Bring It On! National News

Let me just say this, my wife would kick my sorry ass if I ever raised a hand to her. My five daughters would probably join in on kicking my sorry ass if I hit their mother and Mom called for an Iron cage death match.

Domestic violence knows no boundaries or occupations and no race, creed, color or sexual orientation is without it. Tempers are what they are and sometimes the job comes home with you and sometimes some people can not check it at the door. Domestic violence is a serious problem in America and the flood gates of what is really happening in our nation is not talked about enough. It’s a fact that the majority of the abuse on spouses and children goes unreported. More times than not the violence is silent or quieted behind the four walls of a families home. The perpetrator and abusive family member is looked at from the family in a submissive mode and that the victim probably did something wrong to deserve a beating. That thought process is hard to comprehend but it happens every single day in America.

There was this story in the Boston Herald that I found and it points out several Boston Police officers that have had serious domestic violence complaints lodged against them and still hold the badge.

Critics: BPD soft on abuse
Boston cops punished in domestic cases, but kept their jobsBy O’Ryan Johnson
Friday, January 11, 2008

Despite talking tough on domestic violence, the Boston Police Department did not fire any of the 11 officers disciplined in the past two years for punching their spouses, striking their children and other violent incidents, a Herald review shows.The punishments handed down by Police Department brass in those cases include two five-day suspensions, three 30-day suspensions and one 40-day suspension. Of the remaining officers who were investigated, two retired, two resigned and one has a criminal case pending.

“It’s outrageous,” Mary Lauby, executive director of Jane Doe Inc., said of the department’s lack of a zero-tolerance policy against battering cops.

Snip and Cuff em Dan O’

Police Commissioner Edward Davis, who has been on the job for a little over a year, said a tougher policy has been in place since June 2006 that specifies officers can be fired for domestic violence complaints even if they aren’t found guilty in court.Davis said only one officer has been punished under the new rules, Lt. Dave Murphy, who received a five-day suspension for allegedly punching his girlfriend off a bar stool in Baltimore. In that case, the victim did not cooperate with the department, Davis said.

But Lauby of Jane Doe didn’t buy that as a valid defense of the department’s policy.

“This entire reliance on victims in order to prosecute, it’s a sham,” she said. “We all know that there is a substantial amount of domestic violence that never reaches anyone’s attention.” - Boston Herald

Violence in the home is and should not be tolerated by any wife, Mother, or child. Violence against family members is much like starting down the road of beginner drugs or alcohol. For that matter some people think that domestic violence is just as bad as addiction to drugs or alcohol. One step at a time it can ramp up till the walls all come crumbling down. In the worst possible scenario a spouse or child is dead at the hands of a family member.

The Herald piece pasted all Boston Police Officers in the same mold and that is not true reporting. It does however point out that the rules for all law enforcement officers needs to be a higher standard than the general public rules and laws. As in most professions in America there are idiots and scum bags. Boston’s Police Department is no different. Not all cops are wife beaters and not all cops are abusive to their children.

I don’t think there is a police officer in Boston that thinks the idiot highlighted in the Herald’s piece is nothing but a scum bag. With his disgraceful behavior in his private life it reflects back on all of the Boston Police whether they all like it or not. Then again the Herald goes out of its way to attack all public servants in Boston.

Real men, real woman do not need to hit or abuse anyone if you just open your mouth and logically vent. Violence against the family members that love you even if you have hit them in the past is not the answer. Asking them what you should do in your life is the answer. If that does not help then get some serious mental health consultation. One punch to the ones you love will damage not only your life but the ones you love forever. Seek help and advice everywhere you can and save not just your conscience but the horrible result of a family bound by violence.

My personal advice to the battered woman that are married to an abusive husband, get out and do it NOW! The life you save may be your own. No woman should tolerate even one moment of abuse. This is not 1808, this is 2008. Ending the cycle of violence from the victims point is far better than staying and letting your children learn that it is okay to beat their mother. Life long lessons are funny that way.

Papamoka

Originally posted at Papamoka Straight Talk

During this election cycle we’ve often heard politicians argue that the United States has the best health care system in the world. Unfortunately, there are problems with how this assertion should be measured and a new report suggests that U.S. politicians have ignored one very important factor. Specifically, for the 47 million people who lack health insurance, the results can be deadly despite the following inane comment from George Bush at a recent speech in Cleveland:

I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.

In the report released by “Researchers Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine”, the evidence suggests that the United States ranks dead last in terms of preventable deaths…a statistic that fully refutes the wisdom of the president’s observation. Basic logic should tells us that treating conditions in an emergency setting is inferior to routine care and monitoring…which rarely happens for those individuals who lack health insurance.

France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.

If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.

Nolte said the large number of Americans who lack any type of health insurance — about 47 million people in a country of about 300 million, according to U.S. government estimates — probably was a key factor in the poor showing of the United States compared to other industrialized nations in the study.

“I wouldn’t say it (the last-place ranking) is a condemnation, because I think health care in the U.S. is pretty good if you have access. But if you don’t, I think that’s the main problem, isn’t it?” Nolte said in a telephone interview.

All the countries made progress in reducing preventable deaths from these earlier rankings, the researchers said. These types of deaths dropped by an average of 16 percent for the nations in the study, but the U.S. decline was only 4 percent.

“It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance,” Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen said.

“The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals and efforts to improve health systems make a difference,” Schoen added in a statement.

As one can see, this report clearly points out just how absurd it is for the President to make the above statement. Yes, everyone knows that the uninsured can go to the emergency room…if they’re having an urgent medical event such as a heart attack, kidney failure, diabetic coma, and so on…but they’re not going to be provided with long term care in the form of heart medication, blood pressure medication, or insulin The care that is needed to treat long term medical conditions and chronic diseases and to avert or reduce these emergency room events as well as the increased risk of death is not available to many of the uninsured.

The bottom line is that the prevailing problem being ignored by the President and the 2008 GOP presidential candidates is the cost of health insurance and the inability of many, if not most of the 47 million uninsured, to afford it.

The topic was discussed in the recent ABC New Hampshire Republican debate. The following are a few relevant excerpts that clearly demonstrate the insufficiency of the GOP’s proposals to correct this urgent and expanding problem.

MR. ROMNEY: Charlie, it — that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be improved. And I think — I think that the notion of people buying their own private health insurance is a very good one, so long as a lot of them do it. Only 17 million Americans right now buy their own health insurance. If 50 million Americans were buying their own health insurance — because it would be just as tax-advantageous to do it that way — and we had a health savings account, people — economists believe there’d be a 30 (percent) to 50 percent reduction in the cost of health insurance, and quality would come up.

MR. GIBSON: You all have proposed free market, consumer- purchased insurance, and you all talk about giving tax deductions for buying insurance. Let me do a little math. The average family employer-provided insurance, when the companies buy it, its $13,000 a family.

Now, you’ve talked about a 15 (thousand) to 20,000-dollar deduction, right, for people buying their own insurance? If you take a median-income family of $62,000 in this country, you’ve just saved them $3,000 on their taxes. That doesn’t come close to buying an insurance policy.

MR. GIULIANI: Charlie, a health savings account actually helps to accomplish what the governor is talking about. If somebody can put aside — and the plans that we’ve been talking about include a health savings account — you’d have a — you’d have an exemption up to 15,000 (dollars). If you could find a policy for 11,000 (dollars), you could have a $4,000 health savings account. You would be able to buy some of your health care and your prevention yourself. It gives you an incentive over a lifetime to deal with wellness.

None of these comments address the fundamental problem. The fact is that the vast majority of the uninsured don’t have the income to buy health insurance even if they wanted to do so.

Let’s look at some of the GOP candidate’s specific statements. Mitt Romney seems to suggest that the problem will resolve if we can simply get more individuals to buy private health insurance. Excuse me, but there are millions of Americans who can’t even afford to pay their portion of an employer sponsored insurance plan. Just how are those individuals going to be able to afford even more expensive individual policies?

Rudy Giuliani’s plan isn’t any better. Note Charlie Gibson’s explanation whereby the government offers a tax incentive for individuals or families to purchase private insurance. However, to do so, a family needs to be able to afford at a minimum of $13,000.00 (the amount they currently pay for employer sponsored insurance) in order to receive a $,3000.00 tax break. If you haven’t the ability to pay for the insurance, the tax break is meaningless. Therefore the Giuliani plan only works for those who can already afford health insurance. It sounds nice to talk about a 15 to 20 thousand dollar exemption, but it isn’t going to help those with low incomes who already pay minimal taxes.

When Giuliani goes on to laud the benefits of an HSA, he is once again insulting our intelligence. If most of the people who lack health care had the ability to set aside $4,000.00 in an HSA…or under their mattress…wouldn’t they already be doing so? Further, the assumption that people aren’t mindful of their own wellness is laughable. If you can’t put food on the table for your family, you sure as hell don’t put $4,000.00 in an HSA account for wellness care.

Frankly, the bulk of the GOP rhetoric on health care is little more than smoke and mirrors intended to feign concern without ever having to fund care. I would relate it to one of my favorite expressions told to me by an old friend, “I’d have a ham and cheese sandwich…if I had any ham or cheese.” By and large, the same logic holds for the plight of the uninsured.

In fairness, both John McCain and Mike Huckabee argued that the lack of wellness and preventative care are largely responsible for the skyrocketing costs of health care. Their statements are a sensible equivalent to the oft heard expression, “you can pay me now or pay me later”…except for one critical omission. The “pay me now” portion of the equation is the lion’s share of unfunded health care costs…costs which are only currently covered by health insurance…the health insurance that millions can’t afford…and that the GOP has little desire to fund.

Since the health care industry isn’t absorbing these costs (and doesn’t want to), they have absolutely no motivation to offer to subsidize this type of care. At the same time, it’s abundantly evident that the GOP opposes the government stepping in to cover these costs. The truth of the matter is that the health care industry and the GOP both accept that it’s cheaper (and more profitable) to continue only requiring the health care industry to provide indigent emergency care. In the end, that essentially leaves few people advocating for the needs of the uninsured…and more people in the morgue.

It’s been more than seven year since George Bush sold the American public on the notion of “compassionate conservatism”. Let’s hope that the election of a Democrat in 2008 will be the first step towards seeing it demonstrated.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

it’s gonna be ABAT (All Britney All the Time):

Court awards Spears’ kids to K-Fed.

Just two things to say.

1. About friggin’ time;

and

2. Some people just shouldn’t be parents.

In this little experiment that we call America there is the freedom of religion as one of the many foundation blocks of our entire society. Added to that foundation is our freedom of speech. Toss in the Bill of Rights and you have a firm base to build your nation on. Then you add in all the decisions by the Supreme Court that becomes the support beams to hold up the roof.

When it comes to the Presidency in the Unites States it is not a bad thing for the President to have a strong sense of faith and belief that there is a higher power but you can not govern by it. Square peg, round hole. With such a diverse population we are not a society of one size fits all and when it comes to religion that little theory can or should implode a candidacy for President. We may be a nation under God but we are also one nation with many variations under God. Over at the Washington Post they have this interesting piece of Reverend Huckabee’s version of faith and the Presidency.

Huckabee Stands by ‘Christ’ CommentBy LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Sunday, December 30, 2007; 5:19 PM

DES MOINES, Iowa — Mike Huckabee, a Republican relying on support from religious conservatives in Thursday’s hard-fought presidential caucuses, on Sunday stood by a decade-old comment in which he said, “I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.”

In a television interview, the ordained Southern Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor made no apologies for the 1998 comment made at a Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Salt Lake City.

“It was a speech made to a Christian gathering, and, and certainly that would be appropriate to be said to a gathering of Southern Baptists,” Huckabee said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

He gave the speech the same year he endorsed the Baptist convention’s statement of beliefs on marriage that “a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.” Huckabee and his wife, Janet, signed a full-page ad in USA Today in support of the statement with 129 other evangelical leaders.

Snip - Cut - Co-Pay

In the NBC interview, Huckabee, a longtime opponent of legalized abortion, said he does not believe that women should be punished for undergoing the procedure, but that doctors might need to face sanctions.

“I don’t know that you’d put him in prison, but there’s something to me untoward about a person who has committed himself to healing people and to making people alive who would take money to take an innocent life and to make that life dead,” Huckabee said.

He also argued that his emphasis on his Christian beliefs does not mean he’s alienating atheists. He said, if elected, he would have no problem appointing atheists to government posts. - Washington Post

Where do I start when it comes to Governor Reverend Huckabee? I’m just guessing that Mike Huckabee believes that God made women with smaller feet than men so they could get that much closer to the kitchen sink to do the dishes. For that matter all of you woman that were beaten or abused by an abusive testosterone bag of bones should have pulled a Tammy Wynette and stand by your man. Bruises heal, bones mend and you probably did something wrong anyway. In his mind or in his teaching woman are and will always be second class citizens and that is just simply wrong. Then there is the added point that if Hillary is elected then Bill is really the President. That hurts my head to even think how that would work.

Roe vs. Wade, under Huckabee, nope. Kiss it good bye under the cause of the Christian Right. All you pro choice people that think your body is your own will need to line up for womb inspections under Das Fuhrer Huckabee. You better start praying that your babies didn’t have sharp finger or toe nails. Any scratches on the sacred chalice and life building organ will be cause for lethal injection. He isn’t totally against the death penalty but I could be wrong.

Then he pulls a Paul Pot from Cambodia and locks up all of the OBGYN doctors that might have performed an abortion. Then they can focus on all of the Lawyers that fought for and defended Roe vs. Wade and lock their asses up too. He will pay for it first by the added tax on one bedroom trailer home sales for back alley locations that will skyrocket as Planned Parenthood and other such medical offices are shut down. Then he might just add a wire coat hanger tax but that is a little to graphic to explain.

Mike Huckabee is standing by his statements on bringing America back to Christ but he can’t see the difference between Americans and America. No two American’s are alike and where one person finds abortion totally disgusting and wants the law changed, that same person believes that the death penalty is appropriate for crimes against our citizens. Pick one but you can not have it both ways if you swear to God above to be righteous.

As for all you Atheists or other icky religious persona non grata, the Post Office will be plastered with Huckabee appointees. Don’t even think about SCOTUS. Those positions will be reserved for zealous religious proponents of bringing America back to Christ.

By the way, screw all you Jew’s too from the Huckabee campaign. Merry Christmas, Happy Easter and all of the other religious holy days we as Christians will stuff down your throat under a Huckabee administration.

Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave at about fifteen thousand RPM’s right now. Look up for yourself on Google why he wrote the separation of church and state. Then look up whom he wrote it for and against.

Voting for Mike Huckabee is voting against all that America was founded on. Your right to believe in the choice of faith you want or to ignore faith entirely. Huckabee is hoping that many people will take their faith to the poll and elect him as America’s beacon of light back to Christ but I personally do not believe Jesus ever wanted a political office that proposed hate or judgment on anyone he loved. All you non believers included.

Our nation and the foundation it was built on will stand strong when we have a President that believes that his or her faith can not come first when governing. We are a house built with many products called faith and the roof needs to be replaced. Mike Huckabee is not Jesus Christ, I know Jesus Christ Sir. And you Sir are no Jesus Christ.

I’ll probably go to hell for that last one but I could not resist.

Papamoka

Originally posted at Papamoka Straight Talk

I report..you decide..all of this is from FactCheck.org:

Rudy’s Adoption Deception

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani claimed adoptions went up 65 percent to 70 percent when he was mayor of New York City, when in fact adoptions at the end of his tenure were only 17 percent higher than at the start, and they were falling. His manipulation of official statistics was a classic case of using data selectively to create a false impression.

Levitating Numbers May 7, 2007

Rudy’s False Cancer Claim

Giuliani claimed in a radio ad that men suffering from prostate cancer have only a 44 percent survival rate under England’s system of “socialized medicine.” The true figure is 74.4 percent. Giuliani’s bogus statistic was the result of bad math by a campaign adviser with no particular expertise in cancer research. It was denounced by any number of cancer experts including one who called it “nonsense.” Giuliani stubbornly refused to admit his error, claiming the 44 percent figure is “absolutely accurate.” It isn’t.

A Bogus Cancer Statistic October 30, 2007

Bogus Cancer Stats, Again November 8, 2007

Rudy’s Inflated Cop Count

Giuliani falsely claimed that he grew New York City’s police force by 12,000 officers, but 7,100 of those he counted were already housing or transit police who were simply merged into the New York Police Department. The actual increase in the size of the city’s uniformed police officers was about 3,660, or about 10 percent, and the cost of hiring about 3,500 of them was partially covered by the federal government under President Bill Clinton.

Cop-Counting Cop-Out October 9, 2007

Rudy’s Bogus Crime Claim

A Giuliani TV ad falsely claimed New York City experienced “record crime … until Rudy.” In fact, the city recorded its highest rates of both violent crime and property crime years before he took office. The downward trend was well established before he was sworn in.

The Not-Quite Truth About NYC November 27, 2007

Rudy’s Tax-Cut Puffery

Giuliani constantly repeated that he “cut or eliminated 23 taxes” while mayor of New York City, but eight of those were initiated at the state level, with the mayor cheering from the sidelines. A ninth cut, one of the largest, was opposed by Giuliani in a five-month standoff with the City Council, until the mayor finally acquiesced. He can properly claim credit for initiating only 14 of the cuts.

Giuliani’s Tax Puffery July 27, 2007

Richardson’s Job Inflation

Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson continually boasted of creating 80,000 jobs since becoming governor of New Mexico. But official figures showed a 68,100 gain when he first started making this inflated boast. He based his claim on a definition of “jobs” that includes unpaid workers in family businesses and freelancers who don’t draw a paycheck.

Richardson also claimed he “made New Mexico 6th in job growth,” when the state already ranked 6th for the 12-month period before he took office and later fell to 17th under Richardson’s stewardship.

Richardson’s Job Boast August 22, 2007

Richardson Flunks Math and Science

Richardson also claimed over and over that U.S. students rank 29th in the world in math and science. Not true. The two leading international assessments of student achievement rank U.S. students better in all cases, and in most cases much better, than Richardson claims. U.S. students do post mediocre scores compared with those of other industrial nations, but Richardson is using a fanciful number that paints too dark a picture.

Richardson Flunks Two Subjects September 12, 2007

Mitt’s Immigration Malarkey

An ad by Romney in New Hampshire claimed that his rival John McCain “voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security.” That’s untrue. Nobody who is in the country illegally could be paid any Social Security benefits under McCain’s immigration bill. What McCain and 10 other Senate Republicans voted against was an effort to strip illegal aliens of a right they currently have: to apply the taxes they paid and the time they worked while in the country illegally as credit toward future Social Security benefits if and when they become citizens or legal residents.

The same ad said one of the differences between the two candidates is that Romney “opposes amnesty” for illegal immigrants. But Romney himself once called McCain’s immigration bill “reasonable” and said it was “quite different” from amnesty. Indeed it was. The McCain bill would have required those here illegally to pay thousands of dollars in fines and fees to gain legal status.

In an earlier TV ad, Romney cast himself as tough on illegal immigration, saying “I authorized the [Massachusetts] State Police to enforce immigration laws.” He doesn’t mention that his order never took effect. It came in the closing days of his administration and was rescinded by his successor

More Mitt Malarkey December 28, 2007

Tough Guy on Immigration? November 9, 2007

Mitt’s Meth Miss

Yet another Romney ad attacked Huckabee in Iowa, claiming Romney “got tough on drugs like meth” in Massachusetts while Huckabee “reduced penalties for manufacturing methamphetamine” in Arkansas. But the legislation Romney supported never passed. Furthermore, convicted meth dealers face prison terms in Arkansas that are four times longer than those in Massachusetts, even after the reductions Huckabee supported. The reductions were drafted with help from Arkansas state prosecutors to ease prison overcrowding.

Romney on Huckabee II December 19, 2007

Mitt Mauls History

Romney claimed that Democratic President Clinton “began to dismantle the military,” but really it was Republican President George H.W. Bush who started making deep cuts in defense budgets years before Clinton took office.

More Mitt Missteps July 9, 2007

Hillary’s Trumped-up Troop Claim

In a TV ad for her presidential campaign, Sen. Hillary Clinton falsely claimed that members of the National Guard and military Reserve didn’t have health insurance until she and a GOP colleague took action. “You would think that after all the sacrifices and service of the National Guard and Reserve protecting our country, they would have had health insurance. But they didn’t.”

In fact, most of them did. All active-duty Guard and Reserve troops were covered by federal insurance long before she became a senator. Furthermore, four out of five non-active-duty guardsmen and reservists also were covered by their civilian employers or other sources. Clinton did help expand and enhance government health care coverage for reservists but can’t claim credit for creating coverage where none existed, as this ad implied.

Exaggerating Help for Troops December 20, 2007

Huckabee’s Tax Hooey

* Huckabee tried to duck charges of being a tax increaser by claiming an Arkansas gasoline tax hike passed after 80 percent of state voters approved it. But the referendum vote on highway repairs didn’t occur until after the tax was increased.

Huckabee also claimed repeatedly that he cut taxes “almost 94 times,” sliding by the fact that 21 other taxes were raised during his tenure, resulting in a net tax increase.

Huckabee’s Fiscal Record November 21, 2007

“FairTax” Falsehoods

Proponents of the so-called “FairTax,” prominently including Huckabee, claimed that a national sales tax of 23 percent could replace both the federal income tax and Social Security taxes, and eliminate the Internal Revenue Service.

In truth, the actual rate of the proposed tax would be 30 percent, when calculated the same way as state and local sales taxes. And it would have to be 34 percent to raise the same revenue as the taxes it would replace, according to a bipartisan presidential commission. The FairTax would, for example, raise the price of gasoline by roughly $1 per gallon at today’s prices and cause a $150,000 new home to cost at least $195,000 including the 30 percent tax.

And while the Internal Revenue Service might disappear, two new federal bureaucracies would be needed: one to administer the sales tax and another to keep track of sending out hundreds of billions of dollars in checks every year to compensate taxpayers for the regressive nature of sales taxes. The proposal calls for “prebates” to all taxpayers of all taxes paid on purchases up to the poverty level. That of course would require an IRS-like system to validate each person’s income and the amount of “prebate” they are due.

Unspinning the FairTax May 31, 2007

Edwards’ Empty Threat

Former Sen. John Edwards said, both in a TV ad and constantly on the campaign trail, that as president he’d tell Congress to act within six months to make sure all Americans have health insurance or “I’m going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you.” But he would have no such power. Lawmakers have health coverage granted by law, not by executive fiat.

Edwards’ Empty Threat November 13, 2007

McCain’s Supply-side Spin

McCain claimed the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 “dramatically increased revenues” and that tax cuts in general increase revenues. Not true. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all said that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth.

Supply-side Spin June 11, 2007

McCain’s Impossible Energy Dream

McCain promised that if elected he’d set up a massive government program to develop alternate energy sources and “we will in five years become oil independent.” But the U.S. imports two-thirds of its oil, and dependence is growing. Experts we consulted said McCain’s five-year goal is an impossibility. “There’s just no way,” said Frank Verrastro, director of the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “You can’t institute technological change that quickly.” Studies assessing how to achieve energy independence set target dates ranging from 2025 to 2040.

Republicans Debate in Iowa December 12, 2007

Scott Olson/Getty Images
Biden’s Bogus Labor Boast

Sen. Joe Biden claimed during a Democratic forum to have a labor record equal to or better than all the candidates present that evening:

Biden: Look at our records. There’s no one on this stage, mainly because of my longevity, that has a better labor record than me.

Actually, all the candidates on the stage had a better lifetime labor record than Biden, as measured by the AFL-CIO’s ratings of Senate and House votes. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Edwards had the best ratings, tied at 97 percent for their congressional careers. Biden’s lifetime rating brought up the rear at 85 percent.

AFL-CIO Democratic Forum August 8, 2007

Democratic Hot Air on Medicare

Democrats made a false promise to senior citizens by claiming that they had a painless way to bring about lower prices on pharmaceuticals. Michigan Rep. John Dingell summed up his party’s empty promise during House debate on their bill, H.R. 4:

Dingell: This legislation is simple and common sense. It will deliver lower premiums to the seniors, lower prices at the pharmacy and savings for all taxpayers.

That claim was contradicted by a number of experts including the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the chief actuary of the Medicare system. Both said the bill wouldn’t bring the lower prices Democrats promised, because it wouldn’t have allowed the federal government to set up a “formulary” of approved medications for Medicare, such as the one the Veterans Administration uses to squeeze price concessions from drug companies for the drugs it covers. Formularies can be unpopular with patients if preferred drugs aren’t covered. The Democratic bill would require federal officials to negotiate while denying them any leverage. The bill passed the House but the Senate took no action.
Medicare Hot Air January 17, 2007

Bush Baloney on Children’s Health

President Bush falsely claimed that a proposal to expand the 10-year-old federal SCHIP program “would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year.” That wasn’t true. Nothing in the proposal would have forced coverage for families earning $83,000 a year.

Actually, the Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage under the bill that Bush attacked (and later vetoed) are in families earning half the $83,000 figure Bush used. One state, New York, had proposed (under current law) to allow families of four with incomes up to $82,600 a year to be eligible, but the administration successfully prevented that from happening.

Furthermore, the program wasn’t aimed at “poor” children as Bush claimed. Those in poverty generally are covered under Medicaid already. SCHIP was aimed at children in families without health coverage and with incomes that are above the poverty level.

Bush’s False Claims About Children’s Health Insurance September 21, 2007

Bush’s Iraqi Exaggerations

Bush played loose with the facts in an address address to the nation on Iraq. He said “36 nations … have troops on the ground in Iraq.” In fact, his own State Department put the number at 25. The White House later said the president was counting some nations that had troops in the country temporarily as part of a military exercise. Bush also said the city of Baqubah in Diyala province was “cleared.” But the Washington Post quoted a State Department official as saying the security situation there wasn’t stable at the time.

Operation Iraqi Gloss-Over September 14, 2007

Off-Base About Offshoring

An ad by a labor union PAC supporting Democratic presidential candidate Edwards in Iowa implied that the closing of a Maytag factory in the state and the loss of 1,800 jobs were due to “tax breaks to companies that move jobs offshore.” And it said Edwards would end such breaks. But the jobs didn’t move offshore. They were sent to Ohio. And eliminating the “tax breaks” in question probably wouldn’t do much to keep jobs in the U.S.

Not Working 4 Edwards December 19, 2007

“Lawsuit Abuse” Nonsense

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce ran a TV ad claiming that “lawsuit abuse” is costing “your family” $3,500 a year. But that figure came from a study estimating the cost of all suits, not just abusive ones. The author of the study called the chamber’s ad “misleading.”

A False Ad About ‘Lawsuit Abuse’ May 11, 2007

by Brooks Jackson, with the staff of FactCheck.org

So, there you have it..all the lies and bs from both sides of the aisle..it’s a doozy ain’t it?

Courtesy of Factcheck.org. They don’t play favorites either:

The year 2007 wasn’t a good one for political honesty. Though not even technically an election year, it provided a bumper crop of falsehoods and distortions nonetheless.

Presidential candidates kept us busy:

• Republican Rudy Giuliani made false claims over and over about his record as mayor of New York, and even about England’s health care system.
• Democrat Bill Richardson also mangled the facts repeatedly, claiming credit for creating more jobs as New Mexico’s governor than actually materialized and using a made-up figure about the performance of U.S. students, among other misstatements.
• Republican Mitt Romney claimed undeserved credit for himself as governor of Massachusetts and made false or misleading claims about two of his rivals.
• Democrat Hillary Clinton ran an ad claiming that National Guard and Reserve troops had no health insurance before she went to work, when in fact most of them did.
• Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee repeatedly twisted the facts when talking about his record on taxes in Arkansas and other subjects. And there were plenty of other howlers from the large field of candidates.

Misinformation came both from Congress and the White House:

• Democrats made false promises about their Medicare drug bill in January.
• President Bush returned the favor in September by making a false claim about a Democratic effort to expand health care coverage for children in low-income families.

Independent groups also dispensed misinformation during 2007:

Advocates of the so-called “FairTax” claimed a 23 percent national sales tax can replace both the federal income tax and Social Security taxes. In truth, the actual rate would have to be at least 34 percent even if it fell on new homes, mortgage and credit-card interest and a host of other products and services not usually subject to state or local sales taxes.

A labor union group ran an ad supporting Democrat John Edwards that left the impression that jobs from a closed Iowa plant had gone overseas, when really they had gone to Ohio.

A business group ran an ad falsely claiming that “lawsuit abuse” costs families thousands of dollars per year, which isn’t true.

One of the largest expenses for the elderly in our nation after healthcare is property taxes. Homes that were purchased forty or fifty years ago for five to ten grand are now appraised at over three hundred grand in some areas of the Northeast. Tack on a property tax bill at thirty dollars per thousand and we have a senior citizen on a fixed income nightmare.

One of the problems with a one for all tax base fee per thousand dollar home value is that it does not in fact take into consideration the age and income level of the homeowner. Granted good old Donald Trump is at the age of AARP membership level but the average senior citizen is not anywhere close to his income level. Should the two have homes and property taxed at the same level? Personally, I don’t think so.

I’m a large supporter of letting senior citizens keep their homes. Not for one second is their one iota of thought in my mind that thinks that we should toss them to the home if they can’t pay the property taxes due. Over at the Houston Chronicle I found this interesting piece on helping the elderly that are able to help themselves…

N.Y. town lets seniors work off property taxes — for $7 an hour
By JIM FITZGERALD
Associated Press

GREENBURGH, N.Y. — Audrey Davison lives alone, gets a $620 Social Security check each month and worries about the sharply rising taxes on her four-bedroom house. Davison, 76, raised her family there and after 43 years, she really doesn’t want to leave Greenburgh.

Greenburgh doesn’t want her to leave, either.

The town is pushing a program that would let seniors work part-time, for $7 an hour, to help pay off some of their property taxes.

“People shouldn’t have to sell their house, move away to a place with less taxes, leave behind their family and friends,” said Town Supervisor Paul Feiner.

He envisions retired doctors mentoring schoolchildren, retired accountants helping with the town’s finances, retired lawyers offering their services for a discount. But there are plenty of less-skilled jobs that need doing, he said.

“It’s not like we’re going to see grandma running the snowplow,” he said. “There are lots of things people can do for the town and it wouldn’t cost us that much to pay them.” - Houston Chronicle

Growing up I had my neighbors in a small town in New England that actually were able to live in their homes till the day they died because the town cared about it’s elderly citizens. After a certain age the elderly based on income paid no property tax to the town. The end result was my neighbor Betty Stein, may she rest in peace, that lived out her days in the home she and her husband bought sixty years prior. Betty was never in the best of health but she loved the kids in the neighborhood and always had treats for my friends and I that played in her yard, searching for crawfish in the pond behind her home, or just stopping in to say hello to her. Betty would never have been able to keep her home if she had to pay property tax on it. Her deceased husbands pension and Social Security were next to nothing.

Betty was wheel chair bound for all the time that I knew her growing up. Neighbors helped her every single day because she was just Betty. She had no living children or family to speak of and maybe that is why she adopted all of us neighborhood brats. What about all the other Betty’s in the nation today? Granted, our workforce in America has changed where both the husband and the wife worked a full career and with or without a pension still struggle to survive in the homes they bought so many years ago. This is an issue that needs to be looked at and solutions or probabilities discovered to save the senior citizens all across America.

Back just a few years ago the cost for just one senior citizen to live in a nursing home was averaging five grand a month for full round the clock care. How I know that little bit of information is simply because that was the bill I received every month for my father with Alzheimer’s Disease. Till we were forced to sell his home, which went entirely from the lawyers hand to the nursing home for his care. We were lucky with Blaire House of Worcester for Dad. Many other cared for elderly family or friends are not. What happens to the individual that gets placed in that home?

Elder Abuse in Nursing Homes
Nursing Home Abuse News

Watching our grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles grow older has its own set of stresses. As those we love fall victim to the ailments of aging, we worry about our lives without them, all the while learning to provide care for them. We look to medicines, doctors, diets, vitamins—anything we can find—in hopes of keeping them healthy and happy and able to live as independently as they wish to. When finally the complications get too great, we turn to an assisted living, nursing home, or other long-term care facility to continue the thoughtful and conscientious care we are no longer able to provide.

Many of these facilities provide excellent care, however, far too many do not. Often understaffed with underpaid and poorly trained employees, many nursing homes push the bottom line so far that they endanger the lives of their patients.

Neglected, abused, and threatened, nursing home residents may suffer physically and emotionally. Painful bedsores, broken bones, or even premature death can result from neglectful and outright abusive treatment. - Nursing Home Abuse

What about the Betty’s that live just next door into their nineties that do not need a nursing home and still want to live their days out in their own damn home? We need to think of people like her or for that matter ourselves because the simple fact is that you or I will be in that position eventually. Would you want to be kicked out of your home because your home was taken for back property tax bills?

Don’t get me wrong, I give full credit to all of our nations senior citizens that work every single day. God bless them for being able to do so. One of my friends and co-workers is eighty four, another is seventy four. There is a difference to what these two friends are doing and what this program is all about. This work for property taxes can work for some people but it is not a fix all for blindly abusing the elderly. Did these people not live through the worst times our nation has ever seen and survived? It sickens me as a political opinion writer to think that anyone could have any argument against giving elderly retired homeowners living below poverty level any kind of break but feel free to speak your peace.

As much as America needs to protect its children with the full diligence that they deserve we need to do the same for our aged and elderly. That is a direct reflection on our society and way of life as a people. We all know that we can do better for all of our senior citizens. Should I mention that senior citizens vote too? That probably isn’t supposed to be relevant when it comes to this topic. I happen to think it is. Everyone forty and younger forget that I wrote that part. All of you forty and older bookmark this page. Maybe we should take back America by taking care of our Grandparents and elder neighbors first.

This liberal stands by all senior citizens no matter what political affiliation and will bitch the loudest when it comes to protecting them. They were the ones that paid the ultimate sacrafice and you can never forget that fact. What freedoms we enjoy today were bought and paid for by the previous generation. Maybe we should look to them as to what really being an American is all about?

In the words of former President Ronald Reagan, “As I fade into the sunset of my life…”

Papamoka

Originally posted at Papamoka Straight Talk

The enemy of Corporate Capitalists is regulation. The freedom to do whatever needs to be done to make a buck is the most efficient way to make that buck. Regulations, by the very nature, put a roadblock into that process. On the other hand, the goal of regulation is to protect the weak that do not have the strength to fight someone who chooses an efficient way of making money that also damages the society. Regulation is by its very nature a method to prevent efficiency.

My mother used to always say that moderation is the key to life. Obviously moderation does not rank high on the agenda of modern American society. People rush to embrace the latest fad, and then they drop it and rush on to the next fad a month later. There is no moderation in this behavior.

With regulations it is a similar love - hate relationship. People want to fix a problem and fix it “real good.” This results in regulations that don’t just fix a problem, they slam the problem real hard. Sometimes these slams can really hurt the efficiency of the process, and force capitalists to create new ways to make the process work. On the other hand, capitalists can permanently see the easiest solution is to remove the existing regulations to make the process work more easily. For the benefit of society lawmakers need to play the role of moderator of the regulations.

Unfortunately lawmakers are paid by campaign contributions from groups on both sides of the regulations divide. The result of this is that we never have a group of moderate lawmakers that realize the necessity of regulation as well as the danger of over regulation. The extremists populate the government and proudly push their agenda.

To make matters worse, the enforcement of regulations is the key to making them work. Enforcement is the jurisdiction of the executive branch of government. For the most part the enforcement of regulations can easily be curtailed by funding cuts. If there are no people to inspect and enforce regulations, the result is a policy that is the same as if there were no regulations at all. If no one follows up on a report of violations, then the criminal gets away with the crime. If the people given the duty to enforce the laws are selected because of their incompetence, the result again will be little enforcement of the laws. The truth is that it is difficult to enforce these laws even when we have competent people trying to enforce the laws.

Regulations are meant to protect society.

Yesterday I was listening to a right wing radio station. A caller was complaining that China was poisoning our children. It is quite understandable that we should be concerned with lead or other toxins in our products. One way to fight this is to require regulations. But, even more importantly we need to enforce regulations that protect us. The right wing talk show host pointed out that the government should not be required to do this job. And, we shouldn’t have regulations placed on our corporations, because that would be too costly for our American companies who distribute goods that are manufactured in China. I began to wonder what this guy was going to suggest to protect our society.

I was not only surprised, but shocked when the right wing radio talk show host suggested that we should let market forces protect America. If people get injured or die from poorly made products manufactured in China, then Americans will vote with their wallets and stop buying the poison. I wish I knew who this guy was, but the radio began to fade out while I was listening. Of course, I thought to myself, the market will fix all of our problems, even if a few people need to die in the process.

I began to think about Europe. Europe has an enormously complex set of regulations. I know a few of these regulations because I have designed products to be sold in Europe. The reason that Europe came to the conclusion that it needed these regulations was because Europe wanted to expand its market. It wanted regulations in one country to match regulations in another country. Obviously if one country had lax regulations it could manufacture less safe products at a cheaper price, just like China is doing in today. But, the US does not have a uniform set of regulations in which a product is marked as compiling with. It isn’t until a harm is found before a product is forced to be taken off the market.

What is the difference between Europe and the USA that makes for the differences in this attitude toward regulation? Why is the US government so careless about the potential problems with new products, while the European governments care about potential harms? I would suggest that the main difference is that Europe actually has a broad health care system. So, if there are widespread health problems caused by a defective product, then the government will end up paying the cost. The government is thereby motivated to prevent harms to society. (This sounds a lot like letting the market solve the problem.) Therefore the governments are motivated to create regulations that protect the people. And, the government is also motivated to enforce those regulations. Isn’t it wonderful when problems are left to the market?

So, I would suggest that Universal Health Care would not only help get health care to those who can not afford it, but it actually motivates the government to protect the people from things like toxins in our toys, and food. It might cost a little more, but what is the cost of your health? Isn’t there an old saying that asks: “If you haven’t got your health, then you haven’t got anything.” Surely a corporate capitalist can understand that little saying.

—————————————————–

Don’t forget what Stephen Colbert said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit

Reflection

I was listening to a lecture yesterday by an expert on teenagers. He concentrated on the dangers that teenagers face as the mature. He was telling the audience about the dangers of drugs and alcohol when he took a moment to explain why some people become addicted to drugs and alcohol more easily than others. Obviously some drugs manifest in physical addictions, while other drugs manifest in psychological additions. At one time I recall being told that some people are more susceptible to psychological additions, and these people were said to have addictive personalities. Yesterday, the speaker went into a little bit more detail about this addictive personality.

The speaker yesterday spoke about obsessive behavior. He told us how a person with and obsessive personality has a higher probability of becoming addicted to drugs or alcohol. For example, an obsessive person might become obsessed with a multitude of different things before they even try alcohol. They might become obsessed with things that are overall very positive, or overall very negative. At some point along the way a person might realize that an obsession has taken over his or her life. And, because the obsession is an obsession the person is unable to make a break with the obsession. Obsession is a selfish behavior, because the obsession has a higher priority than any other issue or relationship in the person’s life. In many cases the inability to control obsession results in embarrassment in minor cases and self-hatred in the worst cases. At some point these feelings of self-loathing lead to self-medicating with drugs or alcohol in an attempt to “feel better.”

Once the person with the obsessive personality has self-medicated it isn’t long before self-medication itself becomes an obsession.

The speaker told us about obsession and insecurity and fear drive obsessions. Immediately I began to think about the authoritative personality that I wrote about on Friday. It seems that fear and insecurity also feed the authoritative personality. In fact, as I considered the authoritative personality and the obsessive personality I realized the authoritative personality might just be a form of the obsessive personality.

Think of the goal of the authoritarian. They tend to seek order and control. Obsessive personalities have very little control over their obsessions and they eventually seek to control them. An obsessive person will be tempted when he his trying to fight an obsession. An authoritarian personality makes rules and punishments in order to dissuade himself from the temptation. Ambiguity in rules lead to temptations. Ambiguity makes it more difficult to fight an obsession. A rigid framework with all the answers laid out for the obsessive person tries to take away the ambiguity, the free time and wishfully the temptation. But, the reality is that only the obsessive person can make the obsession go away by realizing that no obsession can be the answer.

Many groups tend to offer replacement obsessions as a solution. And, authoritarian frameworks offer a replacement obsession. An obsessive person will easily fit into a framework with a firm unambiguous set of rules and regulations. An obsessive person will seek comfort and security in continuously following these rules and regulations. An obsessive person would also find compulsion in making sure that every other member of the group is also following the rules and regulations. A large network of these obsessed people continuously following the rules and regulations and furthermore enforcing them results in a self-regulating structure provide comfort and security for its obsessive members. However, anyone from outside the structure is a threat to this security.

The fear of abandonment is high on the list of potentially destructive threats to the network. If members abandon the group the group shrinks and potentially withers. Those who abandon the group might prove that survival without the group is possible and perhaps even better. This image might lead to the unthinkable concept that the group is not the salvation of the members.

So, it seems reasonable to suggest that joining a authoritarian cult might be a response of an obsessive personality. Then again many of the things we do are responses to our natural tendency for obsession. I might even suggest that writing this very blog is an obsession of sorts. Waking up at 5:00 AM to go work out every morning is an obsession. Eating breakfast every morning and dinner every evening are equally obsessions. But, the point is that some obsessions are healthy and some obsessions are unhealthy and sometimes even dangerous. All of this goes back to free choice and freedom to choose “good” obsessions and avoid the unhealthy ones.

How do we determine which obsessions are healthy and which obsessions are unhealthy? I would suggest that the subject of the obsession would be one consideration. And, the intensity of the obsession is the other. For example, eating breakfast every day is a healthier obsession than drinking your lunch every day. However, eating 3,000 calories for breakfast every day isn’t healthy either. Similarly following rules and regulations are normally considered a wise practice. Even the occasional reminder to a passerby might help remind someone of the rules they may not be thinking about. However, demanding laws that take away a person’s freedom and liberty might be pushing the limits, like gun control or abortion rights. The obsession that some people have for controlling others is certainly an obsession that needs to be constrained.

The message here is simple. Obsessions in general are not horrid in themselves. Some people tend to have obsessive personalities that are prone to obsessive behavior. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If the obsessions that one chooses is a healthy moderated obsession it could be a good thing. However, if a person chooses unhealthy obsessions, it could harm the person, and perhaps it could harm our society.

—————————————————–

Don’t forget what Stephen Colbert said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit

Reflection

Don’t get me wrong because for the most part I think Mike Huckabee is probably one of the more genuine candidates over on the Republican side of the election. His sense of humor is realistically enough suited to him when it comes to the non stop religious questions thrown at him. Being a Republican candidate for President you pretty much need to be wearing your religion on your sleeve and if you are not then you better be explaining yourself. Which brings me to the thought process of why Mike Huckabee is not giving a JFK speech like Mitt Romney did just a few days ago? After all, Mitt is only a Mormon faith member, he was never a religious leader of his flock like Mike Huckabee was.

Is Mike Huckabee not concerned about all the people of the Jewish faith that just might also be a Republican. How about all them Catholic Republican’s like Bill O‘Reilly? Skip the Catholic’s, we gave up on Bill O’Reilly when he signed his pact with the devil but don’t tell anyone. Everyone knows that being a Catholic and a Republican too is like taking scuba diving lessons by jumping out of a plane at ten thousand feet, those two things just do not go together.

Is it possible for a preacher to go from the religious pulpit to the Presidential podium? Granted Huckabee was Governor of Arkansas but that is in the midst of the bible belt and in those states having the right religion can be the gold card of politics.

Over at MotherJones.com they have this very interesting read on just this subject…

Huckabee Hides His Full Gospel? Washington Dispatch: Is Mike Huckabee the presidential candidate shunning Mike Huckabee the preacher? Before entering politics, he was a pastor at two Baptist churches. Now his campaign tells Mother Jones it won’t make his sermons available to the media and the public.By David Corn and Jonathan Stein
December 10, 2007
Now that he has his moment in the political spotlight, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee does not want his days at the pulpit to be scrutinized.

As Huckabee has surged to the front of the Republican pack in Iowa, his religious views have drawn media and voter attention. After all, Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, has been campaigning as a “Christian leader.” But he has vacillated on how far to interject faith into politics. At an early debate, he indicated he does not believe in evolution, but at a more recent debate, when he was asked by Wolf Blitzer if the creation of the Earth occurred six thousand years ago and only took six days, as stated in the Old Testament, Huckabee said, “I don’t know. I wasn’t there.” During a question-and-answer session with students at fundamentalist Liberty University last month, he asserted that his rise in the polls has an explanation that is “beyond human” and is due to the power of his supporters’ prayers. Afterward, he backtracked slightly, adding, “I’m saying that when people pray, things happen…. I’m not saying that God wants me to be elected.” (At a victory rally held after Huckabee won a 1993 special election for lieutenant governor, Huckabee told his supporters that he had only won because God had intervened, according to the Texarkana Gazette.) - MotherJones.com

It perplexes me why the topic of religion is so heavily debated among the Republican’s in the race for the Presidency and it never ends. Fractures in the political party of the current President are rampant from state to state and it will not end until the last vote is cast. If the thinking behind the votes cast is solely based on a candidates religious belief then the voters do not see what politics is really all about. Being President is not about what God you believe in or how many times you attend services. It’s about making decisions for the greater good of all of our people. Current President exception. There are decisions to be made that frankly, yes religion and your personal faith can and will have a bearing on but there is also the fact that as President you have to defend the Constitution of the United States of America to the best of your abilities over any other vow you have ever taken in your life. There is no exception written into the oath that you must take once elected President of this nation. Again, current President exception.

Thou shall not kill, one of the biggies of the ten commandments is pretty relevant if you are the Commander in Chief of our nations military. Can the preacher break this commandment by using military force where many lives could be lost as President of our country to defend our people? If not, then how does he defend our nation and prove that America is not to be messed with by all the little dictators that think they are the next toughest kid on the block? Could he direct the CIA to find and kill terrorist leaders around the world that are intent on the ultimate destruction of America? Could Huckabee put the bible down to make these kind of decisions and live with it or not?

There is a large difference between a Sunday sermon and the highest political office in the land. Sermons are easy enough, running a nation is not about words and phrases that can roll off the tongue. It’s about actions that President’s have to take and in some instances it runs counter to whatever religion you have under your belt. Once more the current President exception.

Papamoka

Originally posted at Papamoka Straight Talk