Bring It On! National News

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?

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 heard about this 60 year old’s walk from Fanueil Hall to DC from a commenter at AngryBlackBitch’s blog. His name is John Nirenberg, and here is a little about him from his blog entitled MarchInMyName:

What makes this 60 year old, slightly overweight believer in the system take to the street? What makes this life-long servant of the establishment more at home in comfort than in conflict spend an inadequate retirement savings to seek the President and Vice President’s impeachment? What exactly shook me awake from my trance of complacency?

My name is John Nirenberg. I was born in the midst of the Nuremberg Trials. I grew up conscious of that place as both the beginning of the hate and violence that destroyed all of Europe, and the trials that confirmed a powerful moral sense of what is acceptable and unacceptable even in the depths of war.

That’s a long-assed walk this time of year for a guy in his later years. How many of us would do this? How many of us care about our country this much? Not many..and I include myself in that list. He is going to DC to see Nancy Pelosi. He wants Impeachment back on the table. I agree and many of us here agree too, but how many of us care enough to do what he is doing?

Please check out his route, if he is walking through your town, or near you..please show up and give him your support..its the least we can do my dear reader.

Time has a way of exposing inconsistencies…and when it does, it often shines a bright light upon previously ignored or hidden hypocrisies. For me, Thursday’s Democratic debate helped crystallize my thoughts on one of those situations.

We’ve all heard plenty about the tainted toys being imported from China…toys which have been recalled due to lead content and other dangerous chemicals harmful to America’s children. As the candidates were debating the merits of our trade agreements, it occurred to me that the response of the Bush administration to the questionable imports warranted further analysis.

Following an exchange on the topic of our existing trade agreements and whether they provide the mechanisms necessary to monitor and penalize the improper acts (like the exportation of dangerous toys) of those nations and companies (often American owned) doing business in those countries, I took particular notice of Senator Biden’s comments.

After a number of the candidates expressed their criticism of the handling of the imported toys as well as NAFTA and CAFTA (the trade agreements typically associated with questionable trade issues), Biden offered the following with regard to the outrage at the lack of response to the toys in question:

From The New York Times:

SEN. BIDEN: Look, it’s not the agreement; it’s the man. Under the WTO, we can shut this down. What are they all talking about here? It’s about a president who won’t enforce the law. (Applause.) When they contaminated chicken, what happened? They cut off all chickens going in from Delaware — a $3 billion industry — into China. They cut it off. We have power under the — this agreement. I don’t know what anybody’s talking about here. Enforce the agreement.

MR. BLITZER: Thank you.

SEN. BIDEN: Shut it down. (Applause.)

As I listened, I recalled another situation which I think even better demonstrates the inconsistencies of the current administration with regard to trade and the safety and protection of the American public…one that exposes a level of hypocrisy that we shouldn’t accept from our government.

Following the passage of President Bush’s Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003…and in response to the President’s insistence upon a provision to prevent Medicare from negotiating bulk discounts for drugs…there was a push in the Congress to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada in order to assist those in need of less expensive drugs. As it was being discussed, the President threatened to veto legislation which would enable Americans to import prescription drugs from Canada. Back then, he stated he would do so because there would be no way for the FDA to insure the safety of the drugs which would be imported.

When the issue resurfaced earlier this year, the President once again promised to veto the proposed legislation; arguing that it would risk the importation of “unsafe, unapproved, and counterfeit drugs”.

In the absence of sufficient comparisons, one might be inclined to believe that the President’s persistent opposition to imported drugs signals his concern for the safety of the American public…and while I’m sure such concerns exist and may well be sincere…they may not be the primary motivation. I contend that the tepid response to the importation of dangerous toys from China provides an important comparison…one that is necessary to identify an inconsistency…and therefore serves to illuminate an obvious hypocrisy.

Here’s the thing. There are millions of elderly and poor Americans lacking sufficient insurance coverage and in need of affordable medications. The fact that our President refuses to allow these individuals to purchase drugs from Canada…drugs that Canadians apparently trust and drugs which no doubt keep Canadians well…speaks to one underlying motive. Isn’t is probable that the President’s opposition to the importation of Canadian medications is first and foremost about protecting the profits of large drug companies who charge Americans premium prices for their medications? Keep in mind this is the same President who also vetoed legislation to extend health care coverage to more of America’s poor children. As I look at these issues in conjunction with the measures to insure the safety of imported toys, I struggle to reconcile the contradictions.

One must question the lack of substantive action on the part of the Bush administration with regard to tainted toys from China…toys that are often manufactured in China by large corporations seeking cheap labor and higher profits. If we’re willing to make the argument that it is prudent to prevent ill Americans from obtaining Canadian medications that are arguably safe and beneficial, then why aren’t we also acting forcefully and preemptively to protect healthy American children and prevent them from obtaining unsafe toys manufactured in China?

I’ll answer my own question. We do so because the Bush administration places more weight upon cozying up to corporate interests and protecting their profits than he does upon looking out for the welfare of American citizens. Should the two concerns intersect, all the better; should they not, then we apparently turn a blind eye to danger.

Toss in the fact that we are constantly being bombarded by the Bush administration’s mantra that they’re fighting the war on terror in Iraq (at a cost of 10 billion per month) in order to protect Americans at home and the breadth and depth of this President’s efforts to distort and deceive suddenly becomes crystal clear. Protecting Americans ought to extend beyond the concerns for the coffers of corporate collaborators and the political aspirations of those who have found that fueling fear wins elections.

If this represents the manner in which the Bush administration intends to execute its responsibilities to protect us and keep us secure, I’m afraid I join many Americans in believing the outcome is woefully inadequate.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Robin Prosser was fifty years old when she ended her life. By all accounts her life was filled with debilitating pain…first the physical pain of an “immunosuppresive disorder” and then the emotional pain that accompanied her efforts to utilize her medical marijuana license to obtain the drug that reportedly eased her constant discomfort.

She was a high-profile campaigner for the Montana Medical Marijuana Act, and like others, she was dismayed when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that drug agents could still arrest sick people using marijuana, even in states that legalized its use.

The ruling came to haunt Prosser in late March, when DEA agents seized less than a half ounce of marijuana sent to her by her registered caregiver in Flathead County.

At the time, the DEA special agent in charge of the Rocky Mountain Field Division said federal agents were “protecting people from their own state laws” by seizing such shipments.

“I feel immensely let down,” Prosser would write a few months later, in a guest opinion for the Billings Gazette published July 28. “I have no safety, no protection, no help just to survive in a little less pain. I can’t even get a job due to my medical marijuana use - can’t pass a drug test.”

Federal prosecutors declined to charge Prosser, but fear spread through the system of marijuana distribution set up in the wake of the medical marijuana act. Friends said Prosser turned to other sources for marijuana, but found problems nearly everywhere she turned.

A number of bloggers have written about Prosser’s tragic death and while the topics of medical marijuana and the “war on drugs” warrant discussion, I think a larger issue merits even more attention. That issue is the growing need to view others through a template which relies upon the belief that society is best served when homogeneity is embraced and enforced.

The problem begins with a reliance upon statistics and soon morphs into the conclusion that all situations and all individuals can be understood by looking at the prevailing data to determine what is acceptable and what must be rejected. While this model serves us well with regards to the approval of drugs by the FDA; it fails miserably when attempting to predict each individuals capacity to lead a functional life…especially when that life is lived outside the norm.

At its worst, I believe that such a construct not only leads to a mind set which demands similitude; but it encourages the mediocrity that seems to have become a burgeoning affliction in this country. Differentness seems to have become a disquieting condition which has led us to react with fear to all that is outside the safe confines of the normative range of behaviors.

As I read the many comments on the Prosser situation, I was struck by the countless assertions of certainty regarding the use of marijuana and the propensity to cite the evidence proffered by the government in its ongoing opposition to marijuana. Here’s the problem. For every study that offers a rationale to prevent its use, there are ten that document the dangers of consuming alcohol. Unfortunately, the powers that be support the notion that adults can and will make reasoned decisions with regard to their use of alcohol while prohibiting those same adults from doing so with marijuana and other recreational drugs.

The individuals who so boldly claim that marijuana is a gateway drug…a drug which can lead to depression…a drug whose use is indicative of a surrender to the travails faced by the individual…are the same individuals who believe they can judiciously manage their own use of alcohol…a drug with all of the same contraindications.

Let me be clear…my comparison to alcohol is not offered as a justification for the legalization of marijuana even though it may be a compelling argument. I offer the comparison to highlight the inconsistency inherent in the arguments which attempt to apply statistical data without regard for the varying abilities of the individual. The exceptionalism which is so often applied to America by Americans is mysteriously absent when looking at individuals who operate outside the safe zone of the proverbial bell curve.

Truth be told, the exceptional traits which we so frequently attribute to this nation clearly resulted from the efforts of individuals who refused to be confined by conventionality and the prescribed standards we now cling to with more unfounded fears than those associated with a child’s reliance upon a security blanket. Each submission to our fears is another piece of evidence that the average American identity grows ever more fragile. That fragility also facilitates the flattening of the curve and an across the board free fall towards a safe but shared inferiority.

As we acquiesce to all that defines a nanny state, we are fast becoming a nation of sniping adult children who succumb to pettiness because it is far easier than confronting the many complex discriminations that accompany the human condition. In our rush to mediocrity, we hasten the demise of the creative spirit, we stifle those who would otherwise take the risks that have allowed us to exceed all others, and we force the Robin Prosser’s of the world to believe that their very existence is so antagonistic that they can no longer live amongst us.

When we allow the pain of our irrational fears to exceed our ability to empathize with those in our midst who are suffering tangible tragedy we move ever closer to the very demise we imagine may come if we were to make allowances for our differences. Robin Prosser is no longer living…but we who remain are less alive each time we foster the intolerance we’re unable or unwilling to overcome.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

It seems that, on the good news side, every year of formal schooling delays memory-loss due to Alzheimer’s by about 2.5 months. On the bad news side, every year of formal schooling, once that delay period has passed, tends to speed up the memory-loss by about 4%. Someone with 16 years of schooling might lose memory 50% faster than someone with only four years of schooling. So, let’s see. I had 20 years of formal schooling. That means my memory loss could be delayed by two years compared to one who graduated high school but had no higher education. On the other hand, thereafter, I could lose memory 32% faster. On the other hand, if I had quit when I had wanted to, after my first day of kindergarten, I would have begun noticable memory loss quickly but 80% more slowly. I’m not sure all those thousands of dollars for college tuition and books and all were all that great an investment.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has SCHIt on his shoes, but unfortunately the smell hasn’t caught the noses of much of the mainstream press - yet.

The story behind this story is not new in a couple of ways. It is the story of Graeme Frost, the 12 year old boy who gave the Democratic response to the Sept. 29 Bush radio address in which Bush explained his sleazy, politically motivated, ultra-cynical veto of the SCHIP bill. and was Swift Boated by the rabid Right rabblers like “What a Rush” Limbaugh, Bill O’Lielly, Michele Schmalken, and Sean Hackkity. These smarmy smearers alleged that somehow the boy’s story was not true and that his family made more money than they needed to care for him. This turned out to be untrue - and a certain Senator knew this and lied about it anyway.

This is becoming big news in Kentucky.

From the Louisville The Courier-Journal…

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell knew last week — at a time when he was denying it — that his staff had sent e-mails encouraging reporters to look into the background of a 12-year-old boy used by Democrats to support expansion of a health-care program.

In an interview Friday with WHAS-TV reporter Mark Hebert, the Kentucky Republican said his staff had not been involved in trying to push reporters to look into the financial situation of the boy’s family.

But McConnell’s communications director, Don Stewart, said in an interview Monday with The Courier-Journal that he had told McConnell about the Oct. 8 e-mails sometime around Thursday, the day before the interview with Hebert.

Stewart also said, however, that he had told the senator he had sent follow-up e-mails within a matter of hours warning reporters off of the story because “the family is legit.”

… Stewart said he informed McConnell of his personal role in the matter around Thursday.

The next day, Friday, Hebert asked McConnell about the e-mails. The exchange was broadcast Sunday night and again last evening.

Hebert asked the senator whether his office was attempting to get reporters to look into Frost’s background.

“No,” McConnell answered.

The senator was then asked, “What was the deal with the e-mail from your staffer?”

McConnell replied: “There was no involvement whatsoever.”

… Stewart said the first blogs, questioning whether the Frosts qualified financially for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, appeared Oct. 6, two days before he sent out his first e-mail to reporters.

…”The blogs started this story on Oct. 6 — two days before I pointed it out and spiked it. This story started and ended in the blogs,” Stewart wrote. “I told reporters there was ‘no story.’ I told Sen. McConnell that I spiked the story. That is 100 percent accurate.”

Just how many of the sleazy right wing pundits knew they were peddling lies about the family is probably unknowable and really isn’t all that important. But if the Senate Minority Leader was smearing the family, knew they were lying, and then lied about that? That’s grounds for a lawsuit - and the careening of McConnell’s career.

Here’s McConnell’s website. Write him, call him, email him, fax him - tell him what a dick he is.

JMJ

I’ve come to realize that one must avoid the inclination to be shocked or surprised by the actions of the Bush administration. Today’s reported appointment of Susan Orr to head the Department of Health and Human Services family planning program is just another in a long string of head scratchers.

Susan Orr, most recently an associate commissioner in the Administration for Children and Families, was appointed Monday to be acting deputy assistant secretary for population affairs. She will oversee $283 million in annual grants to provide low-income families and others with contraceptive services, counseling and preventive screenings.

In a 2001 article in The Washington Post, Orr applauded a Bush proposal to stop requiring all health insurance plans for federal employees to cover a broad range of birth control. “We’re quite pleased, because fertility is not a disease,” said Orr, then an official with the Family Research Council.

“We have another appointment that just truly politicizes family planning,” said Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. “The last time I looked, both Republicans and Democrats used contraception in America.”

Orr is a former employee of the Family Research Council, a right wing group founded by James Dobson of Focus on the Family and currently headed by Tony Perkins. The group has used the research of discredited psychologist Paul Cameron to promote their anti-gay agenda as well as to promote other extreme positions of the far right. Need I say more?

I think not. Instead, I decided to have some fun with the appointment so I created the following top ten reasons George W. Bush appointed a birth-control opponent to head the family planning program at the Department of Health and Human Services:

Number Ten:

He’s simply trying to be consistent with his disdain for the “politics of obstruction”.

Number Nine:

Ever since hearing the band “Rhythm Method” perform, his views on family planning were changed forever.

Number Eight:

The President doesn’t like to make the same mistake twice…therefore he accepts that Iraq didn’t have…STD’s (or was that WMD’s?) so he’s sure as hell not going to support the meme that people who use condoms won’t acquire them either.

Number Seven:

Ever since the Iran-Contra Affair, the President has been opposed to the government having any involvement with “contra-ception”.

Number Six:

His father hated broccoli…he hates “condom-ments”.

Number Five:

The President opposes a draft because he believes its a free country…but not when it comes to having children. We’re going to need every soldier we can get to man his planned fifty year presence in Iraq.

Number Four:

He thinks getting your tubes tied has to do with restricting access to the “internets”.

Number Three:

The President previously stated, “Too many OBGYN’s aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.” To make that happen, he has a vision in mind and Susan Orr is the best person to bring his plan to fruition.

Number Two:

The President is willing to expand poor children’s access to health care through S-CHIP…but not unless he has some guarantee that the country is going to have a lot more of them.

Number One:

In order to insure unencumbered access to the “eggs”, the President believes the fox should guard the hen house.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

We’ve all heard the expression, “Can’t see the forest for the trees”. It’s simple yet poignant, and it’s message is abundantly accurate…yet all too often ignored. In the last few days, all I’ve been able to see is the forest…not because I possess prescient abilities or feel that I’m above the fray; rather because there are times when the fray is so disheartening that I’m pushed over the edge into what I have long called my moments of hyper-reality…those periods of time when I let myself see and feel all that I’ve learned to suppress in accordance with the rules we’ve established and accepted in this sometimes all too calloused existence.

Look, I’m no angel and I’m not writing this to garner any accolades or to assert any position of advanced awareness. More likely, I’m writing to purge what feels like a persistent period of ad hominem attacks and the hatred which now accompanies our efforts to extend one groups hegemony over another.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy robust dialogue and I’m more than willing to engage in an argument. Notwithstanding, I ultimately attempt to see others as more than objects in an elaborate chess game…pawns one can sacrifice in order to succeed. Yes, it is a slippery slope because we all encounter individuals we believe exert more influence over our environment than we believe is reasonable…which leads us to conclude it is a right or even a requirement to undermine or end their authority.

In a representative government, we enlist others to act as our emissaries and we hope they do so with conscience and consideration. Unfortunately, there are times when the divisions are so pronounced that elections serve to embolden one faction while negating another. Sadly, America seems to be locked in that dynamic and I’m not optimistic our intentions or our efforts are designed to extinguish it.

Let me provide some context. I don’t understand what is sought or achieved in making the wearing of a lapel pin a relevant measure of a presidential candidate’s patriotism…in reducing one’s support or objection to the Iraq war to a debate about whether we issue a congressional condemnation of a political advertisement by MoveOn.org and/or the political ramblings of Rush Limbaugh…in drafting lists of Republicans and Democrats who have committed crimes or ill-advised acts in order to paint half of America’s beliefs as wrong and half as right…in assaulting the credibility of a twelve year old boy and his family in Baltimore in order to determine the threshold by which our nation intends to extend access to necessary health care…in pointing to the circumstances behind the death of a minister in Alabama as the means to invalidate the agenda of the religious right or those opposed to them and their agenda…in arguing that a poster using the imagery of The Last Supper for a gay event in San Francisco either proves or disproves that gays are anti-Christian and therefore either good or bad people.

As I was thinking about all of these issues and getting ready for bed last night, I wrote down the following words, “Can we actually argue that we love America if we spend so much of our time hating so many other Americans? Does America even exist if our perceptions of her and what she represents are so polarized? When did we stop being the United States of America?”

Frankly, I’ve begun to think that America has become the equivalent of two people locked in a surly and pathetic marriage…one in which the participants have become so resentful that neither side has any interest in communicating; rather each side rails on endlessly about each and every aspect of the other such that little, if anything, about the other remains acceptable or warrants anything but ridicule and abject animosity.

I don’t know what we want anymore…and in saying as much it becomes evident that just seeing the forest doesn’t cure what ails the trees which inhabit it. What once were similar beings weathering the same storms, being nourished from the same soil, drinking from the same stream, have seemingly become twisted and gnarly protrusions…self-absorbed and obtuse…fighting for their share of the sun while wantonly casting shadows of immense darkness.

Worse yet, what lies beneath is even more convoluted and entangled…a mess of barnacled beliefs entwined in a battle for validation…each day more entrenched…locked in a deadly game of tug of war…one that advances out of sight but is clearly marked by the heaving soil upon which we walk and have apparently come to accept. Passed from tree to tree like an insidious disease, death is measured in agonizing inches…a slow yet certain culling of those less able or less willing to defend against the ever advancing encroachments.

Like an overgrown forest, there is no time to mourn the dead…the fallen become fodder for the formative saplings who grow stronger in their beliefs as they are encouraged to feast upon the carnage…each tribe elated at the other’s loss…each death an opportunity to acquire more literal and figurative territory…each birth an affirming act and a source of hope that the tribe will one day defeat the demon and thus be granted their deserved dominion.

In a world where gardens have given way to garrisons, what we cultivate is more apt to kill than to coddle. Instead of giving thanks for the bounty mother earth provides, we beseech her to yield to our demands and then we ignore her cries for consideration. Are we not a species out of sync with our world? If we are, then did we not become so by first being a society in the throes of a self-sustaining suicide spiral? In this last man standing mind set, there may be a survivor…but rest assured there will be no solace and no salvation. Humanity may continue to build its future on the bones of the beleaguered, but when that task is completed, our humanity will be nowhere to be found. I weep at the thought.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

I’ve been watching many of the candidates on the Democrat side of the election process for President and I’m finding myself surprised that Senator Clinton has my interest raised. I’ve known since her husband was President that she was a believer in science and understanding our bodies and our world is a never ending investigation, I did not know that she was so committed to unleashing our nations brainiacs and scientists to solve many of the ills that the current President silenced.

Stem cell research needs more than just the private sector to make considerable progress. Stem cell research needs the freedom of our universities and colleges to experiment without fear of losing federal grants or funding. Stem cell research is the science of our human future and without it many of the debilitating or life ending diseases will shorten the life span of many Americans.

Alternative energy science and research is expensive and asking Exxon Mobile to fund research that would basically put them out of business is an ultimate oxymoron. That would be the free market President Bush policy as far as alternative energy research goes. Senator Clinton is backing a full scientific research of alternative energy sources.

Over at the New York Times they have this bit on her speech today…

Clinton Says She Would Shield Science From Politics

By PATRICK HEALY and CORNELIA DEAN
Published: October 5, 2007

In a stinging critique of Bush administration science policy, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York said yesterday that if she were elected president she would require agency directors to show they were protecting science research from “political pressure” and that she would lift federal limits on stem cell research.

Mrs. Clinton, a leading Democratic presidential candidate, also committed herself to a space-based climate research project to combat global warming and pledged to spend $50 billion on fighting climate change and finding energy alternatives to foreign oil.

In a speech laying out her campaign’s science agenda, Mrs. Clinton spoke of the need for a “robust” program of human exploration of space. - New York Times

I’m a firm believer that if you place constraints on scientists and researchers then you are stifling the experimental process that needs to have a free thought process in order to make the discoveries needed by mankind. It’s a known fact that President Bush will only allow his belief in what science is to exist under his rules. That alone is a Comedy Central joke headline.

I’m one of the strongest believers that our nation needs new and yet to be discovered energy sources. More so now than any time in our nations history. Take wind power as just one example, GE is one of the greatest innovators in this technology that is absolutely a clean and green electric renewable energy source. It is not cheap to put up even one windmill but the alternative is burning fossil fuels that add to the global warming problem. I wonder if Senator Clinton would back a continuation of the tax breaks for wind power installation on the national grid? I’m wondering if she would offer the same tax breaks to wood pellet manufacturers that are building new plants to meet the demand for alternative renewable heating sources? If you own a wood pellet stove to heat your home then you know more than enough about the shortages over the past few years.

I won’t even start to run on with my incessant belief in the need for all forms of stem cell research to advance the science of medicine. From Diabetes to Parkinson’s is just touching the surface. How committed is she to the research process?

Day by day and issue by issue I’m finding my vote gravitating towards Senator Clinton but she could royally screw up tomorrow and come out with a huge tax and spend program that I do not believe in.

Papamoka

Cross posted at Papamoka Straight Talk