RASTA- you eat too much PASTA man - you want the Rush Limbaugh Show or the Michael Savage show or dumb dumb FOX NEWS- your on the wrong board, man.

Hip hip hooray for Jim Wallace and for Jesus!

Throw the money changers out of the temple!

Join the conference call today at 2pm PST with President Barack Obama and the Reverend

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.display&item=HC09-main

It is tragic to witness the unprecedented rise in men over-compensating for their inadequacies, by strapping a gun to their thighs when attending public events. Now, that the whole world knows of their preexisting condition, we can all take solace in knowing that they will still be able to receive health care. Thanks to BIG PHARMA, Viagra, Cialis, and other remedies are readily available in massive, no wait...make that adequate quantities for these unfortunate little guys. What a country!

I got a bit sidetacked hearing the news that Brett Favre is back; being a long-time Packer fan, I appreciate what he did for the franchise, and my feeling is that no business has a right to keep a man from working if he's capable and somebody is willing to employ him.

Anyways, the discussion with Robert Peters of Morality in Media on Monday reminded me of when I was in the Army, I spent a few weeks at a small military compound on the island of Crete. Directly across the street was a Greek “gift shop” which sold, among other things, “classical” figurines of nude females, and males with jumbo-sized stiffies; the latter depictions can in fact be found on ancient Greek pottery. While local (European) tourists ignored this stuff, some American soldiers from the compound were quite fascinated by it, in a juvenile way; you don’t generally see this kind of thing in an American gift shop.

I wonder what accounts for this difference in reaction. It can’t simply be explained in congenital terms. Americans and Europeans reactions to this stuff should only be explained by an unhealthy and judgmental attitude toward sexuality in this country. Europeans have a decidedly healthier attitude toward sex—it is just part of everyday existence. You can see this in their cinema; in America movies, sex scenes often seem to be just thrown in there for no particular reason but the prurient, but in European movies, it just blends in with the course of a day’s activities—it’s what humans do. In Europe, even young kids are exposed to nude representations of the human body; over time it becomes meaningless.

According to a recent cover story in The Economist, Europeans also seem to believe that American sex offender laws are in many cases “unjust” and “ineffective.” The anecdotal evidence provided to justify this conclusion is typical of the worst case scenario examples used to support a particular view (a 17-year-old girl having oral sex with a boy shy of 16), but it does point out that there is very little done to differentiate degrees of offense in official registers. A report by Human Rights Watch found that sex offender lists included men who visited prostitutes, people who urinated in public, flashers and streakers, and consensual sex between teenagers. Sex offender registrations have exploded, but not because of an increase in sex crimes, but because it now has such a wide net.

Politicians pass harsher laws to satisfy the public fear, but now so many people are registered sex offenders that it is difficult to keep track of who and who isn’t dangerous, according to the article. It is admitted that it a certain percentage of incorrigibles—particularly men who target boys—will reoffend. But for most, the harsh laws are merely self-defeating, since they tend to prevent people from attaining any semblance of a normal life. The article also suggests that money wasted on monitoring the clearly not dangerous could be used to better monitor those who are. The bottom line: make punishment fit the crime.

But that won’t happen. The mainstream media feeds on the ratings potential of anything to do with sex, and TV shows like “Law and Order” refer to sex crimes as among the most “heinous” crimes known to humanity, right up there with mass murder, and more so than scam artists who take people’s live savings and force them live penniless on the streets.

AETNA CEO Ron Williams he has to slow down the rate of health services in interview with Judy Woodruff on PBS Tuesday Aug 17

http://vvi.onstreammedia.com/cgi-bin/visearch?user=pbs-newshour&template...

We were trying to figure out exactly what he was saying? Does such a man in such a situation speak casually and without purpose? What do you think?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...

Buy into Medicare : Public Option as Public Option : Single Payer.

It is a move backwards and a capitulation to the noise machine. It is only the right wing media that has decided the public option is dead and declared the game to be over because they have no game. We've wasted a half a week trying to respond to such nonsense when we should be putting the heat on the Senate. We can not allow ourselves to be diverted or disheartened; when we work together and stay on message we are unstoppable.

"Yet there's no one to beat you,
No one t' defeat you,
'Cept the thoughts of yourself feeling bad". Bob Dylan, To Ramona, 1964

This is our game and if we refuse to accept the handicaps proposed by the opposition we will be victorious. Failing that we have nothing.

jmort

PS: We don't need no stinkin' co-ops.

Thom,

Everyone should be allowed to hold whatever religious/spiritual beliefs that makes sense to them or makes them feel good. You’ve said that the bottom line is that your spiritual beliefs make you feel good. What you believe doesn’t make sense to me.

Now you’re a person who says that atheism is a religion and if atheists dare to express or explain their beliefs, you call them evangelical atheists, the very works kind. It seems that when it comes to atheists, you think it’s best if they stay in the closet.

You on the other hand, feel free to express your spiritual beliefs whenever you want. On your Tuesday, August 18, program, you expressed your belief that the world benefits from monks sitting around meditating, because you believe that we’re all connected on some cosmic level, and that their meditation improves the world through what would appear (from my perspective) to be magic.

I guess you can claim that there are some female monasteries, though not as prominent as male monasteries and nonexistent in Tibetan Buddhism, a tradition that you seem to hold dear. After all, you refer to the Dalai Lama a His Holiness. I guess that gives you enough wiggle room to talk your way out of charges of being oblivious to the inherent sexism involved.

Fine, believe all the spiritual and pseudoscientific things you want. That’s your right. But you really should reconsider your proposal that MY tax dollars should be used to support YOUR religious/spiritual beliefs. It’s not only disrespectful of the feelings and finances of atheists like me, but since you want to eliminate tax exemptions from all other religious traditions, it’s more arrogant than I thought you’d be. Your superstitions are better than their superstitions! Nice.

An Email to Senator Conrad;

First I want to point out that me and my wife are partial owners of the XXX Farm in XXX N.D. We have extended Family throughout North Dakota, My wife and I were married in Bottineau and I was discharged from the USAF at Minot AFB 1968.

Healthcare has always been important to my wife and I. I am a disabled vet with a service connected disability. When my wife was just 30 years old, she had a cerebral hemorrhage that left her with seizures. There were several times during our marriage where I was between jobs or had taken a job. When I was between jobs we couldn't afford the medical insurance nor the medicine that my wife required. I once had to call the rescue squad due to her having a seizure and she was taken to a local hospital.

On one job, she was denied health care benefits for the first year of my employment because of a previously existing condition. Just a little over two years ago she became totally disabled because her seizures led her to putting her hand into a hot skillet burning it severely. She is still a month away from Medicare and has a low cost insurance plan that has terrible drug coverage. Just one of her medications costs $598/ mon even at WalMart.

I looked at the Medicare formulary and over the course of a year her out of pocket costs would be over $5000, you know because of the Drug Cartel that won't allow Medicare to bargain for the best price. When she was employed and had employer based insurance the same drug was $20 for 3 months. We now are forced to purchase her medication from overseas at a price of $175 for 100 days.

I am ashamed at the United States of America for the way our health care is handled. Why are we 37th in health care behind some very small and backwards countries? Why do I have pay the highest cost for prescription medications that are required to sustain life? This is especially true when government gives money to pharmaceutical companies and universities for research into new drugs that are then patented and taken to market with no benefit to the government. The real Drug Cartel is not in Columbia or Mexico but rather in the US Corporations that rake in billions of dollars per year while people are literally dying for lack of their product.

You have the ability to change the condition that our health care is in. But a Co op is not the answer. The Co op may work for farmers in collection of their grain or in the distribution of electricity. It is not the answer for Health Care. I as well as millions of other Americans can not put our trust and welfare in any Corporation be it for profit or not for profit corporation.

My personal choice to resolve the problem is a single payer system with a strong public option. Now I realize that some people claim that this would be socialism. My first response is, so what. There are many socialized programs that Americans don't complain about. Fire and Police Departments, the Military, public schools and Universities, the post office are just a few. These were formed this way because this is the most logical and cost effective way to run these programs. North Dakota has its own State Bank that makes loans to farmers and others. Is that not a Socialized banking system? Is it an uneven playing field for the private banks in North Dakota or just a good way to protect the Citizens of the State should their be a meltdown in the global economic system?

Why, I ask you, can't you support at least a public option in health care? Why should we have to worry about losing our health care if we lose our jobs? We are not asking for any more than the coverage that you and your family enjoy. We are not asking for free health care only a more trustworthy system of delivery.
We want a system that we have some control over. It would be accountable to us, the citizens of this country not to some board of directors that may not have our best interests in mind when making decisions.

I asked the question but alas, I already know the real answer and it is truly a sad comment on just how corrupt our political system has become. When the voices of corporations become stronger than real live people there is something very wrong. The very fact that person-hood has been granted to corporations and that has led to the practice of lobbying which has corrupted the political process in this country. In most every other country in the industrialized world our politicians would be jailed for accepting bribes from these corporations.

While I no longer live in North Dakota I have family throughout the State and we will be watching your voting record as well as your press releases. When next election comes around our support either monetarily or otherwise will be for either for you or a challenger depending solely on your vote.

To Michael Gregory,

Ending a filibuster, at this time, faces several problems. First and foremost, it takes 60 votes to pass a cloture motion to end a filibuster. That rule holds whether or not all 100 senators are present and voting or not. With both Senators Kennedy and Byrd having health problems and possibly unable to vote, it would be hard to get 60 votes at best. This kind of vote requires the senators to be present, and no one else can vote for them.

The conservative Dems don't have to vote against cloture. I think they can abstain (vote present) or be absent when the vote takes place. In addition, unlike members of the House, who face election every two years, Senators have 6 years between elections. Some of the conservative Dems whose reelections are several years away may figure that people won't remember by then. The conservative Dems also come from conservative areas, small states where there may not be as much support for what would look like a big government takeover of health care.

Thom.
Don't know if you saw it, but on the Canadian CBC news there was an article about the CMA coming out and complaining about the Canadian Health Care System. Even suggesting that a Private option may be desirable! Interesting, the timing of this don't you think? Looks like the CMA is just another mouth piece for the insurance and big pharma interests.
Thank you for want you are doing!

Mugsy!

Is this country literally too stupid to live? Will Public Option be defeated by those who need it most?

Great blog, I did not realize that clicking on our highlighted names brought us to persons blog. well I will be more likely to click on them now that I know.

I have a question that I hope one of you political junkies can help me with.

Senate Majority Whip, Dick Durban, is keeping tabs on who in the Senate will or will not vote for various reforms. He says he cannot get up to 60 votes on a plan that has a 'public option'.

Here is my question: Is he telling the American public that the 6 or so Senators not on board with a 'public option' will stand with the Senate Republicans in a filibuster. I mean, even if they don't ultimately vote for the bill, do you think they'll filibuster reform? I don't. And if they will, let them. Let America see the conservative Democrats actually filibuster and defeat a bill. I think the Democrats should show some balls and give a bill (with a robust public option) an up or down vote.

Can anyone explain to me why the 60 is so important to pass the bill, I thought it was only necessary to defeat a filibuster, and like I said, I don't think the conservative Dems will filibuster - regardless of their ultimate vote. Also, I understand about Reconciliation, that's not my question.