Liberal Chat | Arthritis Information
*************************
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with
water to prepare his
morning coffee. The water is clean and good because
some tree-hugging
liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.
With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily
medication. His
medications are safe to take because some stupid
commie liberal fought to
ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but of his medications are paid for by his
employer's medical plan
because some liberal union workers fought their
employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs.
Joe's bacon is safe to
eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to
regulate the meat
packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo.
His bottle is properly
labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the
total contents because
some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what
he was putting on his
body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath.
The air he breathes is
clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal
fought for the laws to
stop industries from polluting our air.
He walks to the subway station for his
government-subsidized ride to work.
It saves him considerable money in parking and
transportation fees because
some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public
transportation, which
gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with
excellent pay, medical
benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation
because some lazy liberal
union members fought and died for these working
standards. Joe's employer
pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't
want his employees to
call the union.
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll
get a worker
compensation or unemployment check because some stupid
liberal didn't think
he should lose his home because of his temporary
misfortune.
It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so
he can pay some bills.
Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC
because some godless
liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from
unscrupulous bankers who ruined
the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage
and his below-market
federal student loan because some elitist liberal
decided that Joe and the
government would be better off if he was educated and
earned more money over
his lifetime.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father
this evening at his
farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the
drive. His car is among
the safest in the world because some America-hating
liberal fought for car
safety standards.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third
generation to live in the
house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because
bankers didn't want
to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity
until some
big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't
belong and demanded
rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His
father lives on
Social Security and a union pension because some
wine-drinking,
cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of
himself so Joe
wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns
on a radio talk show.
The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and
conservatives are
good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans
have fought against
every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his
day.
Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government
liberals ruining our lives!
After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone
should take care of
themselves, just like I have."
* written by Donna L. Lavins and Sheldon Cotler.http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_results.cfm?c=5&c=16
Here is a look at McCains and Obamas health care proposals
NEW YORK TIMES
Fed Chief Addresses Health Care and its Costs
Published: June 17, 2008
WASHINGTON — Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, told Congress on Monday that health spending would “rise relentlessly” unless lawmakers overhauled the health care system, and he recommended an eclectic approach.
His remarks opened a daylong bipartisan symposium convened by the Senate Finance Committee to lay the groundwork for what leaders of both parties predict will be a major push for health care legislation next year.
“We will move quickly in 2009,” said Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is chairman of the committee.
#################
. . . . . Democrats and Republicans appeared to agree on this much: All Americans should be insured, but they should have a choice of private health plans competing in the market alongside government programs.
“Democrats are right in saying that if you are going to fix the system, you have to cover everybody,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon. “Republicans are right in saying that you have to have markets, choices and private alternatives.”
The impatience of some Republicans was expressed by Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee.
Health care is “the No. 1 economic issue in our country,” Mr. Grassley said, but “Congress does not seem to have the political guts to do anything about it.”
For complete article see:
Thanks for starting this thread Lori, as its become obvious us Ds will have to start a thread to discuss McCain, as all the Rs can do is complain about the D nomination. As if its any of their business. They are scared.
"What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon -- that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats or Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first." Barack Obama, June 3, 2008
Fight the Smears link:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/
This came from Quinnipiac University site:
June 18, 2008 - Obama Leads McCain In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds; Clinton On The Ticket Does Not Help Dems --- FLORIDA: Obama 47 - McCain 43; OHIO: Obama 48 - McCain 42; PENNSYLVANIA: Obama 52 - McCain 40
With strong support from women, blacks and younger voters, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the apparent Democratic presidential contender, leads Arizona Sen. John McCain, expected to be the Republican candidate, among likely voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to simultaneous Quinnipiac University Swing State polls released today.
This is the first time Sen. Obama has led in all three states. No one has been elected President since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the Electoral College. Results from the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University polls show:
Florida: Obama edges McCain 47 - 43 percent;
Ohio: Obama tops McCain 48 - 42 percent;
Pennsylvania: Obama leads McCain 52 - 40 percent.
In the three states, Obama leads McCain 10 to 23 percentage points among women, while men are too close to call. The Democrat trails among white voters in Florida and Ohio, but gets more than 90 percent of black voters in each state. He also has double-digit leads among young voters in each state.
"Finally getting Sen. Hillary Clinton out of the race has been a big boost for Sen. Barack Obama. He now leads in all three of the major swing states, although his margins in Florida and Ohio are small," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
"Sen. Obama is certainly not out of the woods, but these results are a good indication that he enters the summer slightly ahead in the race to be the next president."
While Democrats support the idea, independent voters in each state say Obama should not choose Sen. Clinton as his vice presidential running mate. Results are:
Florida: Democrats want Clinton on the ticket 57 - 33 percent while Republicans are opposed 59 - 17 percent and independents oppose it 46 - 37 percent;
Ohio: Democrats want Clinton for Vice President 58 - 31 percent, but Republicans say no 60 - 19 percent and independents turn thumbs down 47 - 31 percent;
Pennsylvania: Democrats say yes to Clinton 60 - 31 percent, while Republicans say no 63 - 20 percent and independents nix the idea 49 - 36 percent.
"If Sen. Obama seriously is thinking about picking Sen. Clinton as his running mate, these numbers might cause him to reconsider. The people who really matter come November - independent voters - turn thumbs down on the idea. And, many say they are less likely to vote for him if he puts her on the ticket," Brown added.
"One in five voters say McCain's age is a reason to vote against him. But overwhelmingly they don't see Obama's race as a factor at all - indicating that Americans are either much less concerned with race, or just don't want to tell callers what they really think on the subject."
President Bush's approval ratings are:
27 - 66 percent in Florida;
22 - 71 percent in Ohio;
24 - 72 percent in Pennsylvania.
Fifty to 58 percent of voters in each state list the economy as the most important issue in deciding how they will vote.
By almost 2 - 1 margins in each state, voters say going to war in Iraq was wrong. But they split between Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. troops under a fixed timetable and McCain's plan to keep troops there until the situation stabilizes and then withdraw without a set schedule.
"The only good news for McCain in these numbers is that despite voters' views on the war, he is holding his own with them about where to go from here," said Brown.
Florida
Florida women likely voters back Obama 50 - 40 percent, while men go 47 percent for McCain and 44 percent for Obama. White voters back McCain 50 - 40 percent while black voters back Obama 95 - 4 percent. Obama leads 57 -35 percent with voters 18 to 34 years old; he splits 48 - 46 percent with McCain among voters 35 to 54, and 44 - 46 percent with voters over 55.
Thirteen percent of those who voted for President Bush in 2004 now support Obama. And 19 percent of those who backed Clinton in the primaries now support McCain.
Obama gets a 48 - 33 percent favorability rating, with 47 - 35 percent for McCain.
While 23 percent of Florida voters say they are less likely to vote for McCain because of his age, 73 percent say it doesn't matter. Obama's race won't affect their vote 88 percent say.
A total of 86 percent of Florida likely voters say the vice presidential candidate is "very important" or "somewhat important" to their vote. Looking at native sons, voters say:
15 - 8 percent that they would be less likely to vote Democratic if Sen. Bill Nelson is on the ticket, with 69 percent who say it won't affect their vote;
21 - 16 percent that they would be less likely to vote Republican if Gov. Charlie Crist is the vice presidential candidate, while 58 percent say it won't make a difference.
"Picking a Floridian for vice president apparently won't help either nominee carry the state's 27 electoral votes," said Brown.
Ohio
Obama leads 51 - 39 percent among Ohio women likely voters, while men go 46 percent for McCain and 45 percent for Obama. White voters also are narrowly divided with 47 percent for McCain and 44 percent for Obama, but Obama commands black voters 90 - 6 percent. The Democrat also leads 58 - 36 percent among voters 18 to 34 and 49 - 42 percent among voters 35 to 54, while McCain has the 47 - 43 percent edge among voters over 55.
Again, 13 percent of those who voted for Bush in 2004 now back Obama, while 25 percent of those who backed Clinton in the primaries now support McCain.
Voters give Obama a 52 - 29 percent favorability, with 46 - 33 percent for McCain.
Because of his age, 22 percent of Ohio voters say they are less likely to vote for McCain, while 75 percent say it doesn't matter. Obama's race won't affect their vote, 89 percent say.
While 85 percent of Ohio voters say the vice presidential selection is "very important" or "somewhat important" to their votes, native sons do not fare well. Voters say:
17 - 11 percent that they are less likely to vote Democratic if Gov. Ted Strickland is the running mate, while 68 percent say it won't make a difference;
10 - 5 percent that they are less likely to vote Republican if Sen. Rob Portman is the vice presidential candidate, while 78 percent say it won't make a difference.
"Although he still trails among white working-class voters, Sen. Obama is within hailing distance among them and doing well enough that if he keeps the same level of support through November he's likely to carry Ohio," Brown said.
Pennsylvania
Obama tops McCain 57 - 34 percent with women as men go 47 percent for McCain to 45 percent for Obama. Obama leads 61 - 33 percent among voters 18 to 34 years old, 51 - 41 percent among voters 35 to 54 and 48 - 43 percent with voters over 55. The Democrat inches ahead 47 - 44 percent among white voters and leads among black voters 95 - 1 percent.
Obama gets a 54 - 25 percent favorability, to 43 - 33 percent for McCain.
Nineteen percent of the people who voted for Bush in 2004 now back Obama, while 24 percent of the voters who supported Clinton in the primaries now back McCain.
McCain's age will not affect their vote, 73 percent say, while 24 percent say they are less likely to vote for him because of his age. Obama's race will not affect their vote, 88 percent say.
A total of 87 percent of Pennsylvania likely voters say the vice presidential candidate is "very important" or "somewhat" important in their November vote. But looking at some choices, voters say:
25 - 16 percent that they would be less likely to vote Democratic if Gov. Ed Rendell is on the ticket, while 56 percent say it won't make a difference;
Split 18 - 18 percent on whether they would be more likely to vote for McCain if he is running with Tom Ridge, while 62 percent say it doesn't make a difference.
"Pennsylvania continues to be the most Democratic of the three states, the state where Sen. Barack Obama does best overall and the only state where he leads, however slightly, among white voters," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
"The long spring primary season appears to have hardened the battle lines, with more than 75 percent of the voters in each state saying they have made up their minds on how they will vote in the Fall."
lorster2008-06-20 09:46:06
Does anyone here have RA? A preexisting condition that can sometimes make it difficult getting an affordable individual health insurance plan.
Barack Obama's health care proposal would ban insurance companies from excluding those with preexisting conditions. McCain's would make it more difficult for those with preexisting conditions as he is promoting a move from employer based insurance to the individual insurance market with no regulation of insurance companies from charging whatever they deem. See below article for discussion of McCain's health care proposal.
The New Republic
The Folly of McCain-Care by Jonathan Cohn
His great new plan isn't new or great. And it still wouldn't help Elizabeth Edwards get decent insurance.
Post Date Tuesday, April 29, 2008
A few months ago, when John McCain decided to address the public's anxiety about unaffordable medical care, he gave the sort of speech we've grown accustomed to hearing from Republicans over the years.
Let's encourage people to drop their employer insurance and shop for coverage on their own, he said, since that will create a vibrant market in which people can find better bargains. And since some people will still have trouble paying for insurance, let's give them a tax credit that would help offset the cost.
A big problem with this scheme, as critics like me pointed out, was that it wouldn't do much for people who were already sick. Insurance companies generally won't offer coverage directly to people with "pre-existing conditions," since they represent such bad financial risks. (It turns out people with medical problems need medical care!) So buying insurance on their own really isn't an option.
In just the last few weeks, this issue has started to become a political liability for McCain, thanks mostly to Elizabeth Edwards, who--in addition to being a well-known cancer patient--is also a well-known policy wonk. Edwards has given a series of speeches in which she has pointed out that neither she nor McCain himself, who is a three-time melanoma survivor, could buy individual insurance under his plan, since insurers would disqualify both of them for pre-existing conditions.
For rest of article see:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=a88ab4f7-d570-47ad-ab80-a7e817ddab6b
This has been deleted as I got to thinking about not continuing the bad behavior. Sorry if I offended anyone.
lorster2008-06-20 11:54:07Joie. I cannot get life insurance because of my RA. The only way is if I am employed and I go with the company sponsored plan. If I decide to quit my job, it leaves me without life insurance. I would love to see people be able to keep the life insurance they have with their employers...that they have been paying into for years, after they leave the job. I was eligible for long term care insurance through my employer, a large group. If accepted, my premiums would have paid for coverage for a certain length of time for nursing home care in certain situations. I was denied because I had RA. I was diagnosed at 25 and long term care insurance wasn't that available back then, so I didn't have the opportunity to buy long term care insurance preRA. I tried to appeal, saying due to new drug treatments and joint replacements, the outcome for folks w/RA was better, but I was still denied. I was a high risk. I understand that's how insurance companies work, they are a business, and I was a bad risk.
Long term care insurance is not affected by either of the candidates health proposals, but my above experience is an example of how a preexisting condition can impact access to certain insurance products.
ELIZABETH EDWARDS on pre existing conditions, access to affordable health insurance and McCain's health proposal.
I just need to get to a point where if and when something happens to me, my husband is able to pay all the bills and maintain our home on his own without depending on life insurance. We are not there yet. I had a private policy prior to my RA. It was not term....can't remember what it was called but I would eventually have been able to borrow from it. The premium was 28.00 a month and would remain that amount throughout my life. When I took a job, I took the jobs insurance and dropped that one. Don't ask me what I was thinking. I wasn't. Biggest mistake I ever made in regard to insurance decisions. Now, I could never get a policy like that. A warning to all. If you currently have a private life insurance policy, don't ever consider getting rid of it. I'm copying and pasting your original post to my Republican boyfriend. He's one of those gun-toting, big-bro-get-outta-my-business, I don't wanna pay no stinking taxes kinda guy. He got hurt at work more than 2 yrs ago and has been on worker's comp since late October... perhaps this will call to his attention what us treehugging, there's really enough if we share, liberals have really done for the US in a short amount of time. If this had happened 100 years ago (y'all don't get technical on me, now), he'd be in the poorhouse. Sometimes it's a wonder to me how people can take advantage of every single thing offered in American life and not see and appreciate the people who fought and sometimes died to make it a reality for the rest of us. .... now I know that somewhere out there among the visitors of this lovely site, is a conservative who is gonna try to kill me via the internet.... but then there again is this wonderful country where you can speak your won mind without having to worry about it too much. Thanks for this post Lorster :)
Conversation with PBS Bill Moyer and Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
April 25, 2008: An online video and transcript.
I read the entire transcript. I see Rev Wright in a bit different light now. I don't think he is crazy like the media has portrayed him. He made some good points. I had thought his church was an all black church but sounds like it has people from all over the world and from all walks of life. He has a lot of outreach programs going on which is good. Thanks for sharing this Joie.Is there a Swing voter, or independent voter thread?
I don't live far from Barack Obama, but i wouldn't call myself a solid Democrat.
Chicago is a Democrat city.
I voted Republican in our gubertorial elections..I don't like our Democrat governor. but i really like our Lt. Governor Pat Quinn
I liked the poise and intelligence of Jim Ryan, Joe Birkett, who ran Republican for Governor, and lost..Or Paul Vallas,a Democrat, a real mover, who greatly improved the Chicago Public Schools, and went on to Philadelphia.
So it's not always, your a liberal, or your a conservative...I vote for the person i like best Hi Aimee!
I think this thread, liberal chat, was started just as a safe haven for less contentious discussions than what has occurred on some other threads. You're welcome to post here, just don't beat me up
Hey, Aimeee, I know nothing about Chicago. I just watched the Bill Moyers discussion with Rev. Wright. That area where Rev Wright church is a community of poor and working class. He took that church of 87 people in 1972 to 6,000 members today. It provides a soup kitchen, day care, drug and legal counseling, mentoring for youth, women's health care and HIV/AIDS ministry. I think those sound bites, taken out of context from his sermon, don't reflect who he is. Was wondering, as someone knowledgeable about that area, what you thought of the church.
I looked a little at the churches website, Joie...and all they do..I thought i read 8,000 members?
I will look into that link tomorrow from Bill Moyer.
I don't know, i have seen neighborhoods change, and the "white flight", into the suburbs , and i am not to have more stress on my RA, talking about racism.
Having gone to all Caucasian Catholic Churches, i remember them asking for donations to Catholic Charities, and wasn't it for poor people in other countries? and for unwed mothers?...and i guess they do have a good reputation, but the charity work is nothing like Rev. Wright's church, and then again i'm looking at the size of the congregation..
For a poor, depressed area, i'm all for the poor people getting help, and education, and any other assists for a better life!
AIMEE,
I just wrote you a lovely, long private message, but it got lost cuz it couldn't get sent cuz you're inbox is full. I vote the candidate, not the party. But I am still a registered Democrat, and always will be.
Does any other liberal find it odd that we have these outrageous gas prices, but no gas station shortages, where we are in lines blocks long, like back in the 1970s?
So McCain and Obama are the two very best people we could find in America to be President? Heavy sighs.
RE: Gas prices. I bought my first car in the 70s. I was on a waiting list for a diesel rabbit, but instead bought a 5 speed, 4 cylinder Honda that I had to wait a month or so for. My friends drove VW bugs and one had a Karma Ghia. We valued gas efficient cars back then. I was surprised when one of my former Bug owning friends bought a huge SUV. Did she forget that oil is a finite resource and the lesson of the 70s?
I remember in the 90s an electric car demonstration. What happened with that? Now folks are scrambling for hybrids.
There's talk now of lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling. President Bush supports this, though it was his father that signed the legislation in 1990 to ban offshore oil drilling until 2000. Clinton extended it. Even Jed Bush, the President's brother, when Governor of Florida, was opposed to offshore drilling. And Republican Governor Arnold Schwartnegger is also opposed. A 2007 Department of Energy study found that access to coastal energy deposits would not add to domestic crude oil and natural gas production before 2030 and that the impact on prices would be “insignificant.” Lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling would be a short sighted fix, conservation efforts and development of alternative energy sources should be the focus.
I'm not sure why he feels it necessary to lift the ban. Especially if it will not affect prices. I guess if we just hurry up and use it all up as fast as we can, then we will have no choice but to go alternative. We might all be living back in the dark ages for a while though. We waste so much energy in this country. It is unbelievable. We need to be forced to car pool, turn off lights, use less water etc. It will happen in time. I'm not sure why there are people out there that are gung ho about lifting the ban. In Cali - the oil rigs off the coast are pretty ugly looking. Sigh. Isn't there a documentary about "Who Killed the Electric Car"? There was an interesting article in the LA Times a bit back about the EV1 and it being taken out of production because there was 'no demand' but the people who had one loved them and there was a HUGE wait list. Sigh.
Here's an interesting OpEd NYTimes piece on a different subject -
Charge It to My Kids
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: October 7, 2007
Every so often a quote comes out of the Bush administration that leaves you asking: Am I crazy or are they? I had one of those moments last week when Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, was asked about a proposal by some Congressional Democrats to levy a surtax to pay for the Iraq war, and she responded, “We’ve always known that Democrats seem to revert to type, and they are willing to raise taxes on just about anything.”
Yes, those silly Democrats. They’ll raise taxes for anything, even — get this — to pay for a war!
And if we did raise taxes to pay for our war to bring a measure of democracy to the Arab world, “does anyone seriously believe that the Democrats are going to end these new taxes that they’re asking the American people to pay at a time when it’s not necessary to pay them?” added Ms. Perino. “I just think it’s completely fiscally irresponsible.”
Friends, we are through the looking glass. It is now “fiscally irresponsible” to want to pay for a war with a tax. These democrats just don’t understand: the tooth fairy pays for wars. Of course she does — the tooth fairy leaves the money at the end of every month under Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s pillow. And what a big pillow it is! My God, what will the Democrats come up with next? Taxes to rebuild bridges or schools or high-speed rail or our lagging broadband networks? No, no, the tooth fairy covers all that. She borrows the money from China and leaves it under Paulson’s pillow.
Of course, we can pay for the Iraq war without a tax increase. The question is, can we pay for it and be making the investments in infrastructure, science and education needed to propel our country into the 21st century? Visit Singapore, Japan, Korea, China or parts of Europe today and you’ll discover that the infrastructure in our country is not keeping pace with our peers’.
We can pay for anything today if we want to stop investing in tomorrow. The president has already slashed the National Institutes of Health research funding the past two years. His 2008 budget wants us to cut money for vocational training, infrastructure and many student aid programs.
Does the Bush team really believe that if we had a -a-gallon gasoline tax — which could reduce our dependence on Middle East oil dictators, and reduce payroll taxes for low-income workers, pay down the deficit and fund the development of renewable energy — we would be worse off as a country?
Excuse me, Ms. Perino, but I wish Republicans would revert to type. I thought they were, well, conservatives — the kind of people who saved for rainy days, who invested in tomorrow for their kids, folks who didn’t believe in free lunches or free wars.
No wonder The Wall Street Journal had a story Tuesday headlined, “G.O.P. Is Losing Grip on Core Business Vote.” It noted that traditional fiscal conservatives were defecting from the G.O.P. “angered by the growth of government spending during the six years that Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress.” And no wonder Alan Greenspan told The Journal: “The Republican Party, which ruled the House, the Senate and the presidency, I no longer recognize.”
Of course, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the Democrat David Obey, in proposing an Iraq war tax to help balance the budget was expressing his displeasure with the war. But he was also making a very important point when he said, “If this war is important enough to fight, then it ought to be important enough to pay for.”
The struggle against radical Islam is the fight of our generation. We all need to pitch in — not charge it on our children’s Visa cards. Previous American generations connected with our troops by making sacrifices at home — we’ve never passed on the entire cost of a war to the next generation, said Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International, who has written a history — “The Price of Liberty” — about how America has paid for its wars since 1776.
“In every major war we have fought in the 19th and 20th centuries,” said Mr. Hormats, “Americans have been asked to pay higher taxes — and nonessential programs have been cut — to support the military effort. Yet during this Iraq war, taxes have been lowered and domestic spending has climbed. In contrast to World War I, World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam, for most Americans this conflict has entailed no economic sacrifice. The only people really sacrificing for this war are the troops and their families.”
In his celebrated Farewell Address, Mr. Hormats noted, George Washington warned against “ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burdens we ourselves ought to bear.”
Lorster - thanks for starting this Liberal Thread up again. In the 'olden days' on AI, we managed to be civil to one another by keeping the Dems and the Reps seperate. Of course, anybody was allowed to post anywhere, as long as they were 'respectful'.
Pip
THE NATION
"Anatomy of a Price Surge"
Micheal T. Klare
June 19, 2008
As the pain induced by higher oil prices spreads to an ever growing share of the American (and world) population, pundits and politicians have been quick to blame assorted villains--greedy oil companies, heartless commodity speculators and OPEC. It's true that each of these parties has contributed to and benefited from the steep run-up. But the sharp growth in petroleum costs is due far more to a combination of soaring international demand and slackening supply--compounded by the ruinous policies of the Bush Administration--than to the behavior of those other actors.
For rest of article see:
And on a "lighter," satirical, humorous note:
THE NATION
"Liposuction: The Key to Energy Independence"
Barbara Ehrenreich
June 22, 2008
Everyone talks about our terrible dependency on oil--foreign and otherwise--but hardly anyone mentions what it is. Fossil fuel, all right, but whose fossils? Mostly tiny plants called diatoms, but quite possibly a few Barney-like creatures went into the mix, like Stegosaurus, Brontosaurus and other giant reptiles that shared the Jurassic period with all those diatoms. What we are burning in our cars and keeping our homes warm or cool with is, in other words, a highly processed version of corpse juice.
For rest of article see:
Joie, I have always thought oil was old vegetation and alot of different lifeforms. Part of the cycle of the Earth. CathyCathy,
Did you read the entire article. She's (humorously) proposing instead of fueling our cars with biodiesel from used vegetable oil using human fat as a source. She wrote:
"The average liposuction removes about half a gallon of liquid fat, which may not seem like much. But think of the vast reserves our nation is literally sitting on! Thirty percent of Americans are obese, or about 90 million individuals or 45 million gallons of easily available fat--not from dead diatoms but from our very own bellies and butts. "
We solve two problems -- I think I'll have another bowl of ice cream!
LOL. This is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time. My husband is now sick to his stomach at the thought of that Joie. Thanks for that. LOL - no, I didn't get that far - hilarious.FROM ASS TO GAS......I'm sorry I just couldn't stop myself! A great concept. Lindy Good one Lindy!I'd like to volunteer to do my part for the gas crisis! LOTS of gut fat here - could probably power a bus!
Pip
LOL Pip, I guess I'll joing ya there. My husband says...and of course the engineer came out in him and says...well....you guys would go through all your fat in about a day. L - tell your husband its a renewable resource -- we just keep overeating!
Switching gears, for those interested, tonight on PBS P.O.V. program, is a film "Traces of the Trade." Check tv schedule for time.
Traces of the Trade: A Story from the Deep North (#2101) Duration: 1:26:46 CC Stereo TVPG
"First-time filmmaker Katrina Browne makes a troubling discovery --her New England ancestors were the largest slave-trading family in U. S. history. She and nine fellow descendants set off to retrace the Triangle Trade -- from their old hometown in Rhode Island to slave forts in Ghana to sugar plantation ruins in Cuba. Step by step, they uncover the vast extent of Northern complicity in slavery while also stumbling through the minefield of contemporary race relations. In this bicentennial year of the U.S. abolition of the slave trade, the film offers powerful new perspectives on the black/white divide."
Bill Moyers Essay on Reverend Jeremiah Wright. A six minute video.
Joy - that PBS special sounds wonderful.
And I was sorry that Obama left Wrights church.
Hugs,
Pip
[QUOTE=Pip!]Joy - that PBS special sounds wonderful.
And I was sorry that Obama left Wrights church.
Hugs,
Pip
[/QUOTE]
"Traces of the Trade" is about our American history, a part of history many of us don't know about and some of us prefer not to know about -- the family in this film, who built their fortune on the trade of slaves, did not pass this family history onto their ancestors.
The link to the commentary on Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is from Bill Moyers, a well respected journalist, former public official and Baptist minister. He speaks of racism, but of the racism that filters people's perception of Rev. Wright. If someone is interested in seeing or reading about the context of the sound bites that some base their condemnation of him and Obama, see page two of this thread for link to conversation with Rev. Wright and judge for yourself.
Well Joie. In my opinion, people don't want to see the sound bytes or read Obamas book because they have already made up their minds based on hear say and email chains and all the scare tactics that get used.
I am about a quarter done with Obamas book. Very good so far. So far....I'm not afraid.I'm sitting in a hotel in Denver, and we don't get PBS. I'm gonna try to see if they offer it again when I get home. Thanks for that information.So I just read an article that said that the 5 liberal judges on the Supreme Court just banned Lousiana's law that allows the execution of convicted child rapists. Are child rapists people who liberals usually side with? This is the kind of thing that ensures that I will never vote for a liberal.Linda -
Remember that post I made about DNA testing and how it's not nearly as fool proof as we all think it is?
This is part of that.
Americans do not want the death penalty and we're moving to leaving these guys in prison for the rest of their lives. Yes, that's more taxes but the number of wrongfully imprisoned and wrongfully convicted WITH DNA testing is steadily rising.
How do we remain 'humane' for those wrongfully convicted - do we just say 'oops'?
I am assuming you are for the death penalty for any reason. I am not.
Pip
Edited to add "for any reason"
Pip!2008-06-25 09:51:18Yeah, but Pip, we do have DNA testing now.
Huh? What is "huh'?
Jan
[QUOTE=Linncn]So I just read an article that said that the 5 liberal judges on the Supreme Court just banned Lousiana's law that allows the execution of convicted child rapists.
Are child rapists people who liberals usually side with? This is the kind of thing that ensures that I will never vote for a liberal.[/QUOTE]
"Are child rapists people who liberals usually side with?"
That kind of ridiculous, absurd remark demonstrates a type of thinking, or lack of thinking, that does not warrant a response, so I suggest you start you own thread, "why I would never vote for a liberal." The point of this thread, was to have a space to have conversations without innane arguments and personal attacks.
I don't have the energy for deadend conversations, I have severe RA, its a struggle for me to do daily routine things, unlike yourself, who seems to put in endless energy into posting about how you hate obama and liberals. So I suggest starting your own thread, besides you'll draw more hits, not many read this site, civil discourse is not the trend these days.
Pip made the point that DNA testing is not without error and individuals are being wrongly convicted with DNA testing. Link's response to that confuses me.
I used to be pro execution. I am in agreement with Pip. Too many people wrongfully imprisoned. In 1988 my grandfather, grandmother and cousin were murdered, gunned down while at their cabin in the wilderness. He shot each of them 8 times in the head. My cousin was a paraplegic. The man who killed them was convicted and put on death row. In 1992, the Pope visited our country and pardoned this man. He is now serving a life sentence. He is away from society and it will never happen again. Although this was hard for my family initially, I would not want an innocent man put to death.This man is where he needs to be. I know what it is like to get a phone call letting me know that my family members have been murdered so I can relate to all the emotion and what goes along with it. And Linncn. If I can forgive this man...and the Pope certainly did...I think people can bring themselves to seeing the bigger picture and knowing that it is better to set 10 guilty men free than to wrongfully convict an innocent man. Why genes/DNA testing isn't all that.
Pip
Some people favor justice. Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson gang and her murderer was up for release because she has brain cancer. Sharon's sister does not want her released. She showed no mercy when she murdered Sharon. Sharon's sister says she'll get mercy in the next life.
People have different reactions to a crime.
I have never had a relative murdered, thank God, but understand the feelings of Sharon's sister.
Jan
Regarding forensic DNA testing, I found
www.dna.gov/uses/postconviction/ so the government does offer postconviction testing.
Jan
There have been many people in Illinois who have been freed from Death Row because of wrongful convictions. Thankfully we now have a moratorium on executions here in the state. DNA testing and other forensic techniques are not foolproof; after all, the work is performed by humans, or by machines designed by humans, running software designed by humans. It's not 100%. Even ONE prisoner executed on a wrongful conviction is one too many. Keep them from the rest of society for the rest of their lives; lock them up and throw away the key. But I don't think the state should be executing people.
Of course, that's just the opinion of this right-wing nutjob.
I'm not feeling real great today, so won't participate in this discussion. The use of DNA testing in death penalty cases is an important issue, but I don't believe that was an issue in this Supreme Court case, I believe it had to do with whether or not the death penalty could be used in a child rape case.
I was on my way out the door and I just skimmed Pips post. I guess I'll go back and read the whole thing.
Pip, you're assuming I'm for the death penalty "for any reason"? That sounds like you think being for it in the case of child rape is kind of frivolous. Like.."geez, you want to execute child rapists? Next you're going to want the death penalty for parking violations"......But really, the two aren't in the same realm. I mean, not to me anyway.So we should contact the Catholic Church - they have some priests we need to execute!I think if you're going to go around doing things like killing people or raping children you forfeit your right to be alive. It isn't about forgiveness or revenge. You can forgive someone and still require they suffer the consequences of their actions. If their is doubt about a person's guilt then of course they shouldn't be executed, but then neither should they be incarcerated the rest of their life. Is it right to "mistakenly" put someone in prison till they die?
Lorster, I am so sorry that happened to your family. That's a tragedy beyond the imagination.
lorster
i'm sorry about your family but as the Pope has no legal authrity to pardon anybody in the United States so I'm kind of curious as to how it happened in your family's murder case especially since the Pope didn't visit the US in 1992
buckeye2008-06-25 14:23:56[QUOTE=Hillhoney]So we should contact the Catholic Church - they have some priests we need to execute![/QUOTE]
Why stop there. The Priests get all the press but I have seen other religous leaders ( Rabbi near me ) that have done the same thing. Luthern, protestant etc.
Jan Lucinda -
It's not just post-conviction DNA testing. They aren't getting as many 'points' on DNA to make it a 'lock' and juries aren't getting the correct numbers when deciding. It's not the 'fool proof' we've been made to believe it is.
Linncn - if I were to be for any part of the the death penalty, it would be for people that hurt children. Again, my concern is 'proof'.
As for just priests, I'm with 6t5 here (well, things are changing LOL) - it's not just them. The Baptists have a huge problem with this too. My worry is while they focus on priests nowbody is looking at other predators and a lot of this is being ignored. We have to protect the childern at all costs.
And to whoever said they'd never vote for a liberal because of this - I'm saying I'll never vote for a Republican because that same Supreme Court did this - on the same day.
Pip
Sorry Buckeye. I am not at home so was going on memory. It was 1999 that he visited. In my mind, it was 4 years after the murders but man, how time flies. He pleaded to Gov. Mel Carnahan of Missouri and the sentence was commuted. The guy is now on a life sentence without parole.
lorster2008-06-26 07:48:50Why is it that DNA testing is accurate enough to exonerate a person, but not accurate enough to prove guilt? It get's people out of prison because it proves their innocense. No one's saying, wait a sec, their's a .000000001 (or whatever it is) chance it might be wrong so we'd better keep the guy in jail.Linncn. I don't know a lot about DNA testing but I think it can do both. I know many cold cases have been solved by DNA testing but the people spent 20 plus years in prison before their innocence had been proved through DNA. Also, people were found and imprisoned after many years until DNA was used to solve it. So it does work both ways. Linda -
Did you see that link to the problems with DNA and courts I posted? I think it's about 2 pages back now. I might have mislead people when I said 'genes aren't all that'.
Hugs,
Pip
thanks for the clarification Lorster..again I'm sorry about your family memebersYesterday, this remark was posted on this thread:
"Are child rapists people who liberals usually side with?" I feel this was a very divisive, inflammatory remark. Everyone is disgusted and outraged against crimes, especially sexual abuse crimes, against children. Everyone wants the perpetrator severely punished. Child rape is a heinous crime, but the Supreme Court has ruled the death penalty is used only in murder cases. That does not mean the child rapist goes free, but is sentenced to prison, and some say, that is a harsher punishment than death, as child rapists are adhored by other prisoners, who have their own "justice" system.
Some victims rights groups supported this ruling. They made the point that capital punishment cases could be further traumatizing to the child rape victim as they would have to testify or be subjected to questioning. They made the point that often the perpetrator is a family member or someone the family knows, and the victim's family may be reluctant to pursue prosecution if the punishment is death. They also made the point that child rape may not even be reported, if death penalty was the punishment.
We are all outraged by crimes against children and want justice for the victim, one's political affilation does not diminish that.
Are you feeling better today Joie?Thanks Lorie,
Better. Yesterday was the day after my enbrel and mtx shots, so I was draggin'. My right shoulder is killin' me, makes it hard to type, but maybe you'all are lucky since that restricts how much I post.
Add to that, this is the 4th day of smoke filled air. Northern and central California has over 800 wildfires going, the air is unhealthy, causing sinus problems, irritations to eyes, etc. If you stay indoors, its not too bad, but I'm starting to feel claustrophic not being able to see a blue sky or the stars at night. Also sorta worried, we're only in June, we generally don't have fire problems until August. Our Governor has asked people not to buy or use fireworks, as our fire departments are tapped out. Hope it'll be a safe 4th of July.
I saw that on the news. Montana usually gets hit in late July. Our weather pattern is pretty messed up this year as is everyones. Were most of these fires nature made? Does California have the let it burn policy like we do? Pip-
Since none of us are professional forensic pathologists, I guess we'll just keep learning one day at a time about this stuff.
Jan
[QUOTE=lorster]I saw that on the news. Montana usually gets hit in late July. Our weather pattern is pretty messed up this year as is everyones. Were most of these fires nature made? Does California have the let it burn policy like we do? [/QUOTE]
We've had a dry spring, a couple of early heatwaves, and then this past weekend a lighting storm went through and set off most of these fires. There's so many fires, spread out over such a large area, there isn't enough manpower, so they're letting some fires just burn. With so much smoke, some of the planes and helicopters can't fly cuz of the poor visibility, The whole central valley is practically filled w/smoke. I have family 3 hrs west of me and 2 hrs south of me, and we all are shrouded in smoke.
There is even smoke down in southern California. Schwarzenegger has called in the National Guard. Hope they can be contained.
Jan
We had bad fires two summers ago but did pretty good last summer. And it has been a wet summer in Montana so far so we will see. We are battling a bit of flooding but nothing like the midwest. My thoughts today are with all of you who are battling the elements and losing your homes and having difficulties with the weather. Here in Denver....looks like rain. But man, this place gets some awesome lightning storms. We have been in drought in SWFL for years now. This summer the rains have come back and its slowly get wet again. We were really on edge about fires, as there were some scary fires these last few years. The response was quick and efficient. After 2 yrs of below average rainfall and less snowmelt runoff, our Governor has declared a drought. Besides increased fire risks, less water is available to the Central Valley, a large agricultural area, driving up prices of fruit, vegetables, crops grown in the area.
In the bay area community where my sister leaves, the city and county are asking people to conserve water and are even paying homeowners to remove lawns. My own lawn is small, but I'm thinking about taking it out, I wish I could put a small garden in, but my RA keeps me from such a pasttime.
If this drought is related to global warming, then we need to reduce carbon emissions, a sufficient water supply is too critical to our California economy and our environment, right now, we have fires in the Big Sur and Mendocino areas, two beautiful areas and popular tourist and vacation spots.
Everyone is weary of the smoke and fires, and worried that this weekend, with a forecast of thunderstorms, may bring more fires.
Joie, I woud think that the sort of parents that would give Uncle Joe a pass after RAPING THEIR CHILD because the punishment is just too darn hard are the sort that are going to give him a pass anyway. Usually death to the CHILD RAPIST is the the first thing that comes to mind when a normal parent considers this violent crime being commited against their child.
Even if you reduce the sentence to life in prison, the child will still have to go through the trial, and that child will have much to work through regardless.
Link, let it go. Why are you working so hard at stirring things up these days? [QUOTE=Linncn]Joie, I woud think that the sort of parents that would give Uncle Joe a pass after RAPING THEIR CHILD because the punishment is just too darn hard are the sort that are going to give him a pass anyway. Usually death to the CHILD RAPIST is the the first thing that comes to mind when a normal parent considers this violent crime being commited against their child.
Even if you reduce the sentence to life in prison, the child will still have to go through the trial, and that child will have much to work through regardless.
[/QUOTE]
Linnc, These were points made by victims rights groups, so you can take it up with them. Personally, I find it hard to understand, in the case where perpetrators are stepfathers or boyfriends of the mother, how woman can bring men, they may not know well, into their homes and children's lives.
You would think family members would be outraged if their children were sexually abused, but in some cases it is not acknowledged or confronted. I think Oprah spoke of abuse by her uncle, and how in later years her father chose to not discuss it.
Sometimes adult rape victims are reluctant to go through the trial process, so one can understand how some parents may have difficulty deciding to put a child, already traumatized, through such an experience.
I believe perpetrators of such crimes should be locked up for a long time and this could be a harsher punishment than death as pedophiles are equally hated by prisoners with their own justice system.
More Americans Delay Health Care
Cost Concerns Drive
Even the Insured
To Forgo Treatment
By SARAH RUBENSTEIN
June 26, 2008; Page D2
An increasing array of Americans, many with health insurance, are delaying or forgoing medical care because of concern about cost, according to a report from the Center for Studying Health System Change.
About 20% of the respondents in a 2007 survey of 18,000 people said that they had put off or gone without needed medical treatment at some point in the year earlier, up from 14% in a 2003 survey.
That jump came after relative stability in patients' access to care from 1997 to 2003, according to the center, a nonpartisan policy-research group in Washington that receives funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the federal government, among others.
Of those who said in the 2007 survey they had scrimped, 69% cited concern about cost as a reason.
"As health-care costs increase, more of those costs are shifting to people and families," often in the form of large deductibles or other requirements that patients pay for a significant share of their care out of their own pockets, said Peter Cunningham, lead author of the report.
Mr. Cunningham said the weakening economy may have been a contributing factor to patients' behavior last year but that they also may simply have "reached a tipping point" in terms of being able to afford care amid a steady rise in medical costs.
While the uninsured reported the highest rate -- 38% -- of delaying or going without care, the biggest rate of increase in such reports was among people who had health insurance. Seventeen percent of insured respondents said that they had scrimped, which was up from 11% in the 2003 poll.
For rest of WALL STREE JOURNAL ARTICLE see:
Oh, ok Karen. Joie's response is just a response. Mine is stirring things up. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thanks.Linda -
It's the tone, sweetie. And you know I adore you.
Hugs,
Pip
Yeah....I guess you're right. Sorry to all who were offended by my misguided outrage.
Their. Was that more in step with what you guys are lookin for?
Linda, I'm as outraged as you are but I unde