Thursday, August 27, 2009

Second Chances

A massive demonstration is planned to support Michael Vick at Lincoln Financial Field on Thursday, when Vick is expected to make his debut with the Eagles.

The Philadelphia chapter of the NAACP, the Black Clergy of Philadelphia and other local civil rights groups had planned a demonstration to support Vick.

However, the Eagles called the NAACP after hearing of the plans for the demonstration at the stadium, and asked them to cancel the rally to stop a potentially "ugly scene," J. Whyatt Mondesire, president of the Philadelphia chapter of the NAACP told ESPN.

Mondesire told The Associated Press later Wednesday evening that his group and the Black Clergy of Philadelphia had decided to proceed with their march on Thursday.

"We believe Michael Vick has served his time, paid his debt to society and deserves a second chance and the animal rights groups want to hold him hostage for the rest of his life," J. Whyatt Mondesire, president of the Philadelphia chapter of the NAACP, said Wednesday. "We think that's patently unfair. It denies Michael Vick's basic civil rights, denies him his ability to make a living."

The Eagles' security operation is planning for individual animal rights protests outside the stadium.



Be-autiful. Let all this crap happen up there. I hope Vick looks good and McNabb looks bad, then they can have a nice coup de etat in the middle of thier season.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Franken beats Limbaugh! Olbermann beats OReilly!




God these guys are so funny. I recall my brother in law trumpeting the news that Al Franken beat Rush Limbaugh on Error Amerika waaay back...Of course, he then had to 'splain that Franken beat Rush in a trend, not a book, and he did it with 'the money demo'25-54 Men. *rolls eyes here*

I tried to explain that the money demo in talk radio skews older then in TV. That's why when you travel this grat country and you listen to the commercials in issue oriented talk radio: they aren't for snowboards and tatoo parlors. Or slip and fall lawyers. It usually is for 'buy gold now' here's a great retirement village, golf course, or erectile dysfunction. Now common sense tells you that the 'money demo' is not buying that crap. But, try explaining that to a 'progressive'.

These guys are just hilarious. They cannot stand it that the vast majority simply chooses not to tune in, and instead tunes in by great numbers to thier rivals. This is truly sad stuff.

So, rejoice under 35 men with feckles and a peg leg: MSNBC has your money demo locked in! Dance a jig!

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

4 years later.



The president, who last visited New Orleans 18 months ago, is not expected to come this week to mark the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the nation's costliest disaster after the failure of federally built floodwalls.

President George W. Bush, who acknowledged deep flaws in his administration's response to the storm and its aftermath, came to New Orleans for the first three Katrina anniversaries




I was considering going there this weekend, but forget it. I'd rather go to the beach.

These idiots re-elected Nagin, and now after all this $$$ has been spent: guess what the Lower 9th looks like?

If they were smart: the would convert the entire Lower 9th into a new Port for the cruise ships. But, that would take too much.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Saturday, August 22, 2009

ATL vs STL PS

thoughts on the preseason game vs the Spams:

* God protect Matt Ryan, because if he goes down, we're in deep doo-doo. Redman hasn't impressed me the past two preseasons, but Shockley clearly isn't capable of winning a game for us if needed. The kid's just not progressing and this is his 4th year.

* Mike Peterson might not be as fast as we'd like, but I love how he hits. He had a rough tackle on a play near the sideline and later he stepped up into a hole to engage the RB like Brooking hadn't done in 10 years. If he keeps that up, we'll get along just fine.

* For that matter, why was Nicholas not used more last year? The kid looked like he's ready to roll.

* Gonzalez caught every ball thrown in his direction. That touchdown was super easy. I'm glad Mularkey and Ryan made a point of getting him that touchdown.

* Grimes could have had a couple interceptions but I'm not too worried about his hands. The more important thing is that he's able to get into position to make those picks. On that low pass on the sideline, he showed that change of direction that the coaches must love about him.

* Romberg was starting in place of McClure. Not sure why, but I assume something injury-related. He looked ok.

* Laurent Robinson got some catches against Grimes and Jackson in the first half. I always liked Reach. I thought Jackson looked a bit uncomfortable playing CB on the outside, rather than his usual nickel role.

* Owens got hit for another TD. Not sure what to make of that. Middleton's sector was a little quieter.

* Kroy Biermann keeps showing up on the screen. He was the first one down in coverage on a punt. Why can't Anderson play special teams?

* I'm annoyed by the number of 3rd down conversions made by the opposition, but just remember that when those 3rd downs happen in the regular season, John Abraham will be on the field. Another good reason to carry 5 DEs, to rest him as much as possible.

* Sidbury would have made the team anyway, but tonight didn't hurt.

* I honestly find very little difference between Anderson and Davis. Davis is an average DE at best, but there's nothing wrong with paying a league-average guy a league-average wage. Davis is not the answer to our pass-rushing issues either, but he's fine when used in a rotation.

* I'll have to check the stats, but it seemed like the run defense was great in the first half. The DL and the LBs and even the safeties were getting after it and not waiting for the offense to come to them.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Stop the stupid Tea Parties! No more Town Hall nuts!

can we puh-leeze knock it off with these tea parties and town hall a**holes?

Honestly, Cons look about as foolish as the Dems when they lost thier last 2 elections.

We do not need 'Joe the Dumber'. And we do not need idiots like this old hag wearing an 'Isreali Defence Force' Tee saying Heil Hitler to a real Jew because he brings up good points about USA's lacking care of Veterans, IMHO:



Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Old Video's from Thailand.




Back in 2002, I bought the Kodak MC3, a hyrbid mp3/video player. I used the crap out of it, and it stil works, but the quality is crap. I found a bunch of these crappy vids while perusing a box I found in the attic.

Liz and I went to Thailand and it was truly life changing. I've been to every continent save Australia, but this trip was amazing. We of course, saw Bangkok since that was the connecting hub.

From there we went north to the border, in the dreaded 'golden triangle'

We met talented tortured monkeys:



and rode elephants in the jungle, surrounded by armed guards:



it is scary as hell when they get mad. You can hear them growl, but feeling it while perched atop in a basket in frightening:



Then, on to Koh Samui, where my buddy Steve owned a neat little resort. Bungalows right on the beach and awesome Thai food and beer. I played a benefit for a Brit that crashed his scooter and had to be flown out to the mainland. They dont get you out of the local hospital until you settle up. I'm pleased to state I raised alot of funds for this guy, even though I never met him. It was neat having a gig on such a small island. People recognized me from the poster that was up all over the north part of the island, and impressed Liz a little:-)







I can safely say Thailand touched me. It remains my most favorite travel destination. But, I'm afraid with the little one, those 22 hour flight's are over. Plus, I dont think it's cheap anymore...

Oh well. I got there when I could, and dream of a return alot....

Monday, August 17, 2009

Imaginary speech

Transcript of remarks made by Leo Carrington (who doesn't exist) to a mandatory meeting of all employees of Carrington Automotive Enterprises, Inc. (which doesn't exist either) on August 17th, 2009 at the Royal Payne Hotel (a purely imaginary place) in Norfolk, Virginia (which does, in fact, exist).

I would like to start by thanking you for attending this meeting, though it's not like you had much of a choice. After all, attendance was mandatory. I'm also glad many of you accepted my invitation to your family members to be here as well. I have a few remarks to make to all of you, and then we'll retire to the ballroom for a great lunch and some employee awards.

I felt that this meeting was important enough to close all 12 of our tire and automotive shops today so that you could be here. To reassure you, everybody is being paid for the day --- except me. Since our stores are closed we're making no money. That economic loss is mine to sustain. Carrington Automotive has 157 full time employees and around 30 additional part-timers. All of you are here. I thank you for that.

When you walked into this auditorium you were handed a rather thick 78-page document. Many of you have already taken a peek. You were probably surprised to see that it's my personal tax return for 2008. Those of you who are adept at reading these tax returns will see that last year my taxable income was $534,000.00. Now I'm sure this seems rather high to many of you. So ... let's talk about this tax return.

Carrington Automotive Enterprises is what we call a Sub-S - a Subchapter S corporation. The name comes from a particular part of our tax code. Sub-S status means that the income from all 12 of our stores is reported on my personal tax return. Businesses that report their income on the owner's personal tax return are referred to as "small businesses." So, you see now that this $534,000 is really the total taxable income - the total combined profit from all 12 of our stores. That works out to an average of a bit over $44,000 per store.

Why did I feel it important for you to see my actual 2008 tax return? Well, there's a lot of rhetoric being thrown around today about taxes, small businesses and rich people. To the people in charge in Washington right now I'm a wealthy American making over a half-million dollars a year. Most Americans would agree: I'm just another rich guy; after all ... I had over a half-million in income last year, right? In this room we know that the reality is that I'm a small business owner who runs 12 retail establishments and employs 187 people. Now here's something that shouldn't surprise you, but it will: Just under 100 percent ... make that 99.7 percent of all employers in this countries are small businesses, just like ours. Every one of these businesses reports their income on a personal income tax return. You need to understand that small businesses like ours are responsible for about 80 percent of all private sector jobs in this country, and about 70 percent of all jobs that have been created over the past year. You also need to know that when you hear some politician talking about rich people who earn over $200,000 or $500,000 a year, they're talking about the people who create the jobs.

The people who are now running the show in Washington have been talking for months about raising taxes on wealthy Americans. I already know that in two years my federal income taxes are going to go up by about 4.5 percent. That happens when Obama and the Democrats allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. When my taxes climb by 4.5 percent the Democrats will be on television saying that this really isn't a tax increase. They'll explain that the Bush tax cuts have expired .. nothing more. Here at Carrington we'll know that almost 5% has been taken right off of our bottom line. And that means it will be coming off your bottom line.

Numbers are boring, I know ... but let's talk a bit more about that $534,000. That's the money that was left last year from company revenues after I paid all of the salaries and expenses of running this business. Now I could have kept every penny of that for myself, but that would have left us with nothing to grow our business, to attract new customers and to hire new employees. You're aware that we've been talking about opening new stores in Virginia Beach and Newport News. To do that I will have to buy or lease property, construct a building and purchase inventory. I also have to hire additional people to work in those stores. These people wouldn't immediately be earning their pay. So, where do you think the money for all of this comes from? Right out of our profits .. right out of that $534,000. I need to advertise to bring customers in, especially in these tough times. Where do you think that money comes from? Oh sure, I can count it as an expense when I file my next income tax return .. but for right now that comes from either current revenues or last year's profits. Revenues right now aren't all that hot ... so do the math. A good effective advertising campaign might cost us more than $300,000.

Is this all starting to come together for you now?

Right now the Democrats are pushing a nationalized health care plan that, depending on who's doing the talking, will add anywhere from another two percent to an additional 4.6 percent to my taxes. If I add a few more stores, which I would like to do, and if the economy improves, my taxable income ... our business income ... could go over one million dollars! If that happens the Democrats have yet another tax waiting, another five percent plus! I've really lost tract of all of the new government programs the Democrats and President Obama are proposing that they claim they will be able to finance with new taxes on what they call "wealthy Americans."

And while we're talking about health care, let me explain something else to you. I understand that possibly your biggest complaint with our company is that we don't provide you with health insurance. That is because as your employer I believe that it is my responsibility to provide you with a safe workplace and a fair wage and to do all that I can to preserve and grow this company that provides us all with income. I no more have a responsibility to provide you with health insurance than I do with life, auto or homeowner's insurance. As you know, I have periodically invited agents for health insurance companies here to provide you with information on private health insurance plans. The Democrats are proposing to levy yet another tax against Carrington in the amount of 8 percent of my payroll as a penalty for not providing you with health insurance. You should know that if they do this I will be reducing every person's salary or hourly wage by that same 8 percent. This will not be done to put any more money in my pocket. It will be done to make sure that I don't suffer financially from the Democrat's efforts to place our healthcare under the control of the federal government. It is your health, not mine. It is your healthcare, not mine. These are your expenses, not mine. If you think I'm wrong about all this, I would sure love to hear your reasoning.

Try to understand what I'm telling you here. Those people that Obama and the Democrats call "wealthy Americans" are, in very large part, America's small business owners. I'm one of them. You have the evidence, and surely you don't think that the owner of a bunch of tire stores is anything special. That $534,000 figure on my income tax return puts me squarely in Democrat crosshairs when it comes to tax increases.

Let's be clear about this ... crystal clear. Any federal tax increase on me is going to cost you money, not me. Any new taxes on Carrington Automotive will be new taxes that you, or the people I don't hire to staff the new stores I won't be building, will be paying. Do you understand what I'm telling you? You've heard about things rolling downhill, right? Fine .. then you need to know that taxes, like that other stuff, roll downhill. Now you and I may understand that you are not among those that the Democrats call "wealthy Americans," but when this "tax the rich" thing comes down you are going to be standing at the bottom of the mud slide, if you get my drift. That's life in the big city, my friends ... where elections have consequences.

You know our economy is very weak right now. I've pledged to get us through this without layoffs or cuts in your wages and benefits. It's too bad the politicians can't get us through this without attacking our profits. To insure our survival I have to take a substantial portion of that $534,000 and set it aside for unexpected expenses and a worsening economy. Trouble is, the government is eyeing that money too ... and they have the guns. If they want it, they can take it.

I don't want to make this too long. There's a great lunch waiting for us all. But you need to understand what's happening here. I've worked hard for 23 years to create this business. There were many years where I couldn't take a penny in income because every dollar was being dedicated to expanding the business. There were tough times when it took every dollar of revenues to replenish our inventory and cover your paychecks. During those times I earned nothing. If you want to see those tax returns, just let me know.

OK .. I know I'm repeating myself here. I don't hire stupid people, and you are probably getting it now. So let me just ramble for a few more minutes.

Most Americans don't realize that when the Democrats talk about raising taxes on people making more than $250 thousand a year, they're talking about raising taxes on small businesses. The U.S. Treasury Department says that six out of every ten individuals in this country with incomes of more than $280,000 are actually small business owners. About one-half of the income in this country that would be subject to these increased taxes is from small businesses like ours. Depending on how many of these wonderful new taxes the Democrats manage to pass, this company could see its tax burden increase by as much as $60,000. Perhaps more.

I know a lot of you voted for President Obama. A lot of you voted for Democrats across the board. Whether you voted out of support for some specific policies, or because you liked his slogans, you need to learn one very valuable lesson from this election. Elections have consequences. You might have thought it would be cool to have a president who looks like you; or a president who is young, has a buff bod, and speaks eloquently when there's a teleprompter in the neighborhood. Maybe you liked his promises to tax the rich. Maybe you believed his promise not to raise taxes on people earning less than a certain amount. Maybe you actually bought into his promise to cut taxes on millions of Americans who actually don't pay income taxes in the first place. Whatever the reason .. your vote had consequences; and here they are.

Bottom line? I'm not taking this hit alone. As soon as the Democrats manage to get their tax increases on the books, I'm going to take steps to make sure that my family isn't affected. When you own the business, that is what you're allowed to do. I built this business over a period of 23 years, and I'm not going to see my family suffer because we have a president and a congress who think that wealth is distributed rather than earned. Any additional taxes, of whatever description, that President Obama and the Democrats inflict on this business will come straight out of any funds I have set aside for expansion or pay and benefit increases. Any plans I might have had to hire additional employees for new stores will be put aside. Any plans for raises for the people I now have working for me will be shelved. Year-end bonuses might well be eliminated. That may sound rough, but that's the reality.

You're going to continue to hear a lot of anti-wealth rhetoric out there from the media and from the left. You can chose to believe what you wish .. .but when it comes to Carrington Automotive you will know the truth. The books are open to any of you at any time. I have nothing to hide. I would hope that other small business owners out there would hold meetings like this one, but I know it won't happen that often. One of the lessons to be learned here is that taxes ... all taxes ... and all regulatory costs that are placed on businesses anywhere in this country, will eventually be passed right on down to individuals; individuals such as yourself. This hasn't been about admonishing anyone and it hasn't been about issuing threats. This is part of the education you should have received in the government schools, but didn't. Class is now dismissed.

Let's eat.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Give credit where due...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/liberals-urge-obama-to-do-more-in-honduras-2009-08-11.html

A group of liberal lawmakers urged President Obama to do more to reverse the coup in Honduras, such as freezing the assets of those involved, and denying them entry into the United States.

"We are … increasingly concerned by the many reports of flagrant human rights violations that are being committed under the current de facto regime," said a letter to the president, which was signed by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and 16 fellow members of the caucus.

The letter cites human rights groups that have documented protesters being shot by the military, media outlets that have been shut down and political organizers who have been detained.

"It is this increasingly alarming situation that compels us to urge you to take further action," the letter said.

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was overthrown June 28 by the military. Obama has repeatedly called for Zelaya's return to power, but the president also said Latin American critics calling on him to do more are hypocritical.

At a press conference Monday in Guadalajara, Mexico, with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Obama said that those criticizing the U.S. for not intervening enough are the same people who say, "Yankees, go home."

"You can't have it both ways," Obama said.

Monday, August 10, 2009

I HEART John Stossel...






from 2007:

In Michael Moore's movie "Sicko," a widow named Julie Pierce tells a tearful story: Her husband died of kidney cancer after their health-insurance company denied payment for a bone-marrow transplant that might have saved his life. Ms. Pierce's rage is palpable as she repeats the word her insurers used in response to her husband's request. "They denied it," she sneers. "Said it was 'experimental.'"


Viewers of the documentary are meant to understand that "experimental" is health-insurance code for "expensive," and that Ms. Pierce's husband was left to die for the sake of profit. According to Mr. Moore's movie, "Any payment for a claim is referred to as a medical loss," and when a claim is denied, "it's a savings to the company."


But Mr. Moore is so busy following the money that he doesn't take the time to follow the science. Treating cancer patients with bone-marrow transplants has a dubious history.


Twenty years ago, many oncologists believed that bone-marrow transplants, along with high doses of chemotherapy, might offer a cure for breast cancer. Insurance companies refused to pay, calling the treatment experimental and unproven. Breast-cancer sufferers went to court: In one case, a jury awarded $77 million to the family of a woman who was denied payment for the treatment. Wives and mothers told heart-rending stories in newspapers and on TV. Politicians quickly moved to guarantee the treatment to all breast-cancer patients. Ten state legislatures mandated that every insurance policy cover bone-marrow transplantation for breast-cancer patients. Amid the media circus and political self-congratulation, the question of whether bone-marrow transplants are medically effective faded into the background.


The sad truth is that the treatment isn't effective. When researchers released the results of their clinical trials to the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 1999, they showed that the treatment offered no benefit. Worse, it often killed women faster than their cancer, and caused them unnecessary pain. At a time when their health was at its greatest risk, more than 30,000 women were exposed to an invasive, harmful and ultimately useless treatment that the National Institutes of Health no longer recommends. But only one state legislature has repealed its law requiring insurance companies to pay for the treatment. Some doctors believe bone-marrow transplants might help kidney cancer patients, and the NIH is conducting clinical trials to find out. Until the treatment has been shown to do more good than harm, insurers are reluctant to pay for it.


Mr. Moore claims that because private insurance companies are driven by profit, they will always deny care to deserving patients. For this reason, he argues, profit-making health-insurance companies should be abolished, our health- care dollars turned over to the government, and the U.S. should institute a health-care system like the ones in Canada, Britain or France. But does Mr. Moore think, even for a second, that any of the government systems he touts in his movie would have provided a bone-marrow transplant to Ms. Pierce's husband? Fat chance.


When government is in charge of health care, the result is not that everyone gets access to experimental treatments, but that people get less of the care that is absolutely necessary. At any given time, just under a million Canadians are on waiting lists to receive care, and one in eight British patients must wait more than a year for hospital treatment. Canadian Karen Jepp, who gave birth to quadruplets last month, had to fly to Montana for the delivery: neonatal units in her own country had no room.


Rationing in Britain is so severe that one hospital recently tried saving money by not changing bed-sheets between patients. Instead of washing sheets, the staff was encouraged to just turn them over, British papers report. The wait for an appointment with a dentist is so long that people are using pliers to pull out their own rotting teeth.


Patients in countries with government-run health care can't get timely access to many basic medical treatments, never mind experimental treatments. That's why, if you suffer from cancer, you're better off in the U.S., which is home to the newest treatments and where patients have access to the best diagnostic equipment. People diagnosed with cancer in America have a better chance of living a full life than people in countries with socialized systems. Among women diagnosed with breast cancer, only one-quarter die in the U.S., compared to one-third in France and nearly half in the United Kingdom.


Mr. Moore thinks that profit is the enemy and government is the answer. The opposite is true. Profit is what has created the amazing scientific innovations that the U.S. offers to the world. If government takes over, innovation slows, health care is rationed, and spending is controlled by politicians more influenced by the sob story of the moment than by medical science.



this prompts a response:

Dear John,

My name is Julie Pierce. My husband was Tracy Pierce. I am featured in Michael Moore's documentary 'SiCKO.' In the movie, I share my deceased husband's story — his unsuccessful battle with our insurance company to receive what could have been life-saving treatments for kidney cancer.

I just read your Wall Street Journal article written on Sept. 13, 2007, titled "Sick Sob Stories." You begin by talking about Tracy's role in 'SiCKO,' and claim the bone marrow transplant denied by our insurer would not have saved him. You also accuse me of "sneering" over our situation.

In your 'reporting' of this story, you did not contact me, and you did not contact my husband's doctors. I cannot believe that a publication like the Wall Street Journal would print such an accusation without talking to anyone involved — especially in such a personal matter, which resulted in the death of my 37-year-old husband and the father of my child.

If you had contacted me, I would have told you that bone marrow transplants became a last option, only after our insurer denied many other treatments again and again and again.

I would have shown you a letter from our doctors at the Blood and Marrow Transplant Program at the University of Kansas Hospital, in which they argued strongly for the bone marrow transplant, citing "strong evidence" supporting the past success of that treatment — they wrote that it could "give him a chance to achieve complete remission." In fact, they called the bone marrow transplant "his only chance of survival."

Instead of calling me up and doing real reporting, all you can do is throw around studies from 1999 about the supposed inefficiency of bone marrow transplants for breast cancer patients — even though Tracy didn't have breasts. He had kidney cancer! I understand that you want to try to prove that private insurance in this country really isn't that bad. And I can see that you won't let the facts get in the way.

You go on to claim that Tracy wouldn't have received his transplant in a country with socialized medicine, either. Where is the evidence? Not only are more bone marrow transplants performed every year in Canada, but they invented the technology! So much for your ridiculous claim that "profit is what has created the amazing scientific innovations that the U.S. offers to the world. If government takes over, innovation slows, health care is rationed."

You are simply carrying water for the for-profit insurance industry that killed my husband. And then you have the nerve to accuse me of "sneering" about it. My husband has only been dead since January 18th, 2006. It is still fresh to me and my family, and comments like this are inhumane.

I have since tried to contact you via email, but you have not responded. I don't expect an answer. People like you just write with an agenda, without coming to the source or getting any facts, because your main goal is to try to discredit Michael Moore and universal health care. I understand it's a game — you did it without thinking about how you would hurt a family who have suffered — and are still suffering — such a tragic loss.

My family is not a "Sick Sob Story." We are a normal, American family that has had a significant member die from a horrible cancer that ravaged his body due to repeated denials from a health insurance company. We will never know for sure what would have worked because Tracy was never given a fighting chance. Over 18,000 Americans die each year because they don't have health insurance. I suppose theirs are "sob stories," too.

I don't want a hit-piece. I want answers. Why does our wonderful profit-driven system of medicine kill 18,000 Americans each year? Why do we pay far more for our health system than any other country, but have some of the lowest life expectancies and highest infant mortality rates in the Western world? Would you discredit the work of your late colleague Peter Jennings who, while suffering with lung cancer, did an excellent report titled "Breakdown: America's Health Insurance Crisis"?

I hope you have answers, but I am not optimistic. I pray that you will never have to go through what we went through — if you did, you wouldn't be so quick to cheerlead the system we were victimized by.

Julie Pierce
Mission, Kansas


and finally:

Dear Julie,

I read your reply to my WSJ Op-Ed. Let me respond to you, first, by saying that there is never any justice in the death of a 37-year old husband and father. I am sorry for your loss.

You accuse me of playing a "game" when I write about health care. This is untrue. I take this debate very seriously, because I believe that Americans suffering from illness should have access to the most advanced procedures, drugs, and treatments that medical technology can provide. I shudder to think of what would be lost if government takes control of healthcare.


Consider bone marrow transplantation. You write that Canadians "invented the technology," but I don’t think this is the case. I count bone marrow transplantation among the countless American medical innovations. The first successful bone marrow transplantation was performed in New York by Dr. E. Donnall Thomas. He went on to win a Nobel Prize for his work.


The data I’ve found also contradicts your assertion that there are more bone marrow transplants performed in Canada versus the US. Please tell me where you got that information. The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research reports that an estimated 16,700 patients received bone marrow transplantations in the US last year, vs. only 1520 patients who underwent the procedure in Canada. Per capita, there were 16% more transplants performed in the U.S.

As to whether the experimental procedure denied to your husband would have been available in Canada, my researchers contacted more than a dozen Canadian governmental organizations, medical societies, and research facilities. Some were firm in saying that it’s unlikely that any of these procedures are available in Canada, citing the "underwhelm[ing]" results of past clinical trials. Dr. Irwin Walker, McMaster University professor and former president of the Canadian Blood and Marrow Transplant Group, did say that his center might consider performing this procedure: "If our centre wanted to transplant [in] one or two cases of kidney cancer there wouldn't be an objection, but if we did a lot then it would have financial impact."

When government is in control, any experimental drug or cutting-edge treatment option will bring with it a "financial impact" on the pool of government funds, and be less likely to be made available. The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research tracks the activity of most transplant centers across the US and Canada. In America, their registry shows 106 Americans that received bone marrow transplants for kidney and urinary tract cancers between 2002 and 2006. In Canada, their registry shows only 4 such procedures over the same period.

Healthcare in America is a mess, but there’s a lot that’s great about it too. It’s easy to take for granted how rapidly medical technology has progressed over the last half-century, and all the lives that are saved every day which would have been lost only decades ago. If we introduce more choice and competition, American healthcare will become cheaper, more efficient, and more available to everyone.

You object to my use of the word "sneer," but I did not "accuse" you of "sneering over" your situation. I use the word to convey the anger I saw you express at insurance companies in Sicko.

I know that when you fight for government healthcare, you believe that what you are doing is right. While we agree that there is a lot that’s wrong with our healthcare system, we have different ideas about how to fix it.
Sincerely,
John Stossel

Friday, August 7, 2009

Thursday, August 6, 2009

the Pledge...

So I'm watching Tinkerbell with the little poop machine , and in the commercial break, I see this 'Pledge for the Planet'.




The specific purpose of the program is not made totally clear from the commercial, but it's obviously some kind of pro-environmental movement. When you look at the website, they talk about kids putting pressure on their parents to do things like conserve water and electricity, use cloth bags for shopping instead of plastic, etc. While all that may not seem too scary, I nearly fell off the couch when I saw the latest commercial. The actors say "I pledge allegiance to this planet on which I stand."




Then, there is this lil' gem:






The Right-Wing Scream Machine is back.

Who are they? So-called "Birthers" who think President Obama's birth certificate is a fake. "Teabaggers" who don't want to pay taxes for schools, police, or roads. And they're backed up by insurance industry and right-wing funded front groups who are encouraging Republicans to disrupt healthcare townhalls anyway they can throughout August.

Their goal isn't to debate or get their voices heard. Their goal is to stop any kind of civil dialogue.

That's not how we enact thoughtful reform. It's important that we aren't drawn into their divisive tactics and discredit our broad-based bipartisan support for real reform. And it's up to us to make sure they don't drown out America's support for the choice of a public healthcare option.

Will you join me in taking the high road and sign the Public Option Action Pledge?


Hmmm...These are Pledge's the left signs off on?

VERY disturbing.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

The Lake...






Paul loves hanging out with his cousins and swimming in the lake.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Monday, August 3, 2009

Let me be clear

Pop quiz: When President Obama uses the phrase “let me be clear,” it means:

a) Pencils up: This is the takeaway.

b) What I’ve said doesn’t mean what you might fear it means – or what my opponents will tell you it means.

c) I am not going to get rolled on this one.

d) All of the above, and then some.


“Let me be clear.”


In the first six months of Obama’s presidency, this simple sentence has gone from political pet phrase to full-on rhetorical signature, appearing (along with its variants “let’s be clear” and “I want to be clear”) scores of times in the commander in chief’s pre-written and extemporaneous remarks – sometimes more than once in a given speech.


But what does he mean when he says it? And why does the president who made “transparency” a national buzzword use it so often?


It depends on whom you ask.


“All speakers have verbal tics – habits they repeat, usually without even consciousness,” says former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum, who believes the president’s repeated use of the phrase is just that – a verbal twitch.


But the phrase is not simply an overbred “um” – it serves a function. At its most basic level, says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, “It’s a pointing phrase. It’s a phrase that says, ‘What I’m about to tell you is important.’” And not coincidentally, notes Jamieson, when the president says it, “What’s your natural response if you’re a reporter? Sound bite.”


Agrees David Kusnet, a former speechwriter for Bill Clinton: “If you’re going to say something you want the audience to remember, you have to say something before it.” He notes that the bridge to FDR’s famous “fear itself” line was “So first of all, let me assert my firm belief that…” – a kind of era-appropriate version of the same idea.


The phrase “let me clear” is hardly unique to Obama, even among presidents. Ronald Reagan used it as a warning: “Let me be clear—if Congress passes legislation that endangers our arms reductions, or undermines our national defense, I will have no choice—I will veto it.” Clinton favored its use for thorny issues, although he generally preferred “make no mistake about it.” (Obama sometimes uses the short form, “make no mistake.”)


Critics on both the right and the left have flagged the phrase as a sign that Obama is being disingenuous, a la President Nixon’s favored iteration, “Let me make one thing perfectly clear.”

“‘Let me be clear,’ says Obama, and, as with George Bush's rapid eye movements when he was telling a lie, you know the forty-fourth president is on the brink of some absurdity,” opined The Nation’s Alexander Cockburn earlier this month. Or as one Salon.com commenter put it: “Whenever I hear Obama say ‘let me be clear,’ I know what he is about to say is full of s—-.”

But this is too glib of a gloss.

If Clinton peppered his speeches with the phrase, Obama salts his liberally with it – and not at random. When taken together, the statements that have followed it read like the Cliff’s Notes to the first six months of the administration, with the president carefully staking out positions both foreign and domestic with an eye toward controlling the message and bringing along the skeptics in the crowd.

In foreign affairs, he uses the phrase to assert policy, to take and assign responsibility, and to warn against mistaking diplomacy for weakness, sometimes amassing multiple “clear” statements over time to achieve a complex and highly specific result:


“Let me be clear: The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.”


but


“Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats."

Or


“But let me be clear: The United States has made a lasting commitment to defeat al Qaeda, but also to support the democratically elected sovereign governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan.”


but


“And I want to be clear: We cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders.”


At home, the president frequently uses the line not only to get his audience’s attention, but also to anticipate his opponents, and to steer the public’s interpretation of his words:


“Now I want to be very clear: While we are making important progress towards fiscal responsibility this year in this budget, this is just the beginning.


“…so let me be clear: If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them. If you like your health care plan, you can keep that too.


“But let me be clear: The choice we face is not between some oppressive government-run economy or a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism.”


“Let me be clear: The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM.


(The method is not entirely foolproof; the Fox News web headline on the GM story read, “Obama Says He Has 'No Intention' of Running General Motors).


“One of the knocks on Obama during the campaign was that he kind of speaks in platitudes, these kind of feel-good principles,” notes Thomas E. Nelson, an associate professor of political science at Ohio State University who studies political communication. When he says “let me be clear,” Nelson says, the president is “conveying determination, he’s combating this sort of platitude criticism, and he’s signaling that this is the take-home point and to ignore anything that appears to diverge from that.”


Although she doubts it is deliberate on the part of the president or his speechwriters, Deborah Tannen, professor of linguistics at Georgetown University and author of “The Argument Culture,” sees the phrase as potentially working on three levels:


“I’m pointing to the point I want you to listen to, I’m pointing to the interpretation that I want you to have, and maybe there’s something there on the meta level, where I’m saying something about me as a person, that I’m being clear,” she says.


That third level in Obama’s case is one that ties into his public image as a foe of smoke and murk, the enemy of Beltway business as usual.


Says Jamieson: “It’s a way of saying, I’m a candid person. This is who I am” – something she says signals back to the president’s campaign themes of open, honest government.


Whether it is conscious or not is not even necessarily important. Any time people engage in a habitual rhetorical move, notes Jamieson, “it tells you something.”


So if Clinton’s frequent use of “make no mistake about it” suggested an underlying sense on the part of the Rhodes Scholar that his audience wasn’t always smart enough for him – and Bush’s regular extemporaneous use of the phrases “I fully understand” and “I’m fully aware” were on some level rebutting the rap that he didn’t and he wasn’t -- Obama’s constant repetition of the phrase “let me be clear” is perhaps a tell that he’s greatly concerned with his own…transparency – and defending the public perception thereof.


“With Nixon, “clear” was “You can trust me,” says Kusnet. “With Obama, it’s, “I’m going to speak clearly, to cut through the political fog.”


And above all else, he wants to make sure we’re clear on that.