tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32979183491272676892024-02-08T15:27:40.249-05:00papadabloggerpapadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.comBlogger110125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-78409933489193205292010-07-08T11:12:00.002-04:002010-07-08T11:17:43.455-04:00The Greatest Emerging Threat To FreedomWhat is an emerging threat to freedom and why is it critical to address it in today’s society?<br /><br />The greatest emerging threat to freedom is the persistent insistence that we face an emerging threat or even multiple emerging threats to freedom coupled with the various, odious, un-American proposals supposedly designed to avoid or defeat it or them. Our failure to address and answer this question insures the the threat will continue to grow.<br /><br />Thus, the most dangerous emerging threat to freedom is - us. <br /><br /><br />This post is an entry in the blog contest responding to the new book, New Threats to Freedom edited by Adam Bellow. The contest is open to all and further information can be found here. http://newthreatstofreedom.com/contests/papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-24558000804103603952010-04-15T10:05:00.001-04:002010-04-15T10:07:23.168-04:00Virginia's Shame Continues: Salute To TreasonThe new Governor of Virginia’s salute to the treasonous Confederacy shines a bright light on the historical litany of Virginia’s shame.<br /><br />The Civil War in America began in South Carolina, on April 12th, on Sullivan’s Island at Ft. Sumter. That was 1861 – 149 years ago. But that conflict’s root cause - the shame of Virginia - began long before then. In April 1607, the first English Christian colonists arrived on this continent. They established their settlement in Virginia and called it Jamestown. That spring, 403 years ago, marked the beginning of the end for the native population of North America. The Indians, however, were not the only ones destined to suffer the consequences of European Christian expansion. Only a dozen passed before these original white Christian Virginians decided to adopt racial slavery as their preferred mode of manual labor and as the means of accumulating personal fortune. Slaves would become, legally, just another form of real property in Virginia, another measure of a man’s wealth. The first Negro slaves were forcibly brought to Jamestown 391 years ago, in 1619. The importance of Christianity in the history of slavery in America cannot be underestimated.<br /><br />Virginia’s everlasting shame was codified in 1705, 305 years ago. Here is part of what the 1705 Virginia Slave Code said: <br /><br />"All servants imported and brought into the Country...who were not Christians in their native Country...shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion...shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resist his master...correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction...the master shall be free of all punishment...as if such accident never happened." <br /><br />Modern Americans may need to read that twice. Note the designation that servants “… who were not Christians in their native Country…” become slaves, once in Virginia. Notice too the legal codification of “All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves” as real estate. Virginia law thus made no distinction between a Negro slave and… a barn or a stable or a cabin or a grand manor house – human beings, already personal property, now regarded as real estate.<br /><br />Take note also that the Virginia Slave Code of 1705 gave a malevolent double legal protection to slave owners. First, it specifically exempted them from all sanctions for any action they took in “correcting” a slave considered to “resist his master.” It even detailed the ultimate such “correction” - the actual killing of such a slave - putting this murder beyond the purview of the law. For the Virginia slave, his master was now his God. Second, the lawmakers of Virginia, not content to safely place slave owners outside any jurisdiction of the law, felt compelled to classify a slave owners corrective action – even to the point of murder – as just an “accident” – literally, “as if (it) never happened.”<br /><br />Of the original 13 United States none had a larger slave population than Virginia. The first official count of slaves was in 1790. The initial US Census, mandated by the new Constitution, showed Virginia’s slave population had grown from a tiny boatload in 1619 to a total of 292,627 in 171 years. Already, 29 Virginia counties had more slaves than free white people and 17 more counties had nearly as many slaves as they did free, Christian whites. In April 1861 Virginia was still the state with the most slaves. In only 70 years, the total of slaves in Virginia had zoomed to 490,865, an amazing growth rate in light of the then 50-year ban on the importation of new slaves. In fact, the entire South had somehow managed to explode its slave population despite the half-century since the slave trade was legally ended. The US Census of 1790 showed the total number of slaves in the new United States to be 694,000. Seventy-one years later, at the start of The Civil War, according to the 1860 US Census there were almost 4 million Negro slaves in the seditious states that treasonously seceded from the Union. <br /><br />Throughout the history of Negro slavery in North America – first in the colonies and then in the United States of America – Virginia led the way. They were the first to have slavery. Then, the first to declare human beings to be real property. Then, to have the most slaves at the birth of this republic. And finally, to have the most slaves when the issue of slavery broke the United States of America to pieces. The Civil War remains to this day our most costly war. It dwarfs two World Wars, and numerous other conflicts, with more than 600,000 killed.<br /><br />Today, Virginia’s new Governor either doesn’t know the history of his state and his nation or he purposely, perhaps seditiously, chooses to deny it. To acknowledge and honor rebellious terrorists he only adds to Virginia’s shame.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-38692392840657028692010-04-12T09:14:00.000-04:002010-04-12T09:15:20.921-04:00Obama: End The Supreme Court's Conservative ShiftThe time is now to nominate a strong, decidedly liberal Justice to the Supreme Court. Unlike Congress and the Chief Executive, the makeup of the Court does not change every two, four or six years. The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of our government. The Presidential responsibility for making nominations may be the most lasting aspect of any President's time in office. Surely President Obama knows, a failure to grasp that opportunity, to be true to the principles of those who elected him because they believed he shared those principles, is plainly unacceptable. Especially now, after the disciplined, unanimous and fiercely partisan opposition of the Republican Party to practically every legislative and policy position of this administration, any effort to placate Republicans on a new Supreme Court appointee would be a betrayal of the 70 million Americans who voted for Barack Obama to be President.<br /><br />This President has the opportunity and the responsibility to stop the historical shift of the Supreme Court farther and farther to the right. This movement toward a more conservative membership is not a new development for the Supreme Court.<br /><br />Here's a question: Who was the last newly appointed Justice who was more liberal than the Justice he or she replaced? Take a minute to think about that.<br /><br />Byron White is the answer. White was named to replace Charles Evans Whittaker, a Justice who was so far to the right he would outflank even today's most conservative Justices. Whittaker resigned after an emotional breakdown and White was named to take that seat. When was this? Byron White was nominated by President John F. Kennedy and confirmed by the Senate in April 1962. Since then, 48 years ago to the month, each and every new Justice named to the Supreme Court has been more conservative than the one replaced. A half-century of inexorable conservative shift. The time to put an end to this is now.<br /><br />After White's 1962 confirmation there have been 25 other Supreme Court nominees, resulting in 18 new Justices. Included among them have been 3 new Chief Justices. Each of the Chiefs has been successively more conservative. Warren Burger succeeded Earl Warren and was subsequently succeeded by William Rehnquist. As openly conservative as Chief Justice Rehnquist was, in his short tenure thus far his successor, the current Chief Justice John Roberts, has been dramatically more so. There are no umpires in the Chief's seat.<br /><br />You might point to Justice White's successor to refute the Court's rightward move. Ruth Bader Ginzburg, a stalwart on this Court's liberal side, succeeded Byron White. But, as with all politics, time and distance influence measurement. By contemporary standards Justice White would be the most liberal judge on today's high court. So, Ginzburg, although a liberal herself, has actually been more conservative than her predecessor. Even the Court's first black Justice, the renowned Thurgood Marshall, did not make his seat on the Court any more liberal than it had been before him. Marshall replaced Justice Tom Clark, the man President Truman called, "My biggest mistake." If you can't imagine a Justice more liberal than Thurgood Marshall, remember that Justice Clark wrote the majority opinions in the Court's landmark decisions to ban Bible reading in public schools and to extend the exclusionary protections of the 4th Amendment to the states. How many votes on today's Supreme Court would either of those opinions manage to get?<br /><br />Since Kennedy named Byron White to the Court, 7 nominees have failed to gain a seat there. Some nominations were withdrawn after the nominating President saw that confirmation would be impossible. Others were voted down in the Senate. A failed nomination is also nothing new in our history. There have been 29 failed Presidential nominees to the Supreme Court beginning with William Paterson, nominated by George Washington in 1793, and going all the way to Harriet Miers who was unsuccessfully nominated by George W. Bush in 2005. Of these nominees who failed to enter the Court, 15 were either withdrawn or the Senate took no action on them. But 14 nominees have gone all the way to a vote in the Senate where they were rejected. The first was John Rutledge in 1795 and the last to meet such a fate was Robert Bork in 1987. It is important to take note that perhaps the two most popular Presidents ever, George Washington and Ronald Reagan, both had Supreme Court nominees rejected by the Senate.<br /><br />President Barack Obama has an historic opportunity to halt the nearly 50 year conservative shift in the Supreme Court. He was elected by voters who expect him to do just that. The last two Republican Presidents, Bush the Elder and Bush the Younger each nominated the most openly right-wing Justices available. The Elder's legacy will be forever linked to Clarence Thomas and the Younger is responsible for Justice Alito and the Chief Justice John Roberts. The Presidents Bush took principled stands. We expect nothing less from this President.<br /><br />If we are to really get a change we can believe in, it must come in the Supreme Court. President Barack Obama needs to stand up and proudly nominate a strong, decidedly liberal nominee to replace Justice Stevens. Any nominee who is less should not be confirmed.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-64085461801352338502010-04-12T09:12:00.001-04:002010-04-12T09:12:59.778-04:00"Media Entertainers" - Small Audience, Little InfluenceA long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... I was in the broadcasting business. I have some experience with ratings for radio and television. I know something about the size of audiences for media personalities and their influence on public life and policy -- or lack of it.<br /><br />I am amused and puzzled at how much attention is paid these days to entertainers like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Keith Olbermann. The crew at MSNBC -- really only Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, since the others on that NBC owned channel can hardly be said to be politically off-center by any reasonable ideological measurement -- actually has an historically small viewing audience and is not seen as a real threat even by its right-wing competitors. Of course, those same right-wing entertainers, mainly found on the FOX NEWS cable channel and various radio stations, have similarly small audiences when measured against the industry as a whole and particularly past broadcasting personalities who put on similar type programs.<br /><br />Numbers can be boring, but you can look them up. Yes, Olbermann and Maddow have more than a million viewers and the FOX NEWS group grabs about two to four times that many. By far the biggest audience for political entertainment belongs to Rush Limbaugh. Although his ratings change from time to time, it is generally agreed that Rush Limbaugh has between 16 and 20 million listeners. However, instead of boasting about "talent on loan from God" and some of his other frequent and adolescent self-worth estimates, Limbaugh ought to be humbled at his historical irrelevance in his own field. That assessment may surprise and upset some people -- "Dittoheads" they're called. But, giving Rush Limbaugh every one of his 20 million listeners, rather than the smaller numbers often reported, that means he reaches at most 6% of the American people. I think its fair to say that God might want to do a little better, especially considering His past experience on-the-air.<br /><br />More than 70 years ago, back in the 1930s when the United States had only 122 million people, less than 40% of its current 308 million, a priest named Charles Caughlin (a priest long before that designation carried the negative weight of recent revelations) had twice the number of radio listeners Rush Limbaugh has now. Father Caughlin regularly reached some 40 million Americans. That's hardly a contest: Caughlin 33% of the American people, Rush Limbaugh 6%. Check Caughlin out. You'll find his show business style quite different from Limbaugh, but their content and approach to those in political power is strikingly similar. While Caughlin was sure Franklin Roosevelt meant the end of Western Civilization, as we know it, Rush Limbaugh feels the same way about Barack Obama. If Obama is really worried about the effect of right wing entertainers, especially Limbaugh, he might want to remember that FDR was elected President of the United States four times in a row from 1932 to 1944.<br /><br />Another long ago favorite, Walter Winchell, also had many more listeners 60 years ago than Rush Limbaugh has in 2010. Plus, in his later years Winchell, with his trademark hat, was a TV hit -- quite the opposite of Limbaugh's failed attempt to make it on television. Walter Winchell was also in more than 2000 newspapers, at a time when newspapers were the major source for Americans to get their news and information. In terms of political leaning and ideology, Rush Limbaugh, Charles Caughlin and Walter Winchell are three peas in a pod. The right wing radio entertainers have been warning us of impending socialism for nearly 80 years. So, what separates these men besides the size of their listening audience? The answer is, the attention paid to them by others especially other media. In their day nobody, particularly other media, except those who tuned-in cared one way or the other about Caughlin or Winchell.<br /><br />This same question applies to all the modern right wing media entertainers -- Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and the lesser-known but equally outlandish performers who populate the radio airwaves -- people like Michael Savage, Laura Ingram and Neal Boortz. These are all great entertainers, excellent "air personalities" and performers. But the question is: Why does anyone pay serious attention to anything they say? For that, I have no quick answer. My guess is we are easily bored and just as easily, albeit temporarily, entertained. That doesn't say much for those who invest themselves in entertaining us with what are often factually incorrect or entirely made-up political positions. And, let's face it -- that doesn't say much for us either.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-2324553584139151182010-03-19T16:12:00.001-04:002010-03-19T16:13:39.737-04:00The Commander-In-Chief Test: Failed?The American Revolution was inspired and led by civilians, not by Generals. Later, our Constitution was likewise conceived and written by civilians. We have no history of military control over our political institutions. The Founders entrusted the President with the power to command the entire military of the United States because they realized it was - and always would be - essential to a free representative republic that there be absolute civilian control of the violent potential of the state. This ideal separated the new United States from all past empires and all contemporary Great Powers of the Eighteenth Century. A President leading armies in the field was never the vision of the Constitution. But a republic free from the threat of tyranny required a heavy civilian hand hard upon the neck of the armed forces. The primary responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief is to lend weight to that hand, to firmly apply pressure, never giving the beast a chance to run wild.<br /><br />Contrary to popular belief, and recent Executive custom, the Constitution conveys only three powers to the President of the United States that are entirely his and not subject to review or reversal. They are: Commander-in-Chief; oversight of members of the cabinet; and the issuance of pardons. These specific yet diverse authorities are all included in a single sentence, in Article II Section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."<br /><br />Some might say that the Executive Order should be counted here as well. However, no such Executive authority is granted by the Constitution. Such a power will not be found anywhere within the document. Andrew Jackson invented it to continue his punishment of those Cherokee Indians who suffered the misfortune to remain alive while he was President. When the Supreme Court ruled Jackson's order out of order, his only response was to mock the Court's helpless inability to enforce its decision. Pity the poor Cherokee. Ever since, the Executive Order has been a source of continued Presidential shame. Lincoln fairly gutted the Constitution during The Civil War via the Executive Order. Woodrow Wilson and later FDR used them to defy recalcitrant Congresses during their war years, much the same as Lincoln had. The Executive Order might better be called what it is - rule by decree.<br /><br />As to those three powers a President does legally have, no one has ever sought to challenge the power of the pardon although many have questioned the worthiness of its beneficiaries. Lincoln's successor, President Andrew Johnson was impeached for his exercise of oversight of his cabinet. After the Senate failed to convict him, no President since Johnson has needed to worry about that again. Over time these two Presidential powers have come to be seen as absolute.<br /><br />The Commander-in-Chief designation is quite another matter. While we have had many Presidents who served in the military; some in combat and some who were Generals; only two Presidents have led American forces into battle as Commander-in-Chief. George Washington donned his old uniform and personally commanded 12,000 federal troops in Western Pennsylvania, as they put down the Whiskey Rebellion in the late summer of 1794. Ironically, our first President then pardoned the rebellion's leader, a man known as Tom The Tinker.<br /><br />Twenty years later, on August 24, 1814, James Madison briefly commanded about 5,000 US soldiers against the invading British army at the battle of Bladensburg. While Washington's stint in the field had been a success, Madison was humiliated in defeat. The British went on to burn down the Capital and the White House before finally losing the war for many of the same reasons they lost the American Revolution almost 40 years before.<br /><br />No one has posed a challenge to an American President as Commander-in-Chief since 1814 unless you count the occasional insubordinate General officer. Despite this longtime acceptance of Executive authority many have questioned the Commander-in-Chief credentials of those who sought the Presidency. In fact, some candidates have been declared to be outright incompetent. In the election of 2008 much was made about the so-called "Commander-in-Chief test." The Constitution was of no help in that debate. There is nothing in that document - certainly nothing about a 3am phone call - that guides us in even recognizing the qualities needed for the job. We are left to make that judgment ourselves. Nevertheless, Barack Obama's principle opponents in that election, Hillary Clinton and then John McCain, both claimed a special knowledge that Obama had failed this nonexistent exam. The American people overwhelmingly disagreed.<br /><br />While in principle no Commander-in-Chief test may exist for candidates, the President of the United States, once in office, is most certainly faced with one. Wars are matter of policy, but civilian control over the military is a matter of high principle. The foundation of America's freedom is civilian control and the President is the sole guardian of that sacred trust. No task he faces is of greater consequence.<br /><br />It is with great disappointment that I have unexpectedly come to see the sad truth that President Barack Obama is failing the Commander-in-Chief test.<br /><br />Recent events in Afghanistan now highlight how badly our current Commander-in-Chief has loosened the bridle. The stampede begins. Reports are widespread, from many sources around the world, that General Stanley McCrystal has lost control of the American Special Forces in Afghanistan. Our own men in uniform are not following the commander's Rules of Engagement. Substantial elements of American fighting forces, plus private soldiers who are hired assassins in the direct employ of the United States government, and are unknown and unaccountable to the public, are now apparently operating beyond the effective control of the Commander-in-Chief. The chain of command in Afghanistan is broken. That means the constitutional chain of command, which Harry Truman dramatically demonstrated ends in the White House not in the Pentagon, no longer exists. The Commander-in-Chief is not in command.<br /><br />If absolute civilian control over the world's mightiest military machine has been lost, whether surrendered voluntarily or involuntarily, the Constitution will have been abridged in a manner even Andrew Jackson or Abraham Lincoln could not have imagined. There is still time for repair. Barack Obama's term of office is four years. We are barely a quarter way through. But his current failure conjures up the worst fears of our Founding Fathers. Without a stout, firm, unflinching Commander-in-Chief who is without doubt in complete control of the US military complex, we stand in jeopardy - as Benjamin Franklin painfully predicted - of losing our republic and our freedom.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-58027351222548887362010-02-09T11:25:00.002-05:002010-02-09T11:47:20.163-05:00SINGLE-WING FORMATIONGore Vidal has probably been misquoted more times than anyone since Jesus. Nevertheless, and no matter how he said it exactly, it was Vidal’s opinion that the United States has only one political party, and that that party has two right wings. One wing may be less right than the other, but still both swing and flap from the same side. Thus the Vidal quote (or misquote) – “We have a one-party system with two right wings.”<br /><br />Actually, we have a no-party system in the United States running from an obsolete single-wing formation.<br /><br />The elected portion of the federal government consists of 435 Members of the House of Representatives, 100 Senators and a President and Vice-President. Of these 537 office holders none are actually chosen by state and local party organizations that have anything at all resembling a disciplined, central connection to a similarly organized and disciplined national political party. You may think they do – because across the country they call themselves Democrats and Republicans while a compliant media agrees - but they don’t and they know it.<br /><br />In this 111th Congress all 435 seats in the House are filled by candidates who were elected as either Democrats or Republicans. Nowhere in America did a single Congressional district think to send an Independent or minor party candidate to Congress. Parties must mean a lot then, right? Well, actually not. You see, not one of these Congressmen – male and female alike - got to be candidates as the appointed choice of a national political party. Most of these Congressional hopefuls were not put up by their parties for election, but rather they were elected by primary voters who in many places did not even have to be registered party members to vote in those primaries. Neither party officials nor actual party members chose them. <br /><br />As a result, many Members of Congress from the same party hold differing views on the same issues. Nationwide, neither Democrats nor Republicans running for Congress supported the national party line because no such party line existed. Congressional candidates answer to no national party leadership until after they are elected and seated in the House. And for many, who are by then Members of Congress, it’s too late to impose meaningful party discipline. As sitting Members they owe nothing to any national party organization, especially their election.<br /><br />In the House of Representatives, both Democrats and Republicans are far more likely to be loyal to self-appointed cliques; semi-official caucuses or even undisclosed, hidden personal alliances than they are to be willingly subservient to any national party or Congressional leader. In effect, in the House of Representatives, the national parties serve at the pleasure of their membership, not the other way around.<br /><br />It’s far worse in the Senate. In that body sits 100 senators each with a personal and permanent, statewide constituency, a local organization of the sort that used to be known as “machines.” Each senator has been at some point an individual primary election winner and – rather than represent their affiliated political party in their state – they often become that party simply by virtue of their position as a senator. With a six-year term, serving longer than even a President, to whom then do these US senators owe political allegiance? To themselves.<br /><br />And our quadrennial Presidential candidates are all the winners of long and bitter campaigns capped by vicious primary battles. These mainly independent, individual personalities enter the race for President for personal reasons not necessarily having any ideological or party application. Most plan and raise funds for their election race years in advance. They are certainly not the handpicked representatives of any national party organization. Not since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower have the Democrats and Republicans picked their Presidential candidates in the storied smoke filled backrooms. Party bigwigs do not choose our Presidential candidates. They are determined by a series of state primaries, separate elections decided on separate issues, with some so personal as to be completely non-political. <br /><br />So it has been for more than half a century that when the Presidential candidates finally emerge from the pack of those seeking the nomination, both of our major political parties become mirrors for that particular candidate rather than having that winner represent the already well-established views of that party. It’s the party that changes from election to election to fit the candidate. The definition of the party awaits the winner. Which is the chicken and which the egg? In some years the parties’ choices are radically different and the results are as unlikely as going to a steakhouse and ending up eating a veggie plate.<br /><br />In the end, we get an elected federal government made up of Democrats and Republicans who for the most part disagree with each other as often as they disagree with the other party. And frequently, in Congress, we have small groups of Representatives and Senators from different parties who actually have more in common with each other than they do with any sense of what is supposed to be their own national party. It can be these blocks of cross-party votes that often control key legislation – all of it outside the so-called, accepted two-party party system. And usually, as Gore Vidal envisioned, both wings wave decidedly to the right in a single-wing formation.<br /><br />On top of all this we inevitably have a President and Vice-President who are just as much in disagreement with many of the members of their own party in Congress as those members may be with themselves. We find ourselves with a government of Alfonse & Gaston, Laurel & Hardy, Martin & Lewis, all searching for the Marx Brothers.<br /><br />While we like to think it is so, our two major political parties do not run our federal government. That government is in the hands of people with at best a loose affiliation to whatever they call their national political party. In the starkest of realities this accounts for why the current huge Democratic Party majority in the House and a super-majority of Democrats in the Senate means very little in terms of getting anything done. A Democrat in the White House apparently makes no difference at all. Our no-party system seems ideally designed to produce no-government.<br /><br />It doesn’t have to be this way and it isn’t elsewhere. Here’s how the British do it. To be a candidate for Parliament in Britain you must be chosen by the official party organization in a Parliamentary district. After such a selection has been made, the national party organization has a binding veto. They must approve each and every candidate selection. When a British political party issues a platform, a statement of its beliefs and programs, a promise of what it will do if it forms a government, all its Parliamentary candidates support all of it without exception. If they don’t, they never get to run for election. <br /><br />Unlike our Democrats and Republicans, there are no moderates or radicals in the same British parties. There are no conservatives and liberals within the same party. No blue-dogs, yellow-dogs or “mavericks” in England. Of course independents can and do run for Parliament in Britain, but never as a candidate of the established political parties. When a Parliamentary leader wants to rally his members there are no questions that all of them will vote the party line. Because there really is a party line and everyone knows full well what it is. If they disobey they risk severe punishment even expulsion from the party and from Parliament. Imagine that in our Congress. How could a Joe Lieberman earn a living? <br /><br />We, in the United States, have no real party line, no actual party ideology, because we have no real national political parties. The overriding political ideology at work here seems to be little more than – “In The Grand Scheme Of The Universe, We Get What We Deserve.” What we get is a Congress – in fact an entire federal government – that too often just doesn’t work.<br /><br />You don’t have to be Gore Vidal to know that in a single-wing formation, a bird with two right wings can’t fly.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-57689230259877753132010-02-06T17:51:00.002-05:002010-02-06T18:06:41.910-05:00WE HAVE A CRISIS, MISTER VICE PRESIDENTNearly 100 years ago President Woodrow Wilson pegged the Senate filibuster for exactly what it was. Wilson asserted that the filibuster served only to enable "a little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own," to debase the Senate and turn it into "the only legislative body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for action."<br /><br />Who is to blame for the filibuster? The answer is: those who are the Senators. A glance in the mirror is all it takes to see the enemy of democracy, the obstructionists, those who would willingly disable the Constitution. The filibuster is a creature of the Senate; wholly its own creation; thriving only at the pleasure of those who sit in that chamber today. Nothing in the Constitution mentions the filibuster or for that matter any rule or regulation governing the proceedings of Congress. Those who are the Members make their own rules. The Constitution is clear on that. They may change them at any time. And the procedure allowed for that change is really quite simple.<br /><br />If you are being told that decades of Senate tradition are difficult to overcome, you are being purposely misled.<br /><br />Here is exactly what the Constitution says about proceedings in the Senate. Article I, Section 5: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”<br /><br />That’s it. Nothing more. Not a single word. Filibuster? Invented by Senators for Senators.<br /><br />In March of 1975, the second appointed Vice-President of the United States, the never elected Nelson Rockefeller, made a courageous ruling from the Chair in his constitutionally mandated position as President of the Senate. Here is how the Constitution makes this designation in Article I, Section 3: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”<br /><br />Rockefeller ruled that each Senate – which is to say each meeting of this body following an election or every two years - is a separate body and is not bound by the rules of previous Senates. That means that each new Senate must either pass a complete set of procedural rules for itself or take affirmative action to subscribe to previous rules previously established. Further, Rockefeller ruled specifically that Senate Rule 22 – which is the filibuster rule – could be overruled, could be changed, could be altered or even eliminated altogether by a simple majority vote of those senators voting. He was the President of the Senate. Such was his perfectly constitutional ruling. Rockefeller’s dramatic declaration was indeed challenged, by senators from the right and from the left, by Republicans and by Democrats, by conservatives and liberals, by Southerners and those from other parts of the country as well. But when it came to a vote, the forces of reform – those who supported the Rockefeller ruling - won the day by a vote of 56-27. <br /><br />However, the very same victorious senators then immediately turned around and agreed to negotiate with the defeated forces of the filibuster. Why? Why would the winner offer to settle? Losers settle. Winners celebrate, don't they? After all, they had already won the procedural battle. The President of the Senate was on their side. Game over. Who is to say why, but its true - they did. And so a modification to Rule 22 was passed reducing the number of votes necessary to stop a filibuster from two-thirds of all senators to three-fifths. In essence, after March 1975 it now took 60 senators to halt a filibuster instead of 67. And yet the Rockefeller ruling remained – and remains to this day – in place. A majority of senators may – at their pleasure – send the filibuster flying full force into the fires of Hell. The filibuster could be, as Chuck Berry might say: “Gone like a cool breeze.” All thanks to the legacy of Nelson Rockefeller.<br /><br />That was 35 years ago. Now, in 2010, we see a federal government stymied by obstructionism in a Senate where using Rule 22 brings the entire Congressional system to a grinding halt. The Congress has been rendered impotent. Nothing the House passes matters because no bill can avoid Rule 22 when it reaches the Senate. And so, no legislation actually gets passed by the Congress as a whole and nothing at all gets sent to the President for signature. Also, the Executive branch cannot operate at full capacity because so many of its appointees require Senate approval and those appointments, like all other procedural matters, cannot reach the floor for a vote… because of Rule 22. Yes, that "little group of willful men."<br /><br />It is time for the current Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, to rise up from his decades of legislative slumber – himself a nearly lifelong Member of the Senate – and his more recent Executive depression and take the Chair in the United States Senate – which is his constitutional duty – and, in the spirit of Vice President Rockefeller, Biden must declare Rule 22 as void. Pitch it into the dust bin of history. The Vice President should stand for the Constitution. A procedural rule that eliminates the possibility of tie vote in the Senate must be unconstitutional in the first place. How could the Constitution entrust the breaking of a tie vote - “…unless they be equally divided.” - to the Vice President if no such vote total is allowed?<br />Mister Vice President, we have a crisis. Step up and be counted. Take the mantle of Rockefeller and the myth from Jimmy Stewart. Its time to be the man!papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-19460022558284569462010-01-31T13:52:00.002-05:002010-01-31T14:35:26.323-05:00SUPER BOWL/CBS UPDATE: ADVOCACY AD REJECTEDThe Supreme Court has ruled that corporations - even non-profit corporations - can spend any amount of money they want to try to influence national attitudes on issues of public interest, most particularly in elections. The result of this sort of unleashing of third-party advocacy ads - advertisements that have nothing to do with selling any products or services to anyone - can be seen in the decision of CBS to sell a commercial in the Super Bowl telecast to a corporation called Focus On The Family. Their commercial message features a popular college football player, Tim Tibow, and is openly anti-abortion rights. To sway public thinking on abortion rights - that's the only purpose for this non-profit organization to pay $2.5 million or more for this commercial. Focus On The Family has nothing - let me repeat that - they have NOTHING to sell to the American people. No burgers, no fries, no beer, no stocks, bonds or mutual funds, no cars or computers. And Focus On The Family certainly isn't in the dating business.<br /><br />The Court has ruled. The "right to spend" has been established. But the "right to buy" is still somewhere off in the distance floating, adrift in the unknown. CBS is not required by law or regulation to sell time to Focus On The Family - or to any advertiser... not Coke, Apple, E-Trade, MacDonald's... not anyone. It's entirely up to them. An advocacy ad is treated like any other at CBS - or so they say - and somehow, without comment, this anti-abortion ad seems quite acceptable for CBS on Super Bowl Sunday.<br /><br />CBS didn't accept everyone who wanted to buy a commercial in the Super Bowl. They refused an ad from a gay male dating service. I've seen the ad. It's pretty funny. Three guys are watching what we are to assume is the Super Bowl. One team scores a touchdown and two of them react as any fans might - jumping up and down, arms raised in the air, shouting, smiling... you've seen it all before. But then, they reach for the chips and their hands touch. Kaboom! Magic strikes. The next thing you know they're locked in an embrace, kissing (although we do not see their faces or lips)... and the third guy in the room is in obvious shock. It is a funny commercial, well within the tradition of funny Super Bowl commercials. Finally we see the corporate logo and ID and we, the viewers, discover this is an advertisement for a gay male dating service.<br /><br />CBS won't run this commercial. They turned it down. It doesn't meet their standards. We don't know what those standards are. CBS has not made them public. But, talking babies who sell stock... well, they're just fine. And a famous college football player who thinks abortion is against God's wishes (how do he know?)... as far as CBS is concerned that's also a good commercial to broadcast.<br /><br />I have no dog in this silly race - the one pitting Focus On The Family against a gay male dating service. I'm not in the target market for whatever either of them has to offer. I only want to point out that an absence of a "right to buy" can make a "right to spend" meaningless.<br /><br />Perhaps you don't care about this one. But what happens when CBS, or any of the networks or any of the thousands of radio and television stations across the United States, decides which corporate ads supporting certain candidates for public office they will run and which they will reject? Take a look at who owns the media and tell me if you don't know already that this will happen and if you can't figure out whose ads will get on the air and whose will never see the light of day.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-21792453302703556202010-01-27T10:18:00.002-05:002010-01-27T11:00:49.657-05:00BURGERS, BEER, BREASTS... AND ABORTION AT THE SUPER BOWLCBS has sold commercial time in the Super Bowl to fast food companies selling hamburgers, companies who sell beer, and a Christian advocacy group called Focus On The Family. What could they be selling? The content of the Focus On The Family ad is openly anti-abortion rights and features a famous college football player, Tim Tibow of the University of Florida, previously best known for wearing Bible citations prominently displayed on his glare protectors – those little black pasties some players wear on their cheeks under their eyes to keep the sunshine out. It is estimated that the cost for this 30-second commercial will be at least $2.5 million. Who is really paying for this? The buyer is saying that “a handful of generous friends” are making this ad possible. Focus On The Family is, naturally, a tax exempt, non-profit religious organization. So, in a very real sense you can say that you are helping to pay for this little piece of television propaganda. Since your taxes have to make up for the taxes Focus On The Family doesn’t pay, yes you are footing the bill for them and adding to the revenue at CBS.<br /><br />As a former broadcaster, I do not feel that advocacy ads (that’s the phrase now in vogue for what is otherwise “propaganda”) have any place in commercial broadcasting. When I was the General Manager of a radio station I had a strict policy that all advertisers had to use their commercial time to sell whatever product or service they offered to the public. The only exception I made was at Christmas when advertisers were allowed to use their time to extend holiday wishes to the listening audience. Other than that – if you sold burgers, your commercials had to be about burgers; if you sold cars, they had to be about your cars… you could say anything you wanted about your business and nothing about anything else… you get the idea.<br /><br />There were times when certain advertisers wanted to “hitch a ride” on timely issues of public interest. For example, years ago we had a series of terrible child murders and a large, chain operated fast-food company wanted to use its commercials to advertise their donations to a fund for the affected families. I rejected this idea. In the spirit of disclosure, I should add that my station was alone in my city in refusing to run these commercials. I didn’t reject this company making donations. I applauded their good intentions. I just wouldn’t let them use their “generosity” as part of their commercials to influence my station’s listeners. They were selling food – not charity. Some people disagreed with me. I thought I was right then, and I still do.<br /><br />In 2004 CBS rejected an ad for that year’s Super Bowl from another advocacy group, MoveOn.org. The fact that they’ve sold time this year to Focus On The Family seems to show that CBS approves of anti-abortion ads – although the legal right to an abortion is the law of the land according to the Supreme Court – but they object to ads critical of the President (if the President is George W. Bush as he was in 2004) – although criticism of the President (no matter who he may be) is also perfectly legal and constitutionally protected, just like the right to an abortion. <br /><br />CBS made a choice, twice. Good for them. That is what a responsible broadcaster should do. However, it is not CBS alone who is legally charged with making these decisions. Broadcasting on the public airwaves has been regulated by the federal government since 1934. There's nothing new here. Commercial regulation rightly belongs with the federal government. That is what a responsible FCC and Congress should do. It's the law.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has declared that just about anyone can spend just about any amount of money they wish to express just about any opinion they happen to favor or to oppose any they don’t like. The Court has ruled that there is indeed a constitutional right “to spend.” Money talks. Freedom of speech. Someday, soon perhaps, you may see an advocacy ad supporting or attacking a candidate for public office, a bit of TV propaganda with a disclosure statement saying... "paid for by a few generous friends."Just like Focus On The Family. Maybe "a few generous friends" can swing an election. How will you feel about that?<br /><br />There may be a right "to spend" but, as yet there is no constitutional right “to buy.” Just ask MoveOn.org. They had millions in cash ready to hand over to CBS for 30 little seconds. CBS said, “No. You’re not welcome.” Now, Focus On The Family wants the very same exact access to the very same program, to the largest television audience in America, on the Super Bowl, and CBS said, “Yes. Show me the money!”<br /><br />It’s time for the FCC, or if necessary for Congress itself, to prohibit all third-party, non-commercial, so-called advocacy ads. The airwaves still belong to the public, despite the fact that we “license” them and persist in calling those “licenses” ownership. The FCC regulates many things on-the-air. Remember Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl? There were fines - big fines - for that mishap. The FCC bans pornography. I think “advocacy ads” or social propaganda – are more pornographic than an all too brief look at Janet Jackson's beautiful breast.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-44324268261987405402010-01-21T19:23:00.002-05:002010-01-21T19:28:28.587-05:00"THE SKY IS FALLING!"Nobody ever said the Constitution was right about everything, Remember human slavery? It took 76 years to get an amendment to the Constitution ending that. It’s too easy to forget that from 1789 until 1865 owning another human being as a piece of property was perfectly legal and entirely constitutional.<br /><br />Now, many people are up in arms that the Supreme Court has ended limits on political spending by corporations, unions and just about anyone else. Check the 1st Amendment. If it protects your speech, doesn’t it also protect the other guy’s speech?<br /><br />And, if a political contribution isn’t speech – protected by the 1st Amendment – what is it? The Court has ruled that nude dancing in a nightclub is speech. Isn’t spending your money to influence public discourse just as much an expression as pole dancing? Actually, that question has been rendered just as irrelevant as is any remaining strip club controversy. The Supreme Court has just ruled that Congress cannot limit political expenditures. As a result some people are crying out like Chicken Little – “THE SKY IS FALLING.” Of course they mean its democracy that’s falling. Corporations will now overwhelm political advertising, won’t they - perhaps, to the exclusion of the candidates themselves? Is the democratic sky really falling?<br /><br />Maybe. Maybe not.<br /><br />Federal election laws require that broadcast media, which the Federal Communications Commission regulates, is required to sell time to candidates and when they do sell that advertising they must offer the same amount of time, at the same cost, to all candidates for the same office. What the law does not cover is third-party political advertising – the sort the Supreme Court just ruled could not be financially limited. They may not be financially constrained, but who says Radio & TV has to run these political commercials?<br /><br />Some of papa’s readers know papa once owned radio stations. There were times when I refused to sell time to advertisers – for various reasons. And there were times when those who were refused access to papa’s radio stations threatened to sue. Naturally they claimed I was interfering with their “1st Amendment rights.” They were wrong. There are no “constitutional rights” to buy advertising.<br /><br />There is nothing in any FCC ruling that requires a radio or television station to sell time to anyone… except candidates for public office.<br /><br />So, forget about the Supreme Court ruling. There is nothing to be afraid of. Democracy is not in danger. All we need to do to keep “the sky from falling” is for broadcasters to refuse to sell political time to anyone except a registered candidate for public office.<br /><br />Or how about a 28th Amendment covering limitations on political spending? Our Constitution is still subject to amendment, isn’t it? So, start one rolling!<br /><br />Anyone want to bet any of that stands a chance of happening?papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-26742671356023377162010-01-20T18:22:00.002-05:002010-01-20T18:36:23.299-05:00THE FILIBUSTER - UNCONSTITUTIONAL?What are we to make of this thing called the filibuster? Neither the idea of it nor the word itself can be found anywhere in the US Constitution. The filibuster is a creation of the Senate, and perhaps its curse as well. They have only themselves to blame for it and the trouble it presents to democratic majority rule. From the very 1st Congress through the 64th Congress, the Senate had no rules whatsoever regarding the length of debate. Unlike the House of Representatives, debate in the Senate was unregulated as to its duration. Any Senator “with the floor” could hold it for as long as they liked.<br /><br />On March 8, 1917, during the 65th Congress, in which the Senate had 52 Democrats, 43 Republicans and 1 Independent, the Senate adopted Rule 22, otherwise known as the filibuster rule. It established a two-thirds vote as the number necessary to invoke cloture or to shut down a filibuster. The two-thirds requirement remained in effect until the 104th Congress in 1975 when Rule 22 was amended to reduce that vote to three-fifths. The 104th Congress had 52 Republican Senators and 48 Democrats. Nevertheless, two-thirds of them cooperated in reducing the number of votes needed to shut-off debate in the Senate chamber. It’s been that way ever since.<br /><br />It is interesting to note that of the 111 sessions of Congress in the history of the United States of America only one – the 89th Congress – had a political party breakdown capable of stopping the minority from launching a filibuster. The assassination of JFK combined with the Republican Party’s nomination of Barry Goldwater resulted in the 89th Congress with 68 Democrats and 32 Republicans. It served from 1965-1967. Perhaps it’s only a coincidence that this Congress managed to pass the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and they created Medicare as well. No other Congress, of all the 111 that have served the country can lay claim to such radical or revolutionary legislation.<br /><br />The question naturally arises – Is the filibuster, and Senate Rule 22, constitutional? Yes, the Constitution does give the Senate the authority to set its own rules. But, can those rules violate the Constitution itself? What if the Senate passed a rule making only white Senators eligible to serve? Sure, only Senator Roland Burris of Illinois would be affected today, but still… would such a Senate rule be constitutional? Could they do that? Could, for example, a future Senate vote to exclude Senators of a certain religion, or sexual orientation? If the Senate can "determine the rules of its proceedings…” couldn’t it do that?<br /><br />It’s doubtful that any legal expert would agree that such a Senate rule could survive a constitutional test in the Supreme Court.<br /><br />So, what about the filibuster rule, Rule 22, and its obvious conflict with the powers of the Vice President as expressly written in the US Constitution?<br /><br />The powers and duties of the Vice President are only mentioned in two places in the Constitution. In Article II, Section 1 the document details the succession of the Vice President to the Presidency when the President can no longer fulfill that position. However, it is what is written in Article I, Section 3 pertaining to the more mundane duties assigned to the Vice President of the United States that is of importance regarding the filibuster. The Constitution says: “The Vice President of the United States shall be the President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.” That’s it – the Vice President breaks tie votes in the Senate. The Constitution actually says this in clear and unambiguous wording – “…no vote, unless they be equally divided.” Can there be any question about what that means?<br /><br />The Constitution doesn’t just envision the possibility of a tie vote in the Senate. It recognizes the certainty of it and it further recognizes a one-vote majority as carrying the issue, one way or the other. A majority carries the issue at hand. No mention of any “super-majority.” Whatever the exact vote total may be, if “they be equally divided” the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote is the deciding one. How can the Senate pass a rule – such as Rule 22 – that eliminates the possibility of a tie vote? A Senate rule to the contrary, one making it impossible to have a tie vote seems to violate the constitutional duties and powers granted the Vice President. How else could the Vice President break a tie if no tie vote is possible?<br /><br />Anything greater than a simple majority essentially robs the Vice President of his or her constitutionally designated power and authority. Thus, the whole idea of needing 67 or 60 or any number of votes greater than a numerical majority to get something passed – even to invoke cloture and call a vote to order – seems to be unconstitutional.<br /><br />The US Constitution has real meaning. No court has ever said anything like… “Well that doesn’t really matter.” Even the most obscure provision still holds sway. When discussing the Congress and its separation from the Executive branch, America’s founding document states the following: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased [sic] during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”<br /><br />A little on the obscure side, but the intent there is simple enough to determine. No sitting member of the House of Representatives and/or no currently serving member of the Senate may be appointed to a job in the Executive branch which was either created by or had its compensation increased by the very same Congress of which that member was part of. Who could not understand this detailed and specific prohibition? Should Congress create an executive position or increase the pay of an existing executive position, no member of that Congress may take that job. Additionally, if a current member of either house of Congress does take a job in the administration, they must give up their seat in Congress. No one can serve in both jobs at the same time.<br /><br />The Constitution – on this point - is clear, unambiguous and not subject to any esoteric interpretation. <br /><br />So it was when Hillary Clinton, then a sitting Senator from New York, agreed to become the Secretary of State in the new Obama administration, she had to both resign from the Senate and the position she was taking, namely that of Secretary of State, had to have its salary rolled back because Senator Clinton was a member of the same Senate that had previously increased the Secretary’s compensation. Check it out… it says, “…or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased(sic) during such time…” Sure, the increase was meant for Secretary Condoleezza Rice, but that doesn’t matter. The wording of the Constitution is explicit. No one thought to disregard this when Senator Clinton became Secretary of State Clinton. The pay for the position was indeed rolled back.<br /><br />The wording of the Constitution is equally clear and equally unambiguous about how Congress goes about deciding to operate on a daily basis. Here is exactly what the Constitution says: “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings…” It’s simple and straightforward. The Senate can make up any rules at all for its own operation. Are they limited to reasonable rules? How silly or strange might they possibly be? For example: the Senate could require all Senators to stand on one leg when they speak, or require them to speak from a prone position, or sitting down, or while doing a handstand, or with a finger stuck in their ear… or anything? Yes, they could do anything even as foolish as that. If the Senate can “…determine the rules of its proceedings…” then it can do anything, right?<br /><br />Well, almost anything. No reasonable person would assert that the Senate might promulgate rules that violate the Constitution. Even the constitutional rights of Congress have limits. Hardly any portion of the Constitution is without some limitation.<br /><br />The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but everyone agrees – especially the Supreme Court – that this freedom does not extend to crying “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or for that matter, engaging in libel or slander. But, if you want to call the President of the United States a Marxist, a Leninist, a socialist, an illegal alien born in Kenya, or even a fucking idiot – go right ahead – that is Constitutionally protected speech.<br /><br />The question remains, however, is Senate Rule 22 constitutional?<br /><br />The Majority Leader of the Senate – right now that would be Harry Reid of Nevada – has the authority to declare, from his desk as Presiding Officer, that Rule 22 is unconstitutional and therefore no longer in effect. If a simple majority of Senators voting agreed with such a ruling from the Chair, the filibuster would become a thing of the past.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-45856457844039418032010-01-16T12:20:00.002-05:002010-01-16T12:32:17.984-05:00"BIG WATER" FLOODS "SMALL TOWN"“Big Water” floods “small town” every time.<br /><br />The closer the Republican Party gets to Sarah Palin, the closer the Republican Party gets to electoral oblivion. That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact.<br /><br />So long as the Democrats run a “Big Water” strategy, they will win every Presidential election for the foreseeable future. That also is not an opinion. That’s a fact.<br /><br />The combination of a Democratic “Big Water” strategy coupled with the meteoric, pop-culture, Twitter-Facebook rise to prominence of Sarah Palin will be a virtual guarantee of more Democratic Presidents and the eventual demise, perhaps disappearance of the Republican Party. When the Grand Old Party is no more, the historical blame will be properly laid right at the feet of the one-time, half-term Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin.<br /><br />Palin first…<br /><br />Whether or not you like her, agree wither policy positions (or even believe she has policy positions), respect her as a political figure of national stature, consider her qualified or not to hold national elective office – none of that matters. Just look at what she actually has to say, what she’s actually proud of, in fact what she’s determined to establish as her political signature. There’s no disagreement about this. Sarah Palin runs against the coastal elites, the big city liberals and the entire value system of the modern major metropolitan area. She is small town, old-time, “I Want My County Back!” America running hard against the ungodly, evil “domestic terrorists” in the big city. She stands for “real Americans” – meaning small town, small state, rural folks - against whatever the rest of us are, wherever the rest of us live. That is how she ran her campaign for Vice President and that’s how she’s campaigned on behalf of her book. That will be how she runs for President. You betcha!<br /><br />All of Sarah Palin’s appearances have been in small towns and small cities. She has never campaigned in or tried to sell her books in, say… New York City, Los Angeles, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit… or even in places like Atlanta, Birmingham, Houston, Dallas or St. Louis – all big cities in states carried by McCain/Palin but also big cities she and John McCain lost to the Democrats even while carrying those states.<br /><br />Sarah Palin appears to relish the conflict between small and big America. And as long as the Republican Party buys into this view, they are certain to be defeated. Like the stars in the night sky in “Dances With Wolves” there are just too many Big City Americans for Sarah Palin to ever win a national election. You can even “pal around with domestic terrorists” and still beat her hands down.<br /><br />Why does a “Big Water” strategy guarantee a Democratic victory? Look at the numbers. The coastal elite lives in 3 states on the West Coast with 73 electoral votes. Obama carried all 3 and received all 73 “Big Water” Pacific Electoral College votes. The coastal elite on the East Coast lives in 14 states, which border on the Atlantic Ocean. These 14 states have 136 electoral votes. The Democrats under Obama carried 12 of the 14 “Big Water” Atlantic states receiving 113 of these Electoral College votes leaving the Republicans with only Georgia and South Carolina, with only 23 Electoral College votes. <br /><br />The same big city elites clustered along America’s ocean coasts are also found in the 8 “Big Water” states with shorelines along the Great Lakes. Obama carried every one of the 8 states for a total of 141 more Electoral College votes. All told the “Big Water” states have 350 Electoral College votes. If a major American political party is going to base its appeal on running against these American people and the American lifestyle of these states, how could they ever hope to win a national election?<br /><br />In the 2008 Presidential election the Democrats won 327 of the Electoral College votes in the “Big Water” states. Worse yet for the Republicans, in only 3 of these 23 states was the result even close – Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina. These states have 39 electoral votes. If the Republicans somehow won them all, Obama still would have been elected with 288 electoral votes. And this doesn’t begin to count the 4 additional states won by the Democrats that have no “Big Water” connections at all – Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa and 1 electoral vote in Nebraska.<br /><br />If Sarah Palin wants to do battle – Small Town v. Big City - look at it this way… McCain/Palin managed to win only 1 city in the Top 27 metro areas. That city was Phoenix, Arizona. Look it up. From #1 New York, NY through #27 Orlando, FL, every major metropolitan area voted Democratic except Phoenix. How can you hope to win a national election like that?<br /><br />Of the Top 100 metro areas in the United States the 2008 Republican Party, with Sarah Palin as the star of their ticket, could only win in 19 of them. And while these 19 are in the Top 100, keep in mind among them are places like Greenville SC, Knoxville TN, Provo UT, Ogden UT, McAllen TX… not exactly the kind of major population centers you need to win a national election contest. And that’s why McCain/Palin lost.<br /><br />In the electoral fight pitting Big City “elites” against Small Town “real Americans” starting with Metro Area #1 New York NY and going all the way to #150 Naples FL, the Republicans with John McCain and Sarah Palin managed to get more votes in only 30 of these places. If you lose in 120 of the Top 150, are you really a serious contender?<br /><br />If the Republican Party follows Sarah Palin in 2012 and 2016 that political party may well continue to carry population centers like Naples FL, Boise ID, Wichita KS, Springfield MO and Anchorage AK – but the Electoral College prizes that are in “Big Water” America will hardly know there is a Republican Party. If the Republicans persist in making Sarah Palin the cover girl of their national appeal, whomever the Democrats run will simply waltz into the White House leaving the ghost of the GOP a lonely “first runner-up” in their wake.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-58477852663621943292010-01-04T09:03:00.004-05:002010-01-04T09:29:57.956-05:00THE AMERICAN WAYThe Next Big Thing in the War On Terror and airport security is the full-body scanner. You’ve heard about it. This is the machine that will expose everyone – you, me, everybody who passes through it – as if we were naked. You may think that’s a good idea. A highly trained security expert would be able to spot hidden explosives and other such terrorist dangers. Who will examine and interpret our full-body scans? Who will look at our exposed bodies with an eye to making the American People safer? You know who. Our nakedness will be seen by and interpreted by at least one and perhaps a whole group of minimum wage TSA employees. Real security experts, right? If you have been in an airport lately you know exactly who I’m talking about. Do you think those new full-body scans will make you feel more comfortable flying? More secure? Safer? Sure they will.<br /><br />Did you know that President Obama’s Dept. of Homeland Security has already purchased more than $50 million worth of these new airport machines, and that they have ordered another $25 million more, which are yet to come? You didn't hear about Congress approving this? That's because they never did. They took the money right out of the Stimulus Package. Exactly what you thought that program was meant for wasn't it? <br /><br />Guess who the most vocal supporter of this new technology is. How about Michael Chertoff, the former head of The Dept. of Homeland Security under George W. Bush. That fact, I’m sure, makes you feel better, doesn’t it? Chertoff is a security expert. He knows what works and what doesn’t. Right? He has your safety and your interest as his personal goal, doesn’t he? Why else would he be on every television show he can find talking up the need for these full-body scanners at every airport in America and all around the world? Chertoff wouldn't have a personal, private agenda, a special interest here - would he?<br /><br />Well, maybe. It’s called The American Way.<br /><br />Michael Chertoff served his country – and now his country is damn well going to serve him. Isn’t that The American Way? Sure it is. Chertoff is now part of the "private sector." Ever hear of The Chertoff Group? Here is what they have to say about themselves. These are their words. This is how Michael Chertoff is selling his services today. <br /><br />Read carefully.<br />_____________________________________________________________<br />"For deals in the security industry, Chertoff Group offers unparalleled subject matter expertise and contacts to give you the competitive advantage."<br /><br />"We have overseen billions of dollars of technology development and acquisition for the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the National Security Agency, and the CIA. We have keen insight into which new technologies are likely to transform the landscape, and our experience allows us to predict which ones may be headed for obsolescence."<br /><br />"We have proven success, not only in the domestic U.S. market; members of our team have years of experience in completing international transactions, as well."<br /><br />"The security and risk management market is large, growing and resilient, even in this economic downturn. Despite its potential value of over $200 billion per year, the market is highly fragmented. Together, these realities provide many opportunities to leverage economies of scale and enhance returns through operational improvements."<br /><br />"The Chertoff Group partners with compatible private equity firms across the investment spectrum, by providing our sector knowledge to help monitor and manage target companies during periods of transition. Regardless of our role, we are committed experts at aligning interests and maximizing value for our clients."<br />_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br />Impressive, isn't it? So, exactly who are The Chertoff Group?<br /><br />Michael Chertoff is a Co-Founder and Managing Principal of The Chertoff Group. No surprise there. As they say, it’s his name on the door. Who are some of his partners and colleagues? Take a look.<br /><br />Charles E. Allen: Formerly at The Dept. of Homeland Security along with Chertoff and before that, 40 years at CIA - the Central Intelligence Agency.<br /><br />Larry Castro: 44 years at the NSA - the National Security Agency.<br /><br />Jay M. Cohen: Former Chief of Naval Research at the Dept. of the Navy under George W. Bush.<br /><br />Michael Hayden: General US Army. Former Director of NSA and former Director of the CIA under George W. Bush.<br /><br />Nathaniel T. G. Fogg: Top executive at FEMA under George W. Bush.<br /><br />Paul Schneider: Senior Acquisitions Executive at the National Security Agency under George W. Bush.<br /><br />Chad Sweet: Former Chief of Staff at The Dept. of Homeland Security under George W. Bush. Previously, a top executive at both Morgan Stanley and Goldman-Sachs.<br /><br />Imagine having your "interests aligned" and your "values maximized" by such a group.<br /><br />Now, take a wild guess. Who do you think represents the company that manufactures and sells the full-body scanner? Did you say, The Chertoff Group? <br /><br />It’s called The American Way.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-26247912938115567422009-12-16T16:42:00.000-05:002009-12-16T16:43:15.118-05:00HEALTHCARE REFORM AND THE DEMOCRATSWill Rogers was right.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-76163147764168194852009-12-04T10:50:00.002-05:002009-12-04T11:00:18.162-05:00AFGHANISTAN Q&A-How many US plus NATO and other nation’s troops are in Afghanistan right now?<br />ANSWER: 65,000 US + 38,000 NATO and other nations<br /><br />-How many more US troops has President Obama committed to send there?<br />ANSWER: 30,000<br /><br />-How many more NATO and other nations troops have been committed to Afghanistan? <br />ANSWER: 7,500<br /><br />-What will be the total troop strength of US/NATO and other nations in Afghanistan?<br />ANSWER: 140,500<br /><br />-How many fighters does the Taliban have in Afghanistan?<br />ANSWER: 25,000 (US Govt. report 10/2009)<br /><br />-Say again?<br />ANSWER: 25,000<br /><br />-What are the main weapons of the 25,000 Taliban?<br />ANSWER: small arms (rifles) and IEDs<br /><br />-What exactly are IEDs?<br />ANSWER: homemade bombs<br /><br />-What are the main weapons of the US and NATO forces?<br />ANSWER: a full range of all the most modern and most expensive weapons of war including advanced technology, artillery and the latest in fighter aircraft, both fixed-wing and helicopters, plus unmanned drones capable of dropping bombs computer/satellite guided in real-time from US bases 8,000 miles from the target.<br /><br />-How much does all this cost the US?<br />ANSWER: billions of dollars a year<br /><br />-How much does it cost the Taliban to keep its fighters in the field?<br />ANSWER: nobody knows<br /><br />-How long have we (the US & NATO) been training the Afghans to defend themselves?<br />ANSWER: 8 years<br /><br />-How much money has the US spent training the Afghans to “stand up”?<br />ANSWER: tens of billions<br /><br />-Are the Afghans ready yet to “stand up” and defend themselves?<br />ANSWER: no<br /><br />-When will the Afghans be ready?<br />ANSWER: nobody knows<br /><br />-How much money does the Taliban spend training its forces?<br />ANSWER: there is no record or evidence of any Taliban training<br /><br />- If the US has been funding and training the Afghans, which nations have been funding and training the Taliban fighters and where do they do this?<br />ANSWER: there is no record or evidence of any Taliban training or any funding<br /><br />-Without a nation/sponsor or known funding, how then are the Taliban able to conduct a war for 8 years against the US and NATO?<br />ANSWER: nobody knows<br /><br />-How much does it cost the Taliban to fight every year?<br />ANSWER: nobody knows<br /><br />-Where does the Taliban get its money? (It has to have some money, doesn't it?)<br />ANSWER: supposedly from the Afghan drug trade - heroin<br /><br />-But… isn’t the biggest “drug lord” in Afghanistan the President’s own brother?<br />ANSWER: yes<br /><br />-Is President Karzai’s brother or perhaps President Karzai himself helping the Taliban?<br />ANSWER: good question<br /><br />-What about the "real enemy" al Queda – how many of them are in Afghanistan?<br />ANSWER: according to the US Government there are maybe 100 of them there<br /><br />-Wait a minute! Did I miss some zeros in the last answer? 100? Really?<br />ANSWER: no missing zeros – only about 100 al Queda still in Afghanistan<br /><br />-Why can’t 140,500 of the world's best-equipped military troops defeat 100 al Queda and 25,000 Taliban insurgents armed with rifles and homemade bombs who use donkeys, not helicopters, for transportation?<br />ANSWER: you tell me… nobody seems to know<br /><br />-Why are we still in Afghanistan – and increasing our multi-billion dollar military presence there?<br />ANSWER: according to President Obama, we are there to stabilize Pakistan<br /><br />-What? Are you sure that’s what he said?<br />ANSWER: yes, that’s what he said<br /><br />-When will the last US soldier die in Afghanistan and all US troops come home? <br />ANSWER: nobody knowspapadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-72664105641814737862009-11-30T12:56:00.002-05:002009-11-30T13:07:55.038-05:00GEORGE ORWELL AND THE BCSIn his 1945 novel “Animal Farm” George Orwell wrote: “All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others…”<br /><br />Today this is the guiding principle behind the National Championship of College Football’s Division I FBS. Div I FBS consists of the schools in 11 conferences plus 3 independents making a total of 131 colleges and universities that have Division I FBS football programs. None of the 11 conferences is designated as being better or deserving of higher ranking than any other and no individual school is predetermined to be a lesser member of Div I FBS than any other member institution. Nevertheless, some college football teams are apparently created more equal than others.<br /><br />No other organized sport has such a consideration when it comes to naming its championship team. In the last Baseball World Series the Yankees were not diminished by their regular season victories over the American League’s weaker teams like Baltimore, Kansas City or Cleveland and neither were the Phillies downgraded after beating up on the National League’s lowly Washington Nationals or the Pittsburgh Pirates. Any win over a Major League opponent is equal to any other win. Likewise in the National Football League, the NBA and even in the NHL, no team is ranked as better or worse based upon which other teams they scored victories over during their regular season schedules.<br /><br />But somehow this sense of fair play – not to mention reason - just doesn’t apply to college football. This season, of the 131 Division I FBS teams only 6 have played their season undefeated. All 6 have won every game they played. None of the remaining 125 teams have only 1 loss. The best record outside the undefeated teams is 2 losses. Thus, it would appear reasonable to say that only these 6 all-winning teams should have a shot at being crowned National Champion. Yet, since there is no playoff system, only 2 of the 6 can be matched in the so-called and self-proclaimed National Championship Game. What then of the other 4? What is the best way to pick the 2 teams to vie for the title and eliminate from consideration 4 others?<br /><br />The 6 undefeated teams are: Florida, Alabama, Texas, TCU, Cincinnati and Boise State. This is the order in which these teams are now ranked by the BCS, which is the official ranking body that picks the 2 teams to play in the National Championship Game. Since the BCS ranks the Top 25 teams each week, how do the schedules of the 6 undefeated teams look against other ranked opponents?<br /><br />Of the top 6, only 2 have played more than 1 opponent that also ranked in the Top 25. Texas (ranked #3) played and of course defeated 4 ranked teams – Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Oklahoma – while TCU (ranked #4) played and beat 2 ranked opponents – Clemson and BYU. <br /><br />The #1 and #2 teams, Florida and Alabama only played 1 ranked team each. Both of them played and beat the same team, LSU. Still, Florida is ranked #1 and Alabama is #2. The #5 ranked team, Cincinnati, has only a single ranked team on its schedule, West Virginia.<br /><br />The most alarming schedule analysis has to be that of #6 Boise State. While Boise State only met 1 other team ranked in the Top 25, how important should it be that the 1 team was the #7 ranked team, Oregon? After the 6 undefeated teams, the official college football rankings list Oregon as the next best team in the whole country. And Boise State beat them. If Boise State beat Oregon, and none of the other 5 undefeated teams has beaten any team so highly ranked, why is Boise State #6 behind all 5 of the others? That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, does it?<br /><br />Some analysts say that many teams prop up their record by playing weak teams outside their conference – and that’s been true. This year, Boise State played Bowling Green and it is fair to hold that up when evaluating them. Cincinnati also played a game against a very weak non-conference team, Southeast Missouri State. TCU, however, did not pad its schedule with any of the weaker non-conference teams, not one of them. Texas (remember they also played 4 ranked teams) only had one game against a traditional weak team, Central Florida.<br /><br />But, look at the schedules for the #1 and #2 Florida and Alabama teams. Not only did they each play their only ranked opponent against the same LSU team, but also each of them added multiple weak teams to their non-conference schedules. Alabama, the #2 team in the nation, played and beat teams from Florida International and Tennessee-Chattanooga. The #1 ranked team, Florida, did even worse than that. Like Alabama, they also scheduled Florida International, plus they added outrageous patsies like Charleston-Southern and some school no one's ever heard of called Troy. <br /><br />So, Florida the #1 ranked team played 25% of its games against the worst teams in college football. That would be like the Yankees, who won 103 games and lost only 59, playing 40 of their regular season games against Washington, which won only 59 and lost 103. Of course, the Yankees did not play any games at all against Washington, but had that actually happened, it’s unlikely anyone would have seriously considered the Yankees as the #1 team in baseball.<br /><br />In the real world, #1 Florida Gaitors and #2 Alabama Crimson Tide meet next week in their own conference championship game and the winner of that game will play against Texas in the BCS National Championship Game. Based on who and how these teams have played this season, it doesn’t matter who wins. Texas should easily beat either one, Florida or Alabama. But that will still leave probably the best team in the nation, the real #1 college football team, Boise State, out in the cold.<br /><br />All Div I FBS teams are created equal, but some teams are more equal than others…papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-14169164120230239762009-11-06T15:34:00.002-05:002009-11-06T15:47:31.610-05:00GO YANKEES! "HOW MUCH DID YOU SAY THAT IS?"Wait a second. Isn’t the astronomical increase in costs, seemingly unstoppable over time, one of the biggest problems we face in healthcare? Aren’t doctors and other service providers clamoring for higher reimbursement agreements, complaining about low payments from Medicare and insurance companies? Don’t we keep hearing the drug companies and medical equipment manufacturers warning us that a national healthcare program – apparently any kind of national healthcare at all – will drive them either into market-share disaster or outright bankruptcy?<br /><br />Has anyone seen a hospital bill lately? Have you visited an Emergency Room? Have you been admitted, sent to a regular room on a regular hospital floor? Have you spent a couple of days as an in-patient? If you have you know how quick and easy it is to run up a hospital bill of $10,000 or $20,000. And if you’ve been really sick, you certainly are familiar with how fast those charges add up to a hospital bill of $100,000 plus, even $500,000 or more. Not sure I'm right? Go ahead, get cancer – have a heart attack or heart surgery. You’ll see.<br /><br />Meanwhile these same hospitals call themselves non-profit organizations and constantly talk about the difficulties they face in terms of their costs – not yours – but theirs.<br /><br />So, explain this - In today’s national edition of The New York Times, the full-page that follows the end of Section B – the part of the paper with the Sports section – is completely taken up with an advertisement saluting the World Series Champion New York Yankees – and that full-page ad is sponsored and paid for by “New York-Presbyterian OFFICIAL HOSPITAL OF THE YANKEES.” Imagine that, the Yankees have an “official hospital.” That’s not some kind of socialism, is it? I sure hope not.<br /><br />No one can be absolutely sure what the cost of ad space is in The New York Times. The newspaper has fallen on hard times. Who knows what they’ll take for an ad these days? Things are so bad they’re even talking about bankruptcy. They must be starving, right? Ad revenue reported for The Times’ latest quarter is down from last year. This year it was only $570 million. Don’t you wonder how they managed to make it on about three-quarters of a million dollars – a day?<br /><br />Most industry reports indicate that the full-page ad they bought probably cost about $189,000. Of course, New York-Presbyterian made a point – an expensive one too since it costs extra – of buying the “national edition” rather than just the local New York City edition of the paper. <br /><br />What were they thinking? More out-of-town patients? Perhaps they’re counting on me telling the next ambulance that picks me up in an emergency to… “take me to New York-Presbyterian, and step on it, buddy!” <br /><br />Last year, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, a non-profit, tax exempt 501 C-3 entity with multiple websites showing how many ways you and I can give them our tax deductible “gifts” – in 2008, this hospital pulled in $2,833,500,000 in patient revenue. Count the zeros. That’s more than $77 million dollars a day, 365 days a year. Puts The New York Times to shame. Cha-ching! Cha-ching!<br /><br />Hey, what’s a measly hundred and eighty-nine grand to congratulate “Our Yankees”? <br /><br />And one more question – What do you suppose it means to be the OFFICIAL HOSPITAL OF THE YANKEES?<br /><br />I don’t know about you, but I sure feel better knowing we don’t have any sort of universal, socialized national healthcare. And I’m sure all the tax-exempt 501 C-3 doctors at New York-Presbyterian are doing a wonderful job treating all patients who are in need of medical services, right? Well, I don’t want to be one to tell you, but consider this – a report today in the publication American Thinker says that of the 93 doctors affiliated with New York-Presbyterian in the specialty of Internal Medicine, only 37 of them accept Medicare. Maybe the other 56 internists have to find a way to pay for their season tickets.<br /><br />Go Yankees!papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-68673750575231217232009-10-23T11:26:00.002-04:002009-10-23T11:33:47.123-04:00"THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR..."Copied below is an amazingly arrogant assessment of Iran's current nuclear situation. It comes from official Israeli governmental sources, Defense Minister, Ehud Barak. Basically, Israel would deny Iran any nuclear rights whatsoever. This, from a country which is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty; a country that does not allow international nuclear inspectors, or abide by IAEA policies. <br /><br />Is there a serious person anywhere in the world who does not acknowledge that Israel not only has nuclear weapons but also a nuclear weapons arsenal? Western intelligence sources - backed by Israelis themselves who have worked on their country's nuclear facilities - estimate the size of Israel's nuclear arsenal at between a low of 150 weapons and a high of 500. Compare this with the estimate most experts have for North Korea - 4 to 6 weapons, or Pakistan - about 20, or India - approximately 50. Yes, none of these nations, even Israel, matches the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons possessed by the United States or Russia, or the sizable amounts - though way fewer than tens of thousands - thought to be held by England, France and China.<br /><br />Nevertheless, Israel is an unquestioned nuclear world power - and Iran has no nuclear weapons at all. None. Not a single one. In fact, no one has yet produced anything more than a “fear” that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. No proof at all. And still, Israel (fundamentally a nuclear outlaw nation) demands that Iran halt all enrichment of uranium. Why? Because they “fear” an Iranian nuclear weapons program - a fear they and others express without a shred of evidence that such a program exists. Does Iran enrich uranium? Yes. And they do so - just like some dozen and a-half other countries do around the world - for the purpose of supplying fuel for atomic reactors - reactors designed not to blow anything up but to provide electric power. <br /><br />There is nothing new or unique about this. The world already has some 531 such reactors in use or under active construction and they are spread across the globe, located in 31 different countries. We, here in the US, have 104 nuclear power reactors and not a single one of them is connected to our nuclear weapons program. France has 59. Japan has 53 -and no one’s accused the Japanese of having nuclear weapons. In fact, there has never been any claim that any of the world's 500+ electricity generating nuclear reactors is a threat to the nuclear weapons peace. All they make is - electricity!<br /><br />If nuclear power plants presented a weapons threat, the world’s major powers would not be the United States, Russia and China. Instead they would be ABB Construction Engineering, General Electric and Westinghouse.<br /><br />Why is nuclear electric power not a threat to world peace? It's simple. Uranium enriched for use in making electric power cannot be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. It just can't. Much as your Honda or Subaru doesn’t scare the folks at NASCAR, so too nobody is going to make bombs from uranium enriched in Brazil, Australia or any of the 31 nations with nuclear power reactors.<br /><br />It is exactly like nuclear medicine. We've all seen the signs in hospital corridors – “Nuclear Medicine.” Are you afraid? Of course not. Nothing used in nuclear medicine has any applicable usage in nuclear weapons. So, go ahead - do all the heart scans you wish. Nobody's in danger of being blown-up.<br /><br />My opinion is that no reasonable and rational person would, ipso facto, deny nuclear electric power to anyone. Why would they? Would they deny food or water? Clean sanitation? Roads, dams, tunnels, airports? Of course not. Isn't everyone - no matter where they live - entitled to the use of modern technology for a better life? Can we enjoy all this and refuse to let others do the same?<br /><br />And yet now officially, Israel would deny Iran any nuclear capacity of any sort whatsoever. Yes, a country that stockpiles nuclear weapons, with contempt for all world nuclear accords, is demanding that another country be denied modern electric power. Draw your own conclusions.<br />______________________________________________________<br />THE NEW YORK TIMES<br />October 23, 2009<br /><br />Israel Signals Concern on Iran Talks<br />By ISABEL KERSHNER<br />JERUSALEM — The Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, said on Thursday that Iran must cease all uranium enrichment, a statement that reflected Israeli concern over a draft agreement taking shape in Vienna, where earlier this week Iran took part in nuclear talks with the United States, Russia and France.<br />Under the agreement, about three-quarters of Iran’s known stockpile of nuclear fuel would be shipped to Russia for enrichment to levels suitable for a peaceful nuclear reactor but too low for weapons. Such a deal would delay Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon for about a year, buying more time for President Obama to search for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff.<br />In the first response by a senior Israeli leader, Mr. Barak said what was necessary was “the cessation of enrichment by Iran, and not just the removal of the enriched material.” Speaking at a conference hosted by Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, in Jerusalem, Mr. Barak urged “all the players” that “under no circumstances should any option be removed from the table,” meaning that the threats of tougher sanctions and military action should remain.<br />The emerging deal with Iran, while not yet approved, is generally being treated here with caution and suspicion<br />One former Israeli official with intimate knowledge of the nuclear issue said that it was better to have the fuel shipped out than left in Iran, but that there may be more nuclear fuel reserves in covert facilities in Iran.<br />Iran is openly and vehemently hostile to Israel, but insists that its nuclear program is intended for civilian purposes only. Israel is believed to have a large nuclear arsenal but maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying its status as a nuclear power.<br />Earlier Thursday, Israeli officials confirmed that Israeli and Iranian envoys participated in discussions at a recent multilateral forum on nuclear issues in Cairo, but they said the two representatives held no private meetings and played down the significance of the event.<br />A spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization also denied that any separate meetings took place between the Iranian and Israeli delegations on the sidelines of the gathering, according to the Web site of Iran’s state broadcasting authority.<br />The regional meeting took place over two days in the Egyptian capital from Sept. 28 under the auspices of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, a forum of experts established at the initiative of the Australian and Japanese governments. Israel was represented by Meirav Zafary-Odiz, director of policy and arms control for the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, and Iran by Ali Asghar Soltanieh, ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency.<br />“There was a conference,” said Yael Doron, a spokeswoman for the Israel Atomic Energy Commission. “She was there and he was there, but there was no direct contact or dialog between them.”<br />Several other Middle Eastern countries took part in the discussions, including Saudi Arabia, which, like Iran, has no diplomatic relations with Israel.<br />The gathering was held behind closed doors, but details emerged last week in the Australian newspaper The Age.<br />The paper reported breathlessly that Australia had “helped accomplish the seemingly impossible — bringing Israel and Iran into the same room for high-level talks on nuclear weapons.”<br />The Web site of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Thursday published more details of the meeting.<br />But Israeli officials said it was not unusual for Israeli and Iranian officials to be in the same room and present their positions at international bodies and forums. The Iranian delegate, Mr. Soltanieh, has attended at least one such informal gathering with Israelis in the past.<br />The timing of the Cairo meeting may have added import, however, with the growing concern both in Israel and internationally over Iran’s nuclear program and a sense in Israel that time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons may be running out.<br />In a separate development, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled for the first time Thursday in a case regarding a West Bank road where Palestinian traffic is prohibited by military order. Saying the measure caused disproportionate harm to the local Palestinian population, the court instructed the state to come up with alternative arrangements for the road — a thoroughfare south of Hebron — in the next three months.<br />The state argued that Palestinians were barred from using the road for the past eight years for security reasons, to protect the 150 or so Israeli residents of a Jewish settlement and an unauthorized outpost in the area. An Israeli human rights organization, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, petitioned the court in 2006 on behalf of 22 Palestinian villages with a combined population of some 45,000.<br />Several cases involving other so-called segregated roads in the West Bank are pending in the Israeli court.<br />-------------------------------------------------------------papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-66878124046566563572009-10-14T23:07:00.002-04:002009-10-14T23:11:39.303-04:00IS THIS A JOKE?Is this a joke?<br /><br />Where is Barack Obama? Where is the mandate he won at the polls last November? Where is the Presidential leadership on healthcare reform? Why has Barack Obama abandoned his campaign pledges and promises on single payer, universal healthcare reform?<br /><br />Four questions – all with the same perplexing answer: “I don’t know.”<br /><br />Barack Obama got almost 70 million votes from the American people. He received more votes for President of the United States than any candidate who has ever run for that office. His personal mandate is both unquestioned and politically secure. This is especially true following a President who actually lost the popular vote in his first election and won a second term with questionable results. On top of Obama’s personal victory in 2008, his political party won huge majorities in both the House and Senate. In a partisan political system, the partisan debate has been settled. The Democrats won. The Republicans lost. Didn’t they?<br /><br />Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have an obligation to those who voted them into office. They have a duty to lead not to conciliate.<br /><br />If Obama and the Democratic Party are nowhere to be found on healthcare reform, who then is driving this policy question, forming this legislation, forging the future direction for the entire country on this literally life and death public issue?<br /><br />That answer is sadly obvious: Senator Max Baucus and Senator Olympia Snowe. A senator from Montana. And another one from Maine. What about the rest of the United States of America? What about the will of the people as expressed in the democratic act of electing a President and a Congress?<br /><br />The President represents all the states and all the people. The senators from Montana and Maine represent a tiny constituency. Baucus and Snowe each received fewer votes than Fernando Ferrer. Who’s he, you ask? Ferrer ran for Mayor of New York City – and LOST! But he got 503,219 votes. The winner in New York’s Mayoral election received more votes than Senators Baucus and Snowe combined. Why not let Bloomberg and Ferrer decide what sort of national healthcare we should have. All in favor raise your hands.<br /><br />Again, I ask – Is this a joke?<br /><br />Take a look at Obama’s mandate and compare it with the electoral voice Senators Baucus and Snowe speak with:<br /><br />President Barack Obama 69,456,897<br />Senator Max Baucus 348,289<br />Senator Olympia Snowe 402,598<br /><br />If this is a joke, the joke’s on us.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-79014182215732814442009-10-13T15:59:00.001-04:002009-10-13T16:06:17.577-04:00PROPAGANDAPropaganda was invented by the Catholic Church. Yes, it was. It was a long time ago - 387 years to be exact - in1622, when then Pope Gregory XV decided the Church needed a special section, a unit or body to institutionalize the dissemination of the “message,” to handle training of foreign missions. Five years later, Pope Urban VIII created the Collegium de Propaganda. A lot has happened in the last 400 or so years, but propaganda hasn’t changed much. Those in power use public information – that which we now generally refer to as “the media” – to further their agenda via the spreading of false or misleading information. The power of propaganda is unchallenged. It can be employed to murder millions or to shape the thinking of hundreds of millions – all with little or no regard for the facts. <br /><br />In the last couple of centuries we have seen how the American Indians, European Jews and Gypsies, and various ethnic groups in the old Soviet Union have suffered the effects of propaganda campaigns. Many others have suffered too, albeit away from the attention of most Americans. Today it appears that propaganda is being employed on a widespread basis against Muslims in particular and others who have been cast as enemies – temporary or long-term – of entrenched western powers – the Axis of Evil threatening western civilization.<br /><br />For example: Although there are nearly 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, the actions of only 19 of them on a single day, September 11, 2001, have thrown the western world into two wars and a fit that has already lasted more than 8 years. The West has entered into a never ending “War on Terror.” We are afraid of shadows, if those shadows have the glint of Islam about them. By comparison, no one seems at all concerned about young, blonde, white men – despite Oklahoma City, April 19, 1995. Most recent news reports are all about a supposed nuclear weapons program feverishly underway in Iran… dangerously, even precariously close to fruition. Condoleezza Rice’s vision of “a mushroom cloud” virtually haunts the airways.<br /><br />Another example: In today’s newspapers, and on TV around the western world, we are being dealt the propaganda about North Korea testing missiles. Oh, my God! You can see the images on television – not of the missile tests in question (because no one has TV footage of those!) but stock video of awful and dangerous missiles being fired from… somewhere and of course designed to hit… something. <br /><br />Propaganda. <br /><br />Remember, propaganda is false and/or misleading information. Consider the nuclear “situation” in Iran. No one has produced or presented any evidence or proof that Iran really has a nuclear weapons program or that any structural facilities Iran may have or may be building are intended for that purpose. What we have instead are claims, accusations and fearful conclusions – i.e., propaganda.<br /><br />There is a story in today’s New York Times about the current budget crisis in the Iranian Parliament. Did you think we were the only country fallen on hard economic times? While we spend our tax dollars bailing out Wall Street and the banks, Iran is faced with spending 30% of its national budget on fuel subsidies so people can heat their homes this winter! That’s almost one-third of all their money just to keep themselves alive through the coming cold months. What’s left to spend on nukes? Don’t ask because that doesn’t fit the model for our newest campaign of propaganda.<br /><br />And what to make of North Korea, you ask? No one denies they did fire a total of 5 test missiles the other day. We know they did because like other nations that also test missiles, the North Koreans issued an international advisory telling naval ships to avoid the area where the missiles were being fired. No secrets here. There are no laws against testing missiles. Many countries do it. And, you’re supposed to warn naval traffic – just like the North Koreans did. The question is: just how “dangerous” were these missiles? Why would we be so worried? Why would we even report it? You had to read through all the propaganda to find out. The range of the North Korean test missiles was… 75 miles. Yes, 75 miles. No, not 7,500 or even 750 miles. Only 75!<br /><br />If the North Koreans mean to attack New York City with this equipment they better find a way to stack-up their rockets across the bay somewhere on the Connecticut shore or maybe launch them from someplace out in the Hamptons on Long Island. How likely is that?<br /><br />Be afraid! Be very afraid! And while you’re at it – watch out for the propaganda.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-4279109460886511532009-10-10T18:04:00.002-04:002009-10-10T18:09:40.110-04:00THE CULT OF PERSONALITY... "AND THE WINNER IS-"Know who any of these guys are? Ever hear of any of them?<br /><br />Charles Gobat – Ernesto Moneta – Alfred Fried – Fridtjof Nansen – Arthur Henderson – John Mott – Arthur Lutuli – David Trimble<br /><br />Can’t say that you have? Well, they’re all men, aren’t they? How about a woman? Okay, let’s throw in Betty Williams? You know her, don’t you?<br /><br />Still nothing?<br /><br />They’re all Nobel Peace Prize winners. Every one of them. Sure, some of them won their Prize many years ago, but not David Trimble. He won the Prize in 1998. Almost yesterday, and he’s English too. Looks like us. Speaks our language. But you don’t know who he is or who they are. Some prize, huh? Really important. Marks a man’s life forever, right? Hey, it is the Nobel Peace Prize.<br /><br />How much do you know about the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Martti Ahtisaari? Not much? Maybe nothing at all? Ahtisaari, who’s from Finland, was the key negotiator in the Namibian independence agreement from South Africa in 1990. In 1999, Ahtisaari was credited with convincing the Serbian leadership to call it quits in Kosovo. And six years later, in 2005, he successfully negotiated a settlement between Indonesia and the rebels in Aceh Province. He won the Nobel Prize – now you know why - and you’ve still never heard of him.<br /><br />Perhaps you are familiar with these men - Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. Who hasn’t heard of the likes of Russia’s Gorbachev, the Israelis Rabin and Peres, and of course Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat? A fine group of dictators, terrorists, insurrectionists, warmongers… even an international war criminal in this bunch. Surely none of them could be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. It is a "peace" prize. Right? Wrong. They all are. Everyone’s a winner. And only Le Duc Tho, from North Vietnam, had the good manners and common decency to decline the honor.<br /><br />So, what’s the “Big Deal” about Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize this year? The Golden Globes are just around the corner. Can the Oscars be far behind? Don’t they have something called the Teen Spirit Award? Doesn't country music have some kind of winners? When is the Miss America Pageant?papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-3989794337604570322009-09-26T13:18:00.002-04:002009-09-26T13:26:50.588-04:00THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD REPORTING AND HARDLY REPORTING AT ALLWhat’s the difference between good reporting and hardly reporting at all? Look at this comparison of two different reports from the same newspaper printed on the same day – The New York Times for Saturday, September 26, 2009:<br /><br />In The Arts Section, there is a review of the new ABC-TV drama “FlashForward.” No, that’s not a typo. ABC wants it printed as a single word despite the double capitalization. This is a futuristic, science fiction thriller, a drama with many more questions than answers, a plot rife with ambiguity and subject to varying interpretations from reasonably intelligent people with reasonably different points of view. As a brand new TV show the main question about it is – Will viewers be shown the answers by the season’s end? Look carefully at how The Times’ reviewer writes about this.<br /><br />“… the producers (of “FlashForward”) have said repeatedly that almost all of the questions posed in the first episode – “virtually” all of them, Mr. Goyer said – will be answered by the end of the first season. Virtually? It is an important caveat.”<br /><br />Now, that’s good reporting. Why? Because the reporter recognizes a caveat, a qualification when he hears one. And furthermore, the reporter clearly understands his obligation to point out the implications of such a statement. There is doubt there – about the show’s outcome - and the reader knows it because The New York Times has done a good job of reporting.<br /><br />So much for popular culture.<br /><br />What about the really important stuff? What about the life-and-death matters of today’s perilous world situation? How does The New York Times report on such weighty affairs of state?<br /><br />The #1 issue of the day – today’s front-page story - is the disclosure of Iran’s newest uranium enrichment plant. “Deception” cries The Times’ 5-column wide headline, together with a photo of the US President backed by the serious faces of the French President and the British Prime Minister. The New York Times story begins its second paragraph this way:<br /><br />“In a day of high drama…”<br /><br />No reader could possibly doubt the seriousness of the situation, which is to say the nuclear threat posed by Iran. After all – no nuclear threat… no “day of high drama” … no frowning faces from the traditional Great Western Powers.<br /><br />Then… buried a little deeper in the article we find this tidbit:<br /><br />“American intelligence officials say it will take at least a year, perhaps five, for Iran to develop the full ability to make a nuclear weapon.”<br /><br />Unlike the reviewer of ABC’s “FlashForward” The Times’ front-page reporter fails to see the caveat, the qualification or the possibility for doubt. Anytime someone uses the phrase “at least” don’t they lose the high ground when measurement is in question? What does “at least” mean? Not to mention the inclusion of “perhaps five (years).” <br /><br />Which is it – one year or five? That’s some “at least,” some leeway don’t you think. Four years! And if not one, “perhaps five” - why not six or seven or eight or nine… or fifteen? How many years must pass before any reasonable focus is completely lost? We’ll never know because The New York Times doesn’t bother to mention it. <br /><br />And what do they mean by “full ability to make a nuclear weapon” – huh? What exactly is “full ability?” And does the phrase “to make” mean they “will” make? Does it mean they already “have made?” … or what? If some 31 nations already have operating nuclear power plants and some 14-18 countries openly admit to enriching uranium, right now, today – does that means that they all have the “full ability to make a nuclear weapon” while Iran does not?<br /><br />Later in the same story, The Times reports this questionable logic about the Iranian enrichment plant’s supposed purpose:<br /><br />“Moreover, its location (the enrichment plant still under construction), deep inside an Iranian Revolutionary Guards base about 20 miles from the religious center of Qum, strongly suggested it was designed for covert use in weapons, they (intelligence officials) said.”<br /><br />Where’s the caveat here? Where is the qualification or the reasonable explanation? <br /><br />Imagine that you were about to build something – something beneficial to yourself but harmless to others – something that many others all around the world already have in operation without controversy – and imagine that the Vice President of the most powerful country on earth publicly favored bombing you and the “something” you wanted to build. Imagine too that your near-neighbor (itself a nuclear power!) also wanted to launch a “preemptive attack” against you. Now, imagine where you might decide to build this “something.”<br /><br />Does deep underground, perhaps even on a military base, begin to make any sense? <br /><br />Does that “strongly suggest” a weapons use? Or does it just suggest you might want to keep your “something” from being blasted to smithereens by the mightiest military power on the planet, a country that was already bombing and occupying your most immediate neighbors on both sides of you? If you didn’t put your “something” underground, you’d be pretty stupid, wouldn’t you?<br /><br />Imagine one more thing – imagine if the front-page story about Iran had been written by the reporter who reviewed the new television show “FlashForward” while the TV review had been written by the front-page reporters for The New York Times.<br /><br />Then you would know the difference between good reporting and hardly reporting at all.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-90479521752389260162009-09-25T14:08:00.002-04:002009-09-25T14:18:02.014-04:00NUCLEAR POWER - THE DOUBLE STANDARDThe Western/Christian/Jewish fear of nuclear power in the hands of Muslims is a great threat to world peace and an offense against reason and clear thinking.<br /><br />The Presidents of the United States and France, together with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, appeared this morning to admonish and warn Iran about something they called Iran’s “secret nuclear facility.” But, it was hardly a secret. Everyone knew about it already. The US and other western intelligence agencies are quoted freely in today’s press and on worldwide TV about their knowledge of the this “secret Iranian nuclear facility” - for as long as three years – or since construction of it was commenced. So, apparently it wasn’t a secret at all. Not ever.<br /><br />As well, the Iranians themselves advised the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the facility in a letter on Monday, four days before the Presidents and the PM made their dramatic TV appearance this morning from Pittsburgh.<br /><br />Let’s set the record straight – so far as we know it. The Iranians are presently building this facility to enrich uranium. They have been constructing it for at least three years and completion is “at least” another year away. Who knows how long “at least” means or how long it will be before the enrichment facility is ready to actually produce enriched uranium? It seems nobody knows? But, then, despite this morning’s dire warnings, nobody is claiming this nuclear plant is anywhere near ready, or will be finished anytime in the near future.<br /><br />President Obama did say that the facility’s “configuration and size” were not consistent with the peaceful use of atomic energy. What evidence did he produce regarding the facility’s “configuration and size”? – none, absolutely nothing. I am not saying President Obama is wrong. I am only asking for some proof. If he’s right, he should have such proof, shouldn’t he? How else could he make such a charge? If Iran has any capability to make weapons-grade enriched uranium, let’s see some evidence of it.<br /><br />Has Iran violated the IAEA rules about disclosure? It seems they have. If they began construction three years ago, they were obliged to disclose that. They failed to do so. Is Iran unique in this failure? Have other countries done the same thing Iran has done? Sure, we all know about Israel, but forget about them for a moment. You might be surprised at who else rejects their legal obligations to the UN and to the IAEA. Countries you may never think of have failed to comply. But the response to those nations was nothing like it is today.<br /><br />For example… On October 22, 2004 Brazil refused entry to IAEA inspectors at their nuclear construction site in Brazil. Did George Bush and Tony Blair go on worldwide TV to warn Brazil? What was Brazil building? A nuclear facility to enrich uranium. Did Brazil eventually allow the IAEA in? Of course they did. So, they gave in, right? And when did they do this? When did Brazil allow the IAEA inspectors inside?<br /><br />In February 2009.<br /><br />It took Brazil four and a-half years to comply with the IAEA rules for inspection. Do you recall the Presidents of the United States, France and the Prime Minister of Britain holding a press briefing in October 2004 to admonish and warn Brazil? No? I didn’t think so. What about 2005 or 2006 or the year after that? Or 2008? Or ever?<br /><br />About a dozen and a-half countries openly enrich uranium to feed their nuclear reactors and those of other nations as well, reactors that make electricity for consumer and commercial consumption. The latest figures show there are currently 484 working nuclear power reactors in the world producing electricity in 31 different countries around the world. 104 of them are in the United States. France is second with 59. Japan has 53. Russia has 31 and South Korea has 20. A total of 26 other nations also have working nuclear reactors. There are also 47 nuclear reactors now under construction. China, which has 11 active reactors, is building 13 new ones. India, which has 17 active nuclear reactors, is building 6 more. In the years to come, China and India will have as many nuclear facilities as France and someday they will rival the number here in the United States. Almost a third of the world’s people live in China and India. Barely 5% live in the US. So, it makes sense that someday – maybe soon – they will have more nuclear power plants than we do.<br /><br />Although more than 21% of the world’s population lives in Muslim countries, instead of those nations having about 100 nuclear power reactors (which would equate to statistical equality), they only have 2, both in Pakistan – That’s only 2 of 484. The IAEA is on record showing that 1 nuclear power reactor, for the purpose of producing electricity, is under construction in Iran. It has been under constant monitoring and evaluation. Iran has cooperated with the IAEA on this. <br /><br />Of the total of 531 nuclear plants, active and/or under construction around the world, the new one being built in Iran would bring the total in the Muslim world to 3, or about one-half of one percent of all the world’s nuclear reactors. There are almost 1.5 billion Muslims. How long can they be denied the benefits of nuclear power?<br /><br />The irrational fear of peaceful nuclear power – for the purpose of making electricity – in the hands of Muslims has gripped the non-Muslim western world – the Christian and Jewish western world – It holds tight like a powerful wrench ready to turn on a tiny screw. Except we are not talking about a wrench or a screw. We are talking about the mightiest nations on earth preparing a possibly violent reaction to something that seems so normal and so acceptable in 30 other – non-Muslim – countries.<br /><br />The nuclear power double standard is more than simple hypocrisy. It is a danger to world stability; to peace among nations; and it is an affront to common sense.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-79795238164651274152009-09-18T11:51:00.004-04:002009-09-18T13:05:23.154-04:00THE EVILS OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE... A SHORT LESSON IN COSTSI have a heart transplant. Yes, the cost of the transplant itself was enormous. And yes - here in America many people who need one can't get one because they simply have no way to pay for it. The Internet is full of "bake sales" and other fundraisers trying to raise enough cash to get people on the waiting list for a heart transplant. You see... you can't even get on the waiting list unless you can prove - in advance - that you can pay for the operation. The US is the only place in the civilized world where this happens.<br /><br />And then, what is often neglected, hardly reported on at all in our national press, is the plight of those who actually get a new heart and later die because they cannot afford the lifesaving immunosuppressant drugs they must take daily for the rest of their lives. Yes, after paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a heart transplant, some successful transplant patients suffer and die without the necessary maintenance drugs. I take two such drugs. They are Cellcept and Prograf. Cellcept is manufactured by Roche Pharmaceuticals, a company based in Switzerland. Prograf is made by Astellas Pharma Inc., a Japanese corporation. <br /><br />A 90-day supply at my dosage level costs more than $5,400 for Cellcept and a mere ten bucks less than $7,300 for Prograf. A small price to pay for staying alive - if you have it. A $12,700 death warrant for those who don't.<br /><br />In England - where they also do heart transplants and where they have socialized medicine - a 90 day supply of Cellcept costs less than $100 US or 1/54th the cost for a patient here in America. You read it correctly - less than a hundred dollars for three months. In France where they also do heart transplant operations and where they still have private doctors and hospitals but a highly regulated healthcare system, the same 90-day supply of Cellcept costs half of what the English pay - only $51 US. <br /><br />So, that's $5,400 here in the US. $100 in England. Only $51 in France. Makes you want to stand up and cheer, doesn't it? USA! USA!<br /><br />Prograf, the other immunosuppressant drug I take every day costs $7,291.22 in the United States for a 90-day supply. The same prescription in England costs $517.50 and in France it only costs $284.62.<br /><br />Neither Roche nor Astellas refuse to sell their products in the countries where universal, highly regulated or outright socialized medicine exists. Nor do they claim to lose money there. Look closely at those dollar costs again and decide for yourself if the cost of selling these drugs in America can possibly be so much more than they are in England and France.<br /><br />Numbers can be dull and boring... unless your life depends upon them. Regardless of income or assets, a citizen of France can get a heart transplant when and if they require one, and the cost of staying alve afterward is $3.72 per day. In the United States of America only those who can prove in advance they can pay for it get a heart transplant and then their cost of survival is about $141.02 per day. That's a hundred and fifty bucks yesterday, today, tomorrow and every day for the rest of their lives.*<br /><br />* If there was the usual small print disclaimer here - the kind often seen in drug company print advertising - it would have to say that these prices are based on today's costs in 2009 and are not guaranteed to remain the same - because we all know drug prices never remain the same. They go up. They increase in price. They do not - ever - go down. So, who can say what it will cost to stay alive next year and the year after that, and the year after that? Every heart transplant patient in the US worries about this. Our compatriots in the Rest of the Civilized World live under no such stress.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3297918349127267689.post-57680652990532308542009-09-16T20:18:00.002-04:002009-09-16T20:24:40.974-04:00PROMISES... FORGOTTENA couple of weeks before the Presidential election of 1964 - on October 21, 1964 - I heard the Accidental President, Lyndon B. Johnson, say this:<br /><br />“We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.”<br /><br />I voted for Johnson. He won. He did exactly the opposite of what he said he would do. It would be ten more years, 57,000 dead Americans and a number best estimated at 4 million dead Vietnamese before the damage of that unfulfilled promise was halted.<br /><br />Four years later, in 1968, I refused to vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. He had been Johnson’s Vice President. How could I believe anything he said?<br /><br />Forty years later I voted for Barack Obama for President largely because of his position on healthcare reform legislation. In 2003, while campaigning for John Kerry in New Hampshire, then Senator Barack Obama said this:<br /><br />“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” That’s what he said. I was glad to hear it because that is what I want too. He was also savvy enough to understand what was required in order to get a single payer universal health care program. In the same speech, he also said this:<br /><br />“We may not get there immediately.”<br /><br />Now, why did he say that? What’s the explanation? What did we need to accomplish first? Here’s the rest of that statement:<br /><br />“Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”<br /><br />You got that? Obama understood. Take back the Presidency and the Congress and then what? Then we can have a single payer universal health care program.<br /><br />Those were the words of Barack Obama. He repeated that pledge in his campaign for the Presidency in 2008. He promised Change We Can Believe In. I supported him and voted for him. He won. Democrats also won the House with a wide majority. They also won a numerical super-majority in the Senate. <br /><br />So, we’re getting a single payer universal health care program, right?<br /><br />No. All we are getting now is the Second Coming of LBJ. We never even got a shot at a single payer universal health care program and the so-called “public option” has now been scuttled too. The Change We Can Believe In has turned into either No Change At All or worse - a bill designed to further enrich the healthcare insurance industry, the pharmaceutical manufacturers, doctors, hospitals, private laboratories and all the other associated special interests that comprise the health care segment of our economy.<br /><br />If the point of partisan politics is to win public office – as Obama pointed out so well himself – what then is the point of winning if you never get what was promised?<br /><br />I understand you may not be able to get 100% of everything immediately. For me, 100% means a single payer universal health care system, or Medicare-for-all. I am ready to achieve that in steps. But if this Obama administration fails to pass a health care bill with at least a viable public option for health insurance, I will not vote for a Democrat for the House or Senate in 2010 and I will not vote to reelect Barack Obama in 2012. Why should I? What difference does it make?<br /><br />Looking back, I’m not so sure Hubert Humphrey would have been any different than Richard Nixon and it sure looks like this country may end up no better off with Obama/Biden than had John McCain and Sarah Whatshername won.papadabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02896890875223151093noreply@blogger.com1