top.

She or anyone else (especially writers of her book) should not be able to reap any monetary gain from a this book, any movie, or mini-series about the crimes she and others were found guilty. If she gets money from this deal, any money at all, she should send it all to some Iraqi children's fund. In any case, we need to get her off the front pages of major news - she is not a story; not any longer.

But, my larger point remains as it has for years: "Why don't the DEMS in office, and those running for office, keep this issue alive. We tortured detainees in our custody, and that is a war crimes)."

Either they don't know the issue, which is strange, since a huge percentage of incumbents in office are lawyers, or those running for office are, too, or they just do not care. If that is the case, then they should not be office. Ducking this issue in the hope that it goes away not only borders the insane, but it crosses the border of the incompetent.

To me, this is not what America is all about. If it is, then God help us.

Note: Abu Ghraib links.

"Pull the Plug on Granny = Pro / Con????"

Pull the Plug on Granny; Not this Granny; But, keep the "Politics of Fear," okay, Mr. and Mrs. GOP?

Stir the pot for all it's worth in the war of Public vs. Insurance Giants (and most GOPers in office - and a few DEMS, too - who take insurance billions to stay in office) outta provide a pretty big pot.

There are a few more common sense places [click here] and [here] and [here].

Do your own research at those places — don't take any one word for what is needed or not needed. There are plenty of pro and con sites, just be prepared for more "Con" sites like in "Con-game" (those from the far rabid Rightwingnut side) that I point out at the Weasel Wart page.

Enjoy your research (and don't forget to ask Mr. Owens — who appears to be against the basic Obama plan and goal for a strong public option- ). Remind him that the key word is: "Option?"