Independent Women's Forum Heather Higgins made an interesting comment for those she represents. She said: I want women to have a choice! Is this "choice" only limited to health care? I am glad to hear she believes in choice for women, but I suspect that she has not joined the women who want choice for their own bodies like reproductive rights and abortion, but she didn't specify only for health care. It would be good to keep that statement on record and use it like the opposition does.....when we need support for our other bodily choices!

Thom,

I just heard your newscast. You mentioned that the west coast is predicted to experience a colder winter this year due to global warming. Here in Minnesota however it has been predicted that our winter will be milder... Not that that makes global warming OK. Maybe we won't have minus 40- to 60-degree windchills this year though.

I sent Heather Higgins of the IWF an email telling her that I thought her interview with Thom Hartmann this morning was outrageous. I asked her not to pretend to defend or support women with her views on healthcare reform.

I'm disgusted by amoral people like her.

Last week at Michele Bachmann's town hall on health care, she also used the UK as the whipping boy for government run health care horror stories. Coincidence? I doubt it. Almost all these deniers obtain their talking points from one or two sources; Heritage Foundation most often. Why don't they ever cite France? They have been rated best by the W.H.O for a long, long time.

Reynolds, others sue to stop parts of tobacco law

A group including some top U.S. tobacco companies filed a federal lawsuit on Monday to block provisions of a new tobacco law, arguing it violated their free speech rights under the U.S. constitution.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE57U50M20090831

What I hear from the opposition to health care reform is the equation of Capitalism with virtue or morality. Keep in mind that Capitalism is merely an economic system of accumulating wealth. It's driving principle is greed, hence the saying in the '80's "greed is good". So to oppose the morality inherent in health care reform because it's "Marxist" or "anti-capitalist" is to equate greed with morality. This is not the teaching of Christ, but of Mammon. Matthew 6:24.

RE: Health Care

The Cost Of Doing Nothing? (or of doing nothing different)?

In some ways the health care debate is a little like debates about Renewable Energy options like solar hot water. There's a lot of focus on "payback" and return on investment, etc..., along with a preconception that what they are doing now works just great, so why consider something new, different, or with up-front costs. When I bring up the cost of doing nothing, and project what their current system will cost 20 or 25 years into the future (and throw in Peak Oil and Gas just for a little spice), they see that what they are doing now really "ain't so good" after all.

As for health care, the current system is *assumed* to be working great, and why let all these tax& spend liberals screw up our great system and get the "guv-ment" involved, since they never get anything right...

So, maybe we need to start by looking at what we have now, and all the ways it's really NOT working as well as most people think.

Have you thought what gift you will be giving to your son and/or daughter? It's never too early to think about a Christmas gift.

For the Christmas of 2007 I gave our sons the best of all my previous gifts. It was a letter. Yes, a letter! The letter may also be sent to daughters.

Doug Soderstrom - "A Letter to My Son Regarding the Problem of War"

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/populist/2007/07/a-lette...

Thom has taught me so much in the passed two years. It is not easy to teach and old dog new tricks (70 years old). Thom speaks of his optimism and I am glad that he is an optimistic person. I do not like the word pessimism and I will call myself a realist. There are two articles that tell it all about the American psyche.

Stephan Lendman - "A Culture of Violence"

and

Ray McGovern - "Christians largely mum on torture"

Christans are silent on many important issues!!!

If Dick Cheney could travel back in time, he'd have plenty of opportunities to discover how his favorite pastime was applied. Back in the olden days, the Romans considered the courtroom accounts given by slaves to be reliable only if it had been obtained through the infliction of bodily pain. During the Dark Ages, “expert testimony” was actually achieved through more chivalrous methods, like swearing more believably than an accuser, or whoever fell off a horse first during a joust. More thoughtful jurists found these methods unreliable, and for a few centuries clear evidence and reliable witnesses were deemed necessary to pass judgment or acquire information. No pleasure to be had there for our scowling time-traveler then.

But by the 14th century “evidence” extracted by torture became the preferred juridical device in many crowded courtrooms and dungeons in Europe, and continued to be so for the next 400 years. Then in the 19th century, jurists decided that “circumstantial evidence” in the absence of hard evidence or testimony was sufficient to ascertain guilt, and certainly more “humane” than extracting it through torture. Torture has made a comeback in the 20th century, and apparently even has found a home today in the U.S.—and not just in Jose Padilla’s jail cell, or in the warped minds of certain members of Bush administration.

Dick Cheney and his daughter’s pathetic attempts to cloud people’s minds with disingenuousness should be seen for what it is—self-serving hokum. Worse, I suspect that Cheney considers the “classical” justification for torture to his liking: Nothing a detainee says is “reliable” unless he’s been beaten to an inch of his life. Only then will you obtain the “truth.” Talk about delusional paranoia. The fact that Cheney seems devoid of moral or ethical reservations about the use of torture calls into question his own humanity—even as he denies the humanity of anyone fit in his warped mind for the infliction of intense pain and humiliation. Nothing he can say can change that impression.

Cheney’s belief that the U.S. was “saved” from further attacks on its soil is debatable for a reason that he has never backed it up with evidence. The Bush administration saw no problem with presenting to the world false and misleading information during the run-up to the Iraq war; why should it have been so reticent in presenting evidence of terror plots foiled that were actually true? Why should Bush and Cheney trumpet such farces as the Miami Seven and Padilla cases, yet keep everything else “secret?”

As an aside, it is interesting to note that while the Catholic Church sanctioned torture during the inquisition, it was the Catholic Saint Augustine who provided a most compelling ethical argument against the use of torture: “If the accused be innocent, he will undergo for an uncertain crime a certain punishment, and that not for having committed a crime, but because it is unknown whether he committed it.”

F.Y.I.-
Besides checking out the video's of Sen. John Culver's tribute to Ted Kennedy, at the wake last Friday, (it is the best example of what is expected at an Irish Wake.!..hilarious and human.) , check out Bill Moyer's appearance on Bill Maher's 'Real Time'. I'm sure Thom did.
Moyer's talks about spinal operations for Democrats and the reasons why "we" shouldn't settle for half a loaf on health care. His reasons for that, are rooted in a historical perception to which I am likewise inclined. i.e. Many major advances for the peoples rights have come after many unsuccessful earlier attempts in Congress. He feels we should fight ahead for principals upon which we can stand, without any 'deals',or "half- loafs", reaching our goals more quickly. Or as Thomas Paine might have said if afflicted by the use of my addled brain or pen: Sometimes it is better to fight fiercely and plant the flag nearer the goal, reaching a lasting public consensus that is in harmony with a worthy cause...... than to settle for a thing which damages the credibility of the cause and does little or nothing but offer table-scraps from the tables of our tormentors.....or...... should that be?: " forks of our foes"? .....

What do you say Thom? How about sponsoring a Mostly Bad--Thom Paine-- Writing Contest? It might be a hoot and you may even come up with an occasional pearl. I've already placed myself amongst the swine, by virtue of this post. Watching Bill Maher, sometimes does this to me. Never mind.

"Why do conservatives want to keep quality health care out of reach for Americans?" duh.........because.....
1. They (the Big-Cons) make more money this way.
2. We don't deserve it. (even our children)
3. It might even cost them something.
4. They don't really like all Americans
5. Out of reach? It's good to challenge people and it is kinda fun to make or watch them jump!
6. Ideology trumps sick people in need, any day!
7. Everyone knows greed doesn't exist in their world.
etc. etc. etc.