Jack & Jill Politics

AFTERNOON OPEN THREAD IS UP

For those like me, who are not as familiar with the health care reform legislation process going on right now (I try to refrain from commenting on things I know nothing about, until I at least learn something about it, a trait that I wish others on this board would share as well, LOL, you know who I'm talking about), here is what seems to me a good rundown on the current legislative process, and where we are. Of course, for the more knowledgeable among us please let me know if the article has the gist of it as you all understand it to be.

Rundown on Healthcre Reform: What's Happening on Capitol Hill

I was thinking about the Crowley/Gates/Biden/Obama meeting yesterday. When it occured to me that Biden might have been there so it was not 2 black guys 'ganging up' on the white guy (can't you just hear Rush/Hannity/Beck) AND not to mention that Biden is IrishCatholic like Crowley.

Obama was a smooth operator as usual.

Anyone else have that thought?

Yup.

Yep. Obama may have been born at night, but he wasn't born last night.

I had that exact thought wrb. It's all about the optics. Just imagine if you will the optics of 2 black guys who are friends and the lone widdle white guy just struggling to be heard above the racial grievances of the black guys...WHATEVS!!!

I think is was a stroke of genius for the Prez to have Joe B there. Press wasn't expecting it, but you bet they were already ready with their stories about the Blacks ganging up on the white guys.

The Prez took that rug right out from under those mofos.

Yesterday, someone on another blog posted pics of the meeting and wrote above the pics..."How did Biden slip in there"?


Ha...The President is too smooth for them. No one was expecting Joe to be there! Heehee!

agreed. Even Chris Matthews picked that up as well.

me

Pual Krugman's column here expalins why private insurance doesn't work in the health industry. If you make claims against the company it can not make a profit for the company/shareholders. Therefore under capitalism it has to pay as few claims as possible. So there will never be enough incentive to accept clints w/ preexisting conditions or take them on. That is why we have medicare for the elderly; i.e. the Federal goveernment keeps the health care industry afloat.
It follows then that even if Congress mandates that companies take people w/ preexisting conditions their premiums will be so high they will not be able to pay them or the companies will make reimbursement rates so low that much care will never be administered because the hospital can't afford it.
People need to wrap their brains around the idea that the cost of medicine is going to be high no matter how healthy you are because the minute your body fails it cost a fortune to keep it going. You let's pay the taxes and try and keep everyone as healthy as possible as long as possible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/31kru...

So there is no Free Market as Conserv like to say.The Government underwrites the industry.Instead of trying to do whats right and provide insurance lets cut off their tax benefits and subsidies and let people get insurance on their own,with their own money.Then I bet you they will be crying for a national health care.

It works for 85% of Americans who have insurance and want to keep it.

The other 15% need to be covered through reform of existing plans and consumer protection regulations that the WH has put forward.

Will Americans be willing to pay higher taxes? Only as much as the 'rich' are forced to pay. If the costs and higher taxes trickle down to the Middle Class, they will not want to pay.

OH REALLY, you need to stop taking Sean Hannity's talking points.

"It works for 85% of Americans who have insurance"

You say that as if being insured means they have adequate coverage.

It's comparable to getting minimum insurance on your car rather than full coverage. But what do you care. It's insurance, RIGHT?

A huge percentage of that 85%:

Are under insured and are a long hospital stay away from being dropped from coverage. See a person that's under insured only goes to the doctor WHEN THEY REALLY NEED IT. So you know what that means? Well, a really preventable problem that could have been fixed if they were going to the doctor regularly(if they could afford IT) turns into a big problem. When that person ends up in the hospital for their big problem and their insurance doesn't cover them anymore do you know who gets the bill? YOU DO because your insurance companies raises their premiums and your US government covers them with YOUR tax money. Every time someone claims BANKRUPTCY because of a health issue YOU PAY. Every time someone shows up to a hospital w/o insurance YOU PAY So please cut all this the "rich" are forced to pay nonsense. If we had a smarter and more comprehensive system we could control costs.

Birthers are whacked and are as representative of the GOP as Truthers are of the Dems.

The 'stunning' KOS (LOL) poll? GMAB.

Tumulty interviews Obama on Healthcare

"Well, of all the big decisions that you've made strategically, one of the most important was really to lay out the broad principles and let Congress figure out how to get there. Could you talk to me a little bit about how and when you made that decision, and why you decided — because there are a lot of people right now on Capitol Hill who are saying, we need more from him; he's got to tell us what — where his bright red lines are on this."

Obama:
The truth is we've actually, I think, provided more guidance than has been advertised. I mean, if you think about how we've moved this forward, we didn't simply put out some broad principles; we were fairly specific. We said we need to have insurance reform, and that's going to include things like preventing insurers from dropping people because of preexisting conditions. We said that we are going to need to expand coverage; that an insurance exchange that would provide people a menu of options was an important mechanism to expand choice and help to deliver help to people who didn't have health insurance or were underinsured. We talked about the need for a public option as part of that health care exchange.

"Although you didn't define what a public option really is."

Obama:

I would say, Karen, actually we defined it fairly clearly in terms of what we thought would work best. What I said was, is that it shouldn't be something that's simply a taxpayer-subsidized system that wasn't accountable, but rather had to be self-sustaining through premiums and that had to compete with private insurers.


"And would a co-op fit that definition?"

OBAMA: (he really breaks it down with this answer)

Well, I think in theory you can imagine a co-operative meeting that definition. Obviously sort of the legal structure of it is less important than practically how can it operate. There are concerns that in the past, attempts at setting up co-ops have not been successful because they just haven't been able to get off the ground; sort of the start-up energy involved may not exist if you're doing a state-by-state co-op effort as opposed to a broad national plan.

But to go to your earlier question, I guess — and I also said at the beginning that it was very important for us to alter delivery systems so that we could reduce costs. And as the process has moved forward, we have further refined those aspects of the system that can be changed to deliver more bang for the buck.

Now, if you look at the results, the 80% of all the various bills that are out there that people have agreed to, reflect our — most of our ideas from the start of this process. So we haven't had trouble in moving the process to most of the things that we want to see in health care, which we think will help the American people have quality, affordable health care.

But the 20% that right now is still the holdup would have been a holdup if we had put forward a plan, hadn't put forward a plan, had left it to Congress, had written it ourselves — because it represents some longstanding ideological divisions in our Congress and, frankly, in our society.

So, let's just take one example, and that is how do you pay for the uninsured who would be receiving some help, some subsidies, through this plan? Very early we identified over $500 billion from Medicare and Medicaid savings, such as the elimination of all the subsidies for Medicare Advantage, that would cover up to two-thirds of the cost of covering the uninsured.

We knew we were going to have a third left. We've put forward what I continue to believe is the most sensible way of financing that final one-third, and that is simply to lower the deductions, the itemized deductions that wealthy individuals can take. That would have covered it.

Now, we put that forward very early. The fact that that has not yet been adopted I don't think is reflective of me not giving clarity to Congress. It has to do with the fact that members of Congress are skittish about anything involving taxes, even though these are taxes that would not be imposed on anybody making less than $250,000 a year. It's just tough politics. Those are things that people are vulnerable to be attacked on.

The second area where we still haven't arrived at agreement had to do with the public option, and we've already started to discuss that. There is just a — not only an ideological suspicion of the public option on the part of many Republicans, but many of them also saw it as an opportunity to try to resurrect the old scare tactic of government-run health care, socialized medicine, eliminating your ability to choose your own doctor. That was going to exist regardless of whatever tactics we employed.

And then the final part of this, which we knew was always going to be contentious — and I actually think that the way this process has evolved, I like where we are right now but it's still tough — has to do with the issue of how do you bend the cost curve, because you can't say we're going to control cost inflation except nothing changes; something has to change if health care inflation is going to be reduced.

And that was always going to be a wrestling match because even if these are benign changes — changes in how the delivery system works, reimbursing doctors for quality as opposed to quantity, trying to reduce the number of tests, trying to discourage hospitals from readmitting patients, or at least providing them bonuses for getting it right the first time — all those things mean that people are going to have to change their practices.

And when you have a system this large, with this many players involved, it was inevitable that not only would that be contentious but that, again, the public would be suspicious of the possibilities that, well, somehow this means that my doctor is not going to be able to give me what he or she thinks I need.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,191341...

Excellent article. Thanks for posting.

No public option.

Barney Frank admitted that the 'public option' is a slow road to single payer. What is single payer? Who runs it? What has been the world-wide experience with single payer?

Do we have anything to fear from single payer?

85% of Americans like what they have. They don't want single payer disguised as a 'public option.'

I like you Conserv1

But

You don't know shyt, ain't never known shyt, and aint gone ever know shyt.

100% of that 85% don't understand what single payer is thanks to liars like you.

good find.

Did Biden actually say this at the beer summitt? Holy Hell if so, Joe.

“GENTLEMAN, SINCE THIS MEETING SEEMS TO BE GOING SO WELL, WHY DON’T WE BUILD ON THIS BY BRINGING YOU GUYS BACK, ALONG WITH O.J SIMPSON AND MARK FUHRMAN.”



snark

Haven't read too much talk about Obama as the 'chessmaster' lately but I think he is involved in a high stakes game involving Health Insurance Reform. His opponent is the Progressive wing of his party. He needs to 'defeat' them IF he is to pass a bill.

Progressives, not Blue Dogs are the road block to "Health Insurance Reform" and the President must outwit and outmaneuver them if he is to get any bill this year.

Obama, Emmanuel and the Blue Dogs vs. Progressives. That is the match in progress.

Obama must provide political cover for the Blue Dogs with their constituents, who are from previously RED, GOP districts. Support a bill too far to the left and the Blue Dog seats are at great risk of swinging back to the GOP in 2010. Obama knows this, Emmanuel knows this and the Blue Dogs know it.

Pundits and the public are asking 'When will Obama get tough?', 'When will he draw a line in the sand?'

Game on.

Health care reform IS a mandate from the American people who are suffering at the hands of the moneycare industry, they do not care about the fluff and/or distraction of identity politics.

I don't know about the pundits, but the public is definitely asking "When will Obama get tough?"....against the Blue Dogs. You're spinning, Conserv1. You read those comments about Emmanuel, and you thought you'd spin it into Obama not actually wanting the public option, and the Progressives being the problem, rather than the Blue Dogs.

Gates gave this very memorable line: "We hit it off right from the beginning. When he's not arresting you, Sergeant Crowley is a really likable guy."


O yeah....them there are words to begin the process of litigating. Lovin it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/us/politics/3...

AND I understand Ogletree was there right along with the PoliceUnion Atty....

I hope he lets it go.

I don't.
Gates needs to LITIGATE for all black males subjected to police abuse. He has the standing and the LEGAL Right to reinforce/reaffirm ALL Americans and especially BLACK MEN's rights.

He represents my sons/spouse, my dad/brothers/nephews/uncles and a host of male relatives in each and every BLACK family in the nation.

Litigate now, litigate tomorrah, LITIGATE forEVAH.

whiterosebuddy -

I hear you about protection and reinforcement of minority rights but this was nothing more than a pissing contest.

"nothing more than a pissing contest."

Sorry Val, but I have to respectfully disagreee. It seems your argument is that both men were equals.

That does not fit the facts. A man in uniform, with a gun and the full authority of the state is not equal to a private citizen in his home.

Individuals who call it a 'pissing constest' seem to think that GATES Social standing made him an equal. And it does NOT.

What we have IF we ascribe it to a 'pissingcontest' as you are saying is a private citizen vs. the authority of the ARMED state. And what the officer said effectively is when I am armed and I represent the state, YOU have no rights as a citizen to say what you think when you yell and say divisive things to me. YOU have NO RIGHTS because I am THE LAW, I hold THE POWER, I am the AUTHORITY and I will ARREST you and HUMILIATE you to PROOoooVE that.

Naaaaw.That is NOT a pissing contest.

That is abusive power of the STATE. Just what HueyP and Malcolm said. YOU have RIGHTs as a citizen. NO ONE, not even police authority has the right to violate those. The STATE does NOT have that power over CITIZENSHIP.

We may teach our sons/spouses to respect the law, but this is clear abuse of the power of the state.

Gates, rights as a private citizen were violated by an officer of the state who abused his power.

If you think it is, then you could teach your sons to speak their mind when an officer stops them. If you STILL have to teach your sons and your spouse knows he still has to KOW to police authority...it is NO pissing contest.

In a pissing contest, you do not get cuffed, mugshots and prints cause you PEED further!

Ain't nothing pissing contest EQUAL about the situation.

lol thats okay whiterose. I love the diverse opinions on this blog. Thats what makes JJP great. I am not disagreeing with anything you said about Crowley being in uniform, being the responsible person and in control of the situation. I agree 100% and you can see from my past responses I argued those very same facts when anyone wanted to condemn Gates. I even wrote the same thing in my response down thread to D But. . . .

It is not worth it. This particular situation isnt the big moment when you haul out the torches to light a fire around racial profiling in our community. Because I don't think the arrest had anything to do with Gates' skin color.

Situations like Rodney King, the beat down of the little old lady etc. I get that.

But this Gates thing. . .I can't even get riled up about the cop who referred to the President as a banana eating jungle monkey and that was blatant racism. That was just ignorance and ignorance is best ignored.

"It is not worth it."

Yes it is. We friends and if we can't have this argument, who can? Make your case. Let's have at it. We will still be friends.

"This particular situation isnt the big moment when you haul out the torches to light a fire around racial profiling in our community. Because I don't think the arrest had anything to do with Gates' skin color."

O yes, this is the moment. there was a definite RACE component. And if we do not have it, all those black males who are subject to false arrest and harassment will continue to undergo that abuse. GATES is the route to proving that. This is a pivotal moment. We have to pick and choose what cases to carry forward. No different than Rosa Parks. One of the first women the NAACP wanted to use, they couldn't cause she was a pregnant teen. So they could not take the case forward cause they knew they would be subject to character slander of that person. There are times when the opportunity presents and we have to PRESS forward without the liabilities that would be attendant with another indiviual to MAKE the CASE for the LEGAL Rights of ALL.

"Because I don't think the arrest had anything to do with Gates' skin color."

No? Then the officer should have left when he had the ID. Which is the point the President made, it was stupid to arrest someone in their home when you have PROOF they live there. NO? When we have proof that the officer LIED and said he the suspects were 2 BLACK males/backpacks in HIS report? C'mon...if that was not acknowledgement of racial profiling what was? He knew that was a lie but he wrote it to JUSTIFY his completely ABUSIVE use of Power...to gain sympathy..'y'all know what it's like to approach black suspects"

He USED that racial dynamic to JUSTIFY his actions...he told them to 'keep the cars coming'...despite having walked BEHIND GAtes to HIS kitchen and SEEN him walk with a CANE.

OOOOOOooooh no this is clear racial profiling.

Recall, Gates, was angry about the man NOT complying with his request for a badge and name!! That is what escalated the matter. ALL of Gates comments were made AFTER the officer refused HIS request for badge and name. Gates KNEW his rights!! Officer refused to comply.


Yeah, I agree 'junglebunnyasshole' ain't worth the time of day. EXCEPT, Crowley being right fuels HIS justification makes HIM believe he is right.

Which goes to my point. Gates has to LITIGATE.

I'm just not feeling it Whiterose. You know when something comes out in the news and you get that feeling that something is not right?

I didn't get that. I agree 100% NO citizen should be arrested in his/her own home and I agree that Crowley falsified police records. Let's put that aside for now.

Gates isn't some meek guy regardless of the fact that he carries a cane. He mouthed off at this "policeman" questioning his right to be in his own house. It was probably hot, Gates was tired, first he couldn't get into his house and the fact that some policeman came up in his house and had the nerve to ask him for id? Oh hell nah!. . . He probably got a little testy. Don't you know who I am???? I want your name and badge number. I know my rights and my days of picking cotton are looooonnnggg gone. You messing with the wrong Professor here.

Then the cop got his back up (oh hell no this peg legged mofo ain't talking to me like that when I am just doing my job). . . no I don't know who you are which is why I asked for your id. Don't you know who I am? and then he calls for back up. Then all that testosterone exploded in the room and you had the "my balls are bigger than your balls" thing happening, Sir I need you to step outside. . . Gates probably responded "I'll talk to yo Momma outside" and it escalated from there.

I am not arguing the point that Gates had the right to say whatever he wanted. . .he is in his own home. The cop was wrong for writing a false record. Gates should have NEVER been arrested. And Lashley should have drank a tall glass of STHU before he got on National TV and with a WIDE grin cheerfully accepted the July 2009 Uncle Tom award.

If Gates chooses to litigate it should be on the grounds of false arrest and the fact that the officer filed a false police report. However, this arrest is not going to "lead the charge" against racial profiling. I just don't believe this was the case.

"I'm just not feeling it Whiterose. You know when something comes out in the news and you get that feeling that something is not right?"

OK...dang..I was looking for spirited discussion. Relying on you, cause you faced down your minister in your PEW on Sunday morning!! Ain't enough to say in church you got to carry it to the LeGAL system. What you gone tell your son? I know, the same thing I would, obey the officer. BUT this point is BIGGER than that VAL. SOMEBODY got to stand up for what is right. LEGALLY right. Just like you did in that pew. Don't you think mommas' told their children to just move to the back of the bus? I get that. But there comes a time we have to STAND UP!

"Gates isn't some meek guy regardless of the fact that he carries a cane. He mouthed off at this "policeman" questioning his right to be in his own house"

I KNOW! I get that! But that is precisely why we DO have to stand behind GATES. He has the STATURE. He has the money. HE has the credibility. To make the case CLEAR..for all our black males in our families. Don't mean they gotta give lip, but it does mean they have the RIGHT UNDER the LAW! Can't no brother on the corner just trying to make a living that has the time or money to pursue the RIGHT. That is precisely WHY Gates is the one! To take this to the courts, to STAND for JUSTICE under the LAW for ALL black males and ALL Americans. This is AMERICA we do not live in a POLICE STATE. The police got to know they CAN't do this NOT EVEN to BLACK men.

"And Lashley should have drank a tall glass of STHU. "

Arrrrgh! Can't stand Lashley...I think he is a cousin of SnidleyWhiplash. and KellyKing is Natasha.

"If Gates chooses to litigate it should be on the grounds of false arrest and the fact that the officer filed a false police report. This arrest is not going to "lead the charge" against racial profiling."

I AGREE, and those ARE the terms. But what BLACK male has EVER won on THAT? That is the entire point of why he needs to litigate. Black males have been subjected to NO due process under the law, harassed for DWB and all sorts of nonsense. Even Colin Powell said that. No matter how high they rise. And I want this for my sons and my husband I want to STOP the fear. I want our black men to live til old age and not die before black women because of all the stress they deal with simply for being BLACK AND SUCCESSFUL. This needs to be done for my sons and your sons and all our ancestors that endured FAR worse! Emmitt Till, MedgarEvers,Jena6 and many others!!

"I just don't believe this was the case."

It is. Right terms, right person.

Recall, they said it was not time for Rosa, Malcolm nor Martin...they ALL made the case when our people said it was not the case. The time is NOW and the moment is now to make history.

Gates needs to litigate!


yes, I'm done..thanks for humoring me.

PEACE...love ya!

You have to remember Whiterose that I always said although the cop was wrong and Gates should not have been arrested I thought it was a pissing contest. I said that since day one.

I stood up in church because the Pastor had an issue with the President saying the officer acted "stupidly". Well the cop did act stupidly and the President was right for saying so. The President was also right to say that although he did not have enough facts on this particular case racial profiling is real.

So I went off on the pastor because he dared to suggest the President was wrong to even raise those issues.

Situations like Emmitt Till, MedgarEvers,Jena6 and many others I am right there. Front and center and you may even see me on the news getting carted off somewhere.

But for Gates . . . even if I was all heated up and went all out for him . . . I suspect deep down . . . he isn't even thinking about minorities who face these issues every day. Not sure how much he would do to fight for them. . .

:-) and I love you right back Whiterosebuddy.

Good. I hope he sues. This no longer has anything to do with POTUS and the administration should avoid ever talking about it again.

Had he not said anything at the press conference, I don't think Crowley would be heralded as a hero right now. The day after he invited them over for beers, all the info started to come out about how Crowley lied on the police report. So he messed that one up too.

I think the White House gives the press too much damn credit. These are the same people who spent days talking about the condition of Michael Jackson's dead body!

Anyway, I was no Gates fan before all this, but I got his back on this one. I hope he gets paid!

Right there with you, itgurl!

Crowley lied and made a false arrest. The Media wouldNOT let a black officer off the hook. It would never happen.

So much for 'healing.'

IF Gates sues, he will be harming the President. The President needs this to GO AWAY.

rriiiggghhhttt cuz we ALL know the President is directly responsible for the actions of EVERY black man.

You can't have any healing until the wound is properly disinfected and treated.

"So much for 'healing.'"

Maybe you don't get this...but for me...Healing is JUSTICE under the law!

I want the legal rights affirmed for violation of civil rights and falsifying police report.

That is all that will move this process forward where NO police officer believes he can arrest ANY citizen in their home for LIP...black/yellow/red/orange or white.

That is the way to heal...JUSTICE.UNDER. THE. LAW.

Due PROCESS!

As if Crowley is interested in healing by bringing his attorney and his union leader to what was supposed to be a meeting between him, Gates, and The President. Please.

AND

Crowley went straight to the press conference...and said..there were no apologies, we agreed to disagree.


HmmmHUH...yeah...right...cause you Crowley are legally liable. You exercised your power with those cuffs, but now it is time for you to pay under the law.

Personally, I think a secret deal has already been made not to sue. I don't believe the leader of the free world would invite two people to White House for them to leave and head to the courthouse. Especially, considering the fact, if it's true, that they are going to meet again. This whole really doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't understand what his beer summit was about especially considering the fact that all the facts are still not even out yet. It is still he said/ he said.

"I don't believe the leader of the free world would invite two people to White House for them to leave and head to the courthouse."

I hear you.

But, the President invited them for POLITICAL reasons, to get it off the front burner on HIS agenda. Rightly so.

"I don't understand what his beer summit was about"

Politics, a photo op.

It has NOTHING to do with the LEGAL issues, the 'beer summit' was political.

"that all the facts are still not even out yet. It is still he said/ he said."

Nope. It is FAR more than hesaid/he said. Crowley clearly violated Gates civil rights. It was a FALSE arrest and the facts are he DOCUMENTED the lies of the false arrest. AND the prosecutor concurred by DROPPING the charges. Those are facts.

Now those facts need to affirmed by the COURT of LAW.

Ogletreee has documented numerous instances of Crowley using disorderly conduct as an abuse of police power violating the Constitutional rights of citizens. And even Napolitano was on FOX news saying Crowley violated FED LAWS by arresting him whether it was in his home, on his front porch or lawn...that was private property.

no, No, NO...this is not hesaid/hesaid...the OFFICER violated the rights of a citizen.

Anyone who fails to understand that is supporting unAmerican principals. The LAW is clear, yelling, shouting or giving back talk is NOT a disorderly conduct offense, for the GATES situation.

Gates needs to SUE. Litigate and demonstrate that the LAW is supreme not some ROGUE police officers need to violate a citizens' civil rights.

All what you said is fine and dandy. Gates will not sue because Obama has already spoke to him about it. Obama defended his friend at the press conference in front of the world. Do you think Gates is going to pay Obama back by dragging this thing in the courts? NOPE. Any court case will make Obama look bad and Gates wouldn't do that.

"All what you said is fine and dandy."

Gotcha. All the FACTS I stated are fine and dandy. Gotcha.

"Gates will not sue because Obama has already spoke to him about it."

Well, we know that is speculation. So here is my speculation. The entire reason the President spoke out is because he knows the racial profiling issue well. Knows this is clear racial profiling and WANTS Gates to sue. Which is the entire reason he stepped in.

"Do you think Gates is going to pay Obama back by dragging this thing in the courts? "

Yes. Obama spoke because he understands racial profiling and saw this as a CLEAR cut example of that. He said, it was stupid to arrest someone in their home AFTER they PROVED they lived there.
Gates provides Obama the opportunity to support with the US AG, the FEDERAL laws to bring racial profiling BEYOND state LEVELS. Gates will be doing the President a favor.

"Any court case will make Obama look bad and Gates wouldn't do that."

How so? How does ANY citizen pursuing their civil rights make Obama or any President look bad?

JFK stepped up and had RFK call the friggin judge to release MLK from jail. Why? Civil rights!!

O this case BEGS to be LITIGATED.

It BEGS for OBAMA to not only be proven right but for ALL Americans to KNOW the power of the state does not TRUMP citizenship CONSTIUTIONAL rights.

Um, did you forget Obama was a constitutional law professor?

IOW's if the power of the presidency spotlighted this..,then that same president gains ONLY by a citizens CONSTITUTIONAL rights being AFFIRMED under the law.

That affirmation makes it the RIGHTS of the CITIZEN prevailing under the CONSTITUTION and the PRESIDENT having only spoken out FOR those rights.

your turn..... : )

I'm digging your commentary. WRB.

The President doesn't need it to go away, but he may need it to go away from him. As far as "healing" goes, unless and until the conditions are conducive for it, there shouldn't be any healing. Gates should sue. The written law is on his side, even if the unwritten law of white hegemony isn't.

Hypothetically, if Gates does sue, could you make a case for Crowley not being able being able to get a fair trial, because of PBO's interjection?

Or would that not apply if it's a civil suit?

It was a fair trial when they convicted Charles Manson...even though Nixon stated during the trial that Manson was GUILTY.
You can't get no more Presidential interjection than that.

When Obama spoke the charges had been dismissed, PBO did not interfere in an ongoing trial!

You are so right. I remember this very well. It was the first time I heard a President comment on a current legal case. Nixon said Manson was guilty before the trial. So why did the same people who agreed with him come down so hard on President Obama? Your guess is as good as mine. Race among other things probably.

You right. Ain't got shyt to do bout black and white.

But the real deal is, which I know is the opposing argument....heck, not even gone say it. Gone wait for other folks to make that distinction.

Ain't heard it yet.

Cause I then get to ripp them a new one on that! hehehehehe

Gotta save my cookies...lol

D - I don't agree with the "sue" argument because I believe as I said before.. . both men had a pissing contest. Things got out of hand. that happens.

But what I don't appreciate is the fact that folks are willing to overlook the fact that the police arrested a man in his own home and then falsified the police report to cover his behind.

There is no excuse for that. Still an all. . . it was a pissing contest.

Of course it was a pissing contest.

I think it's pointless for anyone to sue anyone.

"a pissing contest"

NAW! You can't have a pissing contest when the 2 people are not peers.

Crowley was there in uniform with a gun representing the power of the state and all the authority that comes with that WHICH he abused.

Gates was a private citizen in his home, whose civil rights were VIOLATED.

Pissing contest my ass.

Under the eyes of the LAW this is police abuse, false arrest AND false police report filed.

Don't matter about race. The law is clear, the actions here were ILLEGAL.

And that needs to be affirm in a court of law.

Any American who fails to understand that needs to leave the country NOW.

"NAW! You can't have a pissing contest when the 2 people are not peers."

Hah! yes you can. We're talking about men.

LOL, I hear you bout" MENS"

but

If it had been simply MEN (acting like COCKS)...GATES wins.
He is the dominant more successful male.

What happened is that since they were not peers and the workingclasshick, had no superiority other than the abuse of state power, he TRUMPED Gates with it!

Which goes to they were NOT peers.

ain't buying that testosterone thing..yes, it played a role...but the one who was NOT the peer used his POLICE authority to win.

Which is the entire point of why to litigate.Crowley and all police officers have to learn, you can not abuse police power when you outLIPPED!!

Crowley might represent the LAW but he has no RIGHT to ABUSE that AUTHORITY to arrest a citizen fully within their rights to talk back as a LAW ABIDING citizen.

Ain't no law against LIP that does not incite others and only the officer.

Whiterosebuddy - I agree 100% to your points that Crowley was the police officer and he bore the responsibility. No citizen should be arrested for mouthing off in their own home. Gates should have never been arrested no matter what he said. I agree with all that.

Just my own opinion but I suspect folks are getting more worked up than Gates is at this point. I am not getting the vibe from the good professor that he was remotely interested in advocating for victims of racial profiling. His outrage was focused more on the fact that this was happening to him.

"His outrage was focused more on the fact that this was happening to him.'

Now, maybe gates will have more compassion for his bretheren

Perhaps Gates wasn't interested in advocating, but spirit had other plans for him. Everyone is playing their roles, It should be interesting to see the final act.

D,

Crowley lied. Nothing is going to change from what was written in his report. The facts aren't changing.

the flip side of that is maybe Gates won't get a fair shake either. There are just as many white people who are mad at Gates for daring to no be subservient to this white policeman, and having the gall to be mad he got arrested for nothing.

No.

Ask charles Manson, who tried to get a mistrial after Nixon declared he was guilty.

Ask the SimiValley jurors that declared the po-po not guilty after beating RodneyKing...even though the sitting President George HW Bush said the video was sickening after viewing it.

Presidents through out history have made remarks about on going legal situations.

Obama speaking out as President is not any Presidential precedent..

...As if you care if it harms the President?

Class Struggle
American workers have a chance to be heard. by JIM WEBB
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 A.M. EST

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.





This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism.
Still others have gone so far as to argue that these divisions are the natural results of a competitive society. Furthermore, an unspoken insinuation seems to be inundating our national debate: Certain immigrant groups have the "right genetics" and thus are natural entrants to the "overclass," while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes.

Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.

America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."

More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.





The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.
With this new Congress, and heading into an important presidential election in 2008, American workers have a chance to be heard in ways that have eluded them for more than a decade. Nothing is more important for the health of our society than to grant them the validity of their concerns. And our government leaders have no greater duty than to confront the growing unfairness in this age of globalization.

Mr. Webb is the Democratic senator-elect from Virginia.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature...

It's interesting to observe the creep on who is the working poor and how it have been largely ignored. There are a large number of people today who cling to the moniker of "middle class". Pew conducted a survey sometime ago where individuals were asked if they thought they were in the middle class. Many answered "yes" while admitting to have fallen onto hard times. Self-identified middle class who have fallen onto hard times are actually standing in soup lines today. Some people labelled as middle class MUST work overtime and/or multiple jobs How surreal is that?

Unbeknownst to many who self-identify as middle-class, the new class is the millionaire-middle-class. So it seems the powers to be have decided to leave the "hard times" middle class with their dream and have moved on with their "new" millionaire-middle-class.

Powerful, thanks for bringing it over.

Today's Conversation - Will Obama's Beer Bash Put An End To The White Backlash? http://bit.ly/h5fFg

I'll wade in here.

I think this issue should go away.

I think that Obama made a mistake in commenting on this issue. He knows it too. He said as much and the Beer Bash was an attempt to control the damage. Now that it is over, I am sure the President wants this all to GO AWAY. If the media, Gates and Crowley let it go...the backlash may end.

IF, Gates wants to proceed with litigation, it will damage the President with white voters. Gates is a personal friend of the President and any move forward by Gates will come with the implied knowledge and consent of the POTUS. If Gates sues, look for the President to throw him under the bus.

Crowley will not take this any further. The ball is in Gates' court.

Did Nixon and GHWBush make mistakes as well when they remarked on trials that were far more public in their day?

Gates charges had already been dismissed when Obama spoke. He basically was saying what the prosecutor had...this mess is riDICulous there is no legal basis for these acts, charges dismissed.

Obama didn't dismiss the charges...he aptly described the circumstances that led to them as stupid.

He was right, the media is wrong for reducing his actual statement to 2 words, acted stupidly. such that nitwits and morons don't get that they he actually said...the police acted stupidly in arresting a man in his home AFTER having PROOF he lived there.

He was right.

It will not damage the President whatsoever. You are blowing smoke. The jury in Boston will NOT be friends of the President. And Boston is one of the most racially divisive cities in the nation so you are again wrong. Crowley thought he could get away with police abuse, falsifying police reports and publically humiliating a citizen by handcuffing him in broad daylight and making him endure mugshot and prints.

If you Conserv are unable to see how this officer violated Gates civil rights then you are UN American. You do not deserve to live in this country. We have freedom of speech in our homes and no officer has the right to abuse that. Race has nothing to do with it. It is justice under the law. Not to mention FEDERAL law, when Crowley arrested him on his Private property he violated Gates Civil and Constitutional rights.

White.black.green. orange. don't mattter...it was ILLEGAL and all you lawandorder conservatives who are unwilling to back up those facts, need to get the hell up out of this country.

Please, wrb, don't hurt 'em!

heheheheeehe...SICK of these folks ignoring the FACTS!!

Concur; this needs to die...and quickly.

If for no other reason than I'd rather not spend the month of August reading about bloggers chasing Democratic congresscritters and asking "do you agree with the President that police officers are stupid?"

Really, I got more important stuff to read in my email.

The "teachable moment" has passed, and I'm not sure if anyone really learned anything. Let's move on.

D.

I'd be interested to know what you believe could have been taught in this situation. What was to be learned by whom?

Did you forget Crowley lied in his report & made a false arrest? The Media is ignoring the lie Crowley told. Lucin Whalen's statement contradicts what Crowley wrote in his report. Crowley is a lying liar!

Say it again, Justice! If the media did their job and reported the facts, Crowley would be seen for the lying, jack donkey his is.

I watched Morning Joke this morning (I know, I know. I'm hard headed! ;-P) and when Lawrence O'Donnell mentioned that Crowley made a false police report and made an unlawful arrest, Joey Scar dismissed Lawrence and said, "Let's talk about Iraq!". The white media is trying their best to protect this white cop, and it's sickening and frustrating that they are being allowed to get away with it.

They can criticize Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck all they want, but they're no different.

Crowley is a lying liar!

Um....as opposed to.....?

D,

Come on now. I'm sure you read or heard Lucin Whalen's statement. She didNOT mention 2 black men with back-packs but yet, those details ended up in Crowley's report.

Who's lying, D? Whalen or Crowley?

Chill, Justice....

I was simply asking if there's another type of liar besides a lying one.

I've been home for most of the week, and the, um, edge, has been removed. Lighten up...I'm in a good mood.

For now. :)

**snicker** tip toeing out the room and away from grown folk conversation about havng relations.

Today's Conversation - Viva La France: Women Say No to Misogynistic Rap http://bit.ly/FAfhr

What is the world coming to when MARIAH CAREY and EMINEM are dissing each other in songs? My brother told me about it this morning. Here's Mariah (she came out first): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBgq4gdL9vE&feat...

and here's Em's response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzHnNPLWsDQ

I think it's a publicity stunt, but Eminem went kind of hard on her. LOL. And Nick Cannon is lame, so I don't think he's going to respond to her.

Oh@ LMAO@ "you gonna ruin my career you better get one!" re: Nick

Nick is a cornball BUT he did defend her when Feminem first wrote a diss song about Mariah. Feminem apologized.

Maybe they should all meet with Obama for drinks? /snark

So he saved her voicemails from years ago? Sounds like Mariah might be right about him being a bit obsessed with her. Not only that but Em only picks fights with either women or much smaller guys. Not much a fan of either but I think Nick Cannon might surprise him!

It goes back further than that. Eminem came out at least twice before Mariah responded with that video.

LOL, well I must have been busy with school and stuff because this is the first I'm hearing of it and only because my brother was so wowed by Em's response.

Obama Naked with unicorns NSFW: I found an artist who decided to do a series on Barack Obama, This is not the first time that the POTUS has been placed in interesting positions but I don't quite know what to make of these. Your commentary would be appreciated.

Even without the NSFW tag, I think I'd still be afraid to click on that link.

Whhhhhyyyyyyyyyy?!!? Why didn't I listen to you? Not the best decision I could have made.

Ditto. I was not even going there.

Dating 101: Dealing With the Race Factor
How to cope with four common obstacles in interracial dating.
By Arnold Chao

A recent study on racial preferences of online daters provides some interesting findings. Based on profile-searching criteria set by singles using Yahoo! Personals, the UCI case study reveals that gender plays an important role in interracial preferences:

Married Couples in the U.S in 2006:
White Husband-White Wife = 50,224,000
White Husband-Black Wife = 117,000
White Husband - Asian Wife = 530,000
White Husband - Other Wife = 489,000
Black Husband - White Wife = 286,000
Black Husband - Black Wife = 3,965,000
Black Husband - Asian Wife = 34,000
Black Husband - Other Wife = 45,000
Asian Husband - White Wife = 174,000
Asian Husband - Black Wife = 6,000
Asian Husband - Asian Wife = 2,493,000
Asian Husband - Other Wife = 13,000
Other Husband- White Wife = 535,000
Other Husband - Black Wife = 23,000
Other Husband - Asian Wife = 41,000
Other Husband - Other Wife = 558,000

Asian American men are the least preferred mate for Caucasian women, and African American women bear the brunt of discrimination from Caucasian men. UCI researchers say that "the stereotypical images of masculinity and femininity shape dating choices" and are a contributing factor.

The cross-cultural revolution is not going to be launched on the Internet dating scene, where people often follow racial stereotypes when looking for love, the researchers said.

In spite of these findings, there's always an exception to the norm, and I should know as an ABC (American-Born Chinese) who met and married another type of ABC (American Brazilian Caucasian -- yes, I just made that up). Like any couple we've had our ups and downs, but we've somehow managed to bond well for almost a decade.

For those of you involved with a date -- or mate -- of a different race, check out these obstacles of interracial dating and ways to overcome them.

Dating Obstacle #1. The Traditionalists
I've encountered several people who possess strong opinions about interracial dating: A South African told me that people should date within their own race; my Korean American friend found it inconceivable to betroth a white woman; some Asian guys I've met told me they loathe competing with white guys to woo Asian bachelorettes.

Yes, the resistance against interracial dating persists, even in the diverse San Francisco Bay Area where I live. You should consider that citizens in most U.S. states were legally banned from marrying outside of their race until 1967.

How do you cope?
Surround yourself with pals who tolerate diversity. As individuals, we have an innate desire to be understood; and as an interracial couple, the desire remains the same. You must learn to accept adversity and not let it influence your individual judgment. The acceptance you receive from a circle of friends strips away your sensitivity to snide comments that oppose your open dating preferences.

Dating Obstacle #2. The Stereotypes From Mass Media
Can you blame the TV producers and advertisers for playing it safe by catering to the majority? After all, they measure what appeals to a mass audience and go with what we're familiar with. It's no mystery that stereotyping the population is much easier than representing eclectic subgroups within our population. As an expected result of this, the general public absorbs oversimplified images of various ethnic groups -- and how they pair up -- in every media imaginable.

How do you cope?
Recognizing the biased reality of the media business in itself resolves much of the adverse impact of broadcasted stereotypes. Avoid "keeping up with the Joneses" and don't think you have to date like all the idealized couples the generic media fodder has fed you. Boil your beliefs down to what really matters to you, and you'll become stereotype-resistant.
Dating Obstacle #3. The Offensive Family Member
It happens: You'll attend a family gathering where your estranged uncle shows that he may not be as culturally enlightened as the rest of your family. The off-color jokes spew out of his mouth. He snickers. You're in shock. Your significant other is in shock. The tension builds while you attempt to cool the blood that boils within you.

How do you cope?
Realize that there may always be a family member, or friend, who has trouble thinking before uttering insensitive opinions or bluntly racist remarks. Prepare for these confrontations. Let that person know if you think his/her comments are offensive, and choose honest yet eloquent ways to respond. Practice what you'll say and when you'll say it -- so when the situation happens, you won't let your emotions get the best of you. If this person is worth dealing with, he/she will respect your straightforwardness.

Silence will only prolong the issue. Share your thoughts to show that you care about how you interact with everyone, and vice versa. This is not the time to be shy. Demand respect. You deserve it.

Dating Obstacle #4. The Gazers
I know. It gets old. Not everybody is used to seeing an interracial couple. People will stare at you. They may even display a frown or a furrowed brow.

How do you cope?
Ignore the natural response of attempting to read their minds. Who knows what they're thinking when they stare: Maybe they admire you two as a couple, or they like your threads, or they just haven't seen your "kind" before, or they're waiting for you two to show some affection so they can label you as a couple rather than friends. It's pointless to keep wondering.

Instead, imagine you're a celebrity. In fact, you are. You might well be the spectacle of the day for them. Thrive and celebrate your uniqueness. These public encounters add flavor to the otherwise bland experiences of their lives. You're simply desensitizing them to the notion of colorblind dating. Sooner or later, they won't look twice ... because they've seen it before.

African American women bear the brunt of discrimination from Caucasian men.

But let some folks tell it...

(ahem)

Asian men are not depicted as masculine and Black women are not depicted as feminine, or if they are depicted as feminine they are booty shaking mamas overcome by sex (i.e. not good wife material).

Makes sense.

" Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday he hasn’t made up his mind on whether he will vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Baucus this summer has infuriated liberals on and off Capitol Hill by working to strike a deal with Republicans on healthcare reform. A “no” vote on Sotomayor would be adding fuel to the left’s fire at the Finance Committee chairman.

Baucus on Thursday twice told The Hill he is undecided on next week’s floor vote on Sotomayor. …

A Baucus “no” vote against President Barack Obama’s high-court nominee would attract national headlines. It would also create a politically awkward situation with the White House as it is trying to prod Baucus to produce a healthcare reform bill."

Does anyone think that this is in response to the threat to vote him out as committee chair?

That sellout may have had a temper tantrum and may vote no but he is only digging his own grave and I love it.If you want to be a lite rethug we will be more than happy to make you as irrelevent as your rethug friends.

Does anyone think that Emmanuel is NOT doing his job? Does anyone believe that he is rogue? IF what some say is true, and Emmanuel promised the Blue Dogs that a public option was NOT necessary, where do you think that promised came from?

FAITH BASED ECONOMICS

"The Hill reported that Democrats now want voters to disregard the financial analysis from the Congressional office they control … In other words, don’t pay attention to the actual numbers provided by people who use math to calculate costs. Instead, have faith in the remarkable cure-all powers of Dr. Obama’s Health-Care Reform Elixir! It has so many benefits and cost savings that even the nation’s leading analysts cannot detect with the naked eye!

This doesn’t just represent a new spin for a failing policy. It undermines the entire argument for health-care reform, at least as presented by Obama and his allies. They justified the nationalization of the health-care industry on the premise that uncontrolled costs would bankrupt the nation as well as an increasing number of individual Americans. The Obama administration and Democratic leadership in Congress argued, both implicitly and explicitly, that their reform would install rational cost controls while giving greater access to all Americans. In fact, that is the only possible rationale a politician could have for the government to restructure a private industry.

This new approach completely undermines the argument for a systemic overhaul of the industry. Thanks to the CBO, we know all of the costs – and it’s important to remember that while the official deficit hit in Decade One is $239 billion, we only get within that close to break-even thanks to almost $600 billion in new taxes over the same period. Now, however, we have no idea what cost savings we will see, let alone whether we will have overall better access to medical care, or even the same level of access as most Americans do now. Gallup polls show 83% of Americans satisfied with their current coverage, so this question is of vital importance in any overhaul, both practically and politically."

I am sure that there are quite a few Obama supporters (NOT die-hard JJP readers, of course) who feel like this:

"Do Americans want to buy another round of Dr. Obama’s Magical Medical Elixir? I think voters had enough the first time, when we drank Dr. Obama’s Magical Economic Expander, which was guaranteed to add a “jolt” to your economy, or … well, unfortunately, we don’t get our money back. Ever."

"The accountants do not estimate what impact a bill might have on the macroeconomic climate. The availability of a public health care plan, for example, could shrink the labor force by increasing retirement among nonseniors. Inversely, greater access to health care might decrease morbidity and mortality, thus expanding the labor force. Neither possibility is considered. Also, the CBO sometimes neglects to consider certain costs—either because of time constraints or uncertainty—and makes note of the omission in their estimates. The recent health care forecasts do not consider the administrative cost of implementation.

So how good is the CBO? Not so great on past health care legislation. According to critics, CBO overestimated the five-year cost of the Medicare prescription-drug benefit by 35 percent. And after the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, Medicare spending dropped twice as fast over three years as CBO predicted. By all accounts, these two bills were easier to model than the current bill."

How Do We Know Health Care Reform Will Cost $1 Trillion?

HUD Chief: Health Reform Will Help Homeless
By Alexi Mostrous
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 31, 2009

The Obama administration opened up a new front in the health-care battle Thursday, saying that extending publicly funded programs such as Medicaid and Medicare was essential to combating homelessness.

Shaun Donovan, secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, said there was "no question" that successful health-care reform would limit the growing number of homeless families and would benefit the tens of thousands of chronically homeless people.

"We already know that simply having 46 million uninsured people in this country clearly contributes to persistent and widespread homelessness," Donovan said, speaking in Washington to the National Alliance to End Homelessness. "Health-care costs are the leading cause of personal bankruptcies."

HUD reported this month that the number of homeless families nationwide rose 9 percent in the 12 months leading up to Sept. 30, 2008, and by 56 percent in rural and suburban areas. At the same time, several years of progress in reducing the number of chronically homeless people ended as their numbers stabilized.

Around 70 percent of homeless people are uninsured, with only 25 percent eligible for Medicaid, according to Michael Stoops, director of the National Coalition for Homelessness. "A huge number are not [insured] because they don't have the paperwork or identification. They don't get treatment, and they get more helpless."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

"benefit the tens of thousands of chronically homeless people" - Here is a thought: just change Medicaid rules.

Hmmm. Curious. No new public option, but an extension of existing government run programs.

I am all for this. The Federal Government should reform and improve the plans that are already in place.

stop talking out of both sides of your neck. Yesterday you said there should be government run programs and in that same commentary you said NO government run programs.

No. I said that we should reform Medicaid, Medicare. I do not want a new public option.

Anyway, I have seen the final bill, you posted it yesterday. No public plan is mentioned.

Now this. I have no problem with what you posted from the WH, no problem with the enrolling as many of the uninsured in Medicaid. That is it's purpose.

I am going to believe that you get paid to post this nonsense. because I know we ALL need to make a dollar. I can only hope you don't come by this propensity to lie naturally.

Obama and Sister to Share a Town
By RACHEL L. SWARNS
Published: July 30, 2009

WASHINGTON — The far-flung Obama clan is coming closer together. President Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, is moving her family here from Hawaii and will spend the next several months living in the nation’s capital, White House officials say.

The extended stay means that the siblings will live in the same city, at least for a while, for the first time in years.

Ms. Soetoro-Ng, who has given up her job as a high school teacher in Hawaii, has a book contract and a new baby. Her husband, Konrad Ng, a professor at the University of Hawaii, will become the scholar-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution’s Asian Pacific American Program here next month.

Museum officials say Mr. Ng will stay in Washington through December, when he will return with his family to Hawaii. There, he will complete his yearlong term as resident scholar. The family is not expected to move into the White House, though they are very close to the Obamas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/us/politics/3...

Nice. Just wonderful. Those Obama girls have such a rich cultural and family experience.

Did anyone else catch the subtle change in the language of the health care debate. What was once touted as reform of our 'health care system' is now the more tempered 'health insurance reform.'

As I listen to the Health Insurance Reform debate the thing that is most striking to me is the change in the language coming from the President. This seems to me to be a HUGE signal of what he is willing to accept as the Dems try to get past the impasse they face. And I believe they will get past it. They have to. Otherwise, as the President himself pointed out, failure to pass legislation on this key issue will 'destroy' his presidency.

Dems will NOT let that happen and the GOP does NOT have the votes or the power to stop them.

So what will we get in the end.

Well, I believe that we have already seen the President's bill. Val posted it yesterday:

* No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
* No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
* Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
* No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
* Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
* No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
* No Gender Discrimination
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
* No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
* Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
* Extended Coverage for Young Adults
* Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
* Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
* Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

No mention of a public option.

Single payer will not pass. A public option will not pass because it is being exposed for what it is...a slow road to single payer.

In order to win over the majority of Americans who like their plans and doctors and want to keep them, single payer/public option, call it what you like, threatens the coverage they already enjoy.

The public option/single payer does not have the support of the American people. That is why we have seen the language from the WH change. And I believe we have seen the bill that we will ultimately get by the end of the year.

"The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records. Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers...

The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention."

Familiar Players in Health Bill Lobbying

---

Moneycare (The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups) at work.

Who is surprised by this? The private insurance industry feels that health care reform will lead to a single payer system. This is an existential threat that they would defend.

This is an effort to demonize the health insurance industry. That is the Dems plan. The health insurance companies are EEEEEEVIL.

The big question is, does this line of attack persuade those with private insurance, who like their plan and want to keep it, to support a public option that will move us towards a government run, single payer system?

No demonizing or attacks needed nor are there questions about who the public feel is EEEVIL.

Industrywide profit driven insurance claim denials speaks louder than any debate or advertising. And, there are no questions in the mind of individuals who thought they had real insurance who are now sitting in bankruptcy court.

Those who are bankrupt or face bankruptcy due to high medical bills will come under the protection of any 'health insurance reform' bill.

But there will be no public option. No single payer. Obama has dropped that language from his proposal that Val posted yesterday. Word is out that Rahm Emmanuel told Blue Dogs that a public option was not necessary. The Senate is rumored to be dropping the public option as well.

What Val posted yesterday and what I posted today is what we will ultimately get in the way of 'health insurance reform.'

"Those who are bankrupt or face bankruptcy due to high medical bills will come under the protection of any 'health insurance reform' bill."

I am curious about the utility of that statement to anyone today, just how one go into bankruptcy court and ask for a delay until Congress makes a decision?

Ladies & Gentlemen,

Here is the modern GOP:

58 percent of GOP not sure/doubt Obama born in US

Shocker poll from Kos/Research2000 today.

A whopping 58 percent of Republicans either think Barack Obama wasn't born in the US (28 percent) or aren't sure (30 percent). A mere 42 percent think he was.

That means a majority of Republicans polled either don't know about -- or don't believe the seemingly incontrovertible evidence Obama's camp has presented over and over and over that he was born in Hawaii in '61.

It also explains why Republicans, including Roy Blunt, are playing footsie with the Birther fringe.

Surprise, surprise: Birther sentiment was strongest in the South and among the 60-plus crowd - presumably because seniors can't log on to the Internet and rely on rumor, word of mouth and right-wing talk radio.

When do we start a serious dialog about the Birther movement being a proxy for racism that is unacceptable to articulate in more direct terms?

In all 77 percent of Americans overall think the president is actually an American.

This is the equivalent of RedState asking Democrats if they believe Sgt. Crowley acted stupidly (suprised no one's done that yet, or maybe I missed it).

Hell, I barely trusted DKos' poll on the governor's race in VA as anything more than a fundraising tool.

Fifty eight percent of the GOP couldn't name the capital of their own state.

I just read this at Huffington and my first thought is that KOS research has such a bias I am not sure I buy it. When you look at where the breakdown is it is more believable. It makes you wonder how you can celebrate such ignorance.

I don't think it's such a shocker.

They take pride in their ignorance.
- Barack Obama

Pure BS. But if it distracts the Progressives out of the "Health Insurance Reform' debate. Great.

On the Today Show (right now) they are discussing women who kidnap by C-section. They are saying it is more prevalent - anyhow - they show a montage of pictures - 7 women, 6 of them white, the picture of the 1 black women was in the center and on top of all of the others.

It made for nice symmetry but it also made the black woman the object of the montage.

Jay Rockefeller explains the fallacy of Conrad's "co-ops" in President Baucus' health care bill: "It's unacceptable"
Hold back the jello. Jay Rockefeller was on this morning with Andrea Mitchell and complained about the Kent Conrad "co-op" plan which he said was basically unworkable. He then went on The Ed show and hit it even harder. Jay is a supporter of the public option and was pissed that the co-op proposal was inserted in the Baucus bill since it was never even talked about during the general election. Isn't it nice that Baucus has killed the public option just to work with Republicans? Conservatives don't even have to win elections to get what they want. That's some deal they have.

Ed: It's not going to work. There's really no successful model out there to support the basis of signing on to a co-op. Would you sign on to a co-op or is that unacceptable?

Rockefeller: That's unacceptable and I can almost prove it. We've been in touch with all the folks that oversee, represent all the co-ops in the country on all subjects and they point out that there are probably less than twenty health co-ops in the country. There are only two that really work that well. One in Puget Sound, one in Minnesota, except for those two, they are all unlicensed. All present health co-ops are all unlicensed, they're unregulated. Nobody knows anything about them, nobody has any control over them and nobody has ever said, which is stunning to me, no government organization or private organization has ever done a study to what effect they might have in terms of bringing down the insurance prices.

They are untested, they are unlicensed, they are unregulated, they are unstudied. Why would we even think about putting them in as a control on this massive insurance industry instead of the public option?

There aren't any co-ops throughout much of the country, but to appease the conservative Dems we're supposed to throw six billion dollars around and hope that the states will try to make them workable. Is this insane? Watch the whole clip, but you get the idea from this one statement. Kent Conrad's big proposal is a complete sham, but President Baucus is trying to cram that down the throats of the country, which will render all health-care reform useless. All hail bipartisanship!
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/jay-rockef...

Organized fleecing of amerrykuns.

The Free Market at work
Doctors Reap Benefits By Doing Own Tests
In August 2005, doctors at Urological Associates, a medical practice on the Iowa-Illinois border, ordered nine CT scans for patients covered by Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance. In September that year, they ordered eight. But then the numbers rose steeply. The urologists ordered 35 scans in October, 41 in November and 55 in December. Within seven months, they were ordering scans at a rate that had climbed more than 700 percent.

The increase came in the months after the urologists bought their own CT scanner, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post. Instead of referring patients to radiologists, the doctors started conducting their own imaging -- and drawing insurance reimbursements for each of those patients.
Read More

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

It's the same in nearly every speciality, first learn of the practice in the cancer industry. Hopefully, the latest DOJ medicaid / medicare fraud sweeps will help clean some of the $$bilion$$ scams.

Obama's sister and her family are moving to DC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/us/politics/3...

President Obama should just throw a family reunion on the WH lawn. When all those "colored folks" show up w/ the Dunham's and President Obama says this is America's first family it will be the loudest explosion since Krakatoa.

Why did the NY Times feel the need to point out "they are not expected to move into the White House?"

And if they did, SO? Didn't Teddy Roosevelt have his whole entire family up in the White House?

For the same reason you can't watch TV w/o seeing a woman's cleavage. It sells. In fact it is so ridiculous that CNBC had a an anchor reporting from LA. Her blouse was so tight and button so low I had to check to see if I was watching Cool Hand Luke.

Yeah, but they were white. Obama's sister and her family are Asian. You can't have a bunch of black people living in the White House and then expect some Asians to be taken care of as well by the hard working white people of this country!!

It's just like Public Housing, OH NOEZ!

It IS public housing - essentially - and Michelle Obama did say "it's the people's house."

That's not the type of public housing the rabid racists are thinking about. Obama is bringing down the property values!

I know... the best part will be for the Obama girls.

good. It is important to have family around you.

The bigots are gonna be complaining about this one! I hope to God they move into the White House!!

I thought it but I didn't say it. raotflmbo

“‘Sure it’s a gimmick,’ said damage-control specialist Eric Dezenhall, ‘but Obama’s gift is making gimmicks look visionary.

‘In fact, the whole post-racial routine is a gimmick,’ he went on. Dezenhall compared it to the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner that symbolized a premature Iraq war victory celebration for President George W. Bush.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALe...

‘Only it works better, largely because people want it to work; they like the whole theater of healing.’”

I think conservo lost his job. I have never seen so many posts in such a short stretch.

Well..he/she needs to go and stand at the corner of Home Depot or something.

Because it's getting a bit old.

ROFLMAO!!! No you didn't say "go stand at the corner of Home Depot"

LMAO

"There appears to be a simple two-pronged strategy for killing health care reform. One of those prongs involves, of course, delaying reform until it's too late. Another reason for delaying health care reform is it gives the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats plenty of extra time to inject their special cocktail of mind-bending crazy into the discourse and make it stick."

Republicans Lying to Old People About Euthanasia, Robots

RACIST REPUBLICANS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tUjEut2iEk

Gates, Police Officer Share Beers and Histories With President

By Cheryl W. Thompson, Krissah Thompson and Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 31, 2009

Two weeks after a noted black scholar accused a white police sergeant of racial profiling for arresting him at his home near Harvard University, the men hoisted mugs of beer Thursday evening at the White House with President Obama and Vice President Biden.
Henry Louis "Skip" Gates Jr. and Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, Mass., police sat at a round table in the Rose Garden with Biden and Obama talking, sipping beer and munching peanuts and pretzels out of silver bowls. News cameras and reporters were kept 50 feet away and allowed to view the meeting for less than a minute before being shooed away as the men began their conversation.
It was an extraordinary scene that Obama's aides hoped would convey a hopeful message about race relations and end a controversy that has ballooned into a major distraction for a president pushing an ambitious agenda.
After the meeting, Crowley and a lawyer speaking for Gates said the two men were satisfied with the tone of the discussion. Speaking to reporters at a brief news conference, Crowley said that while there was "no tension" at the meeting, no apologies were offered either. "Two gentlemen agreed to disagree on a particular issue," he said.
Gates left without speaking to reporters, but his lawyer offered an upbeat assessment of the gathering. "Everybody left with the sense that we learned some things and we can make important changes," said Charles Ogletree, Gates's attorney and a professor at Harvard Law School. "It was a chance to make sure we hear the law enforcement and the community, and out of that will come more acceptance and realizing the differences are not that far apart."
Crowley said he and Gates agreed to be in touch by telephone and to meet again in the future.
"I am thankful to Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley for joining me at the White House this evening for a friendly, thoughtful conversation," Obama said in a statement.
Before the meeting, the president said he had invited the men to the White House in an effort to lower the temperature on an incident that has become "so hyped and so symbolic."
Obama characterized the meeting as "having a drink at the end of the day and hopefully giving people an opportunity to listen to each other," Obama said. "That's really all it is."
But, aides acknowledged, the White House also saw it as an opportunity to quell a controversy that was beginning to eclipse coverage of important initiatives, including Obama's proposal to restructure the nation's health-care system.
The incident began to dominate news coverage after Obama accused police in Cambridge of "acting stupidly" when he was asked about the arrest of his friend Gates at a prime-time news conference July 22. Obama's comment catapulted the episode into a national controversy and cast the nation's first African American president in the uncomfortable role of taking sides in a racially tinged incident about which he acknowledged he did not know all the facts.
Obama's remarks prompted police union officials in Cambridge to call for an apology from the president, while civil rights leaders applauded him for addressing a problem that has touched the lives of many African Americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Woulda been nice if Eric Holder dropped by and had brewski, too.

delte above should read AG Holder dropped by w/ cuffs

LMAO!

I am so glad Maxine is calling out Rahm and his failed experiment that's undermining Obama's agenda.

I agree w/ you. It was widely reported that Rahmbo went to the Blue Dogs and said a public option was not necessary. I understand that perfection is the enemy of successful legislation. You do not back down. You work the other angles, the little issues. You do not have to have small employers pay a fee if they do not offer a private plan for example. otherwise the bill becomes diluted at the expense of the big picture.

Maxine should stop the calling Rahm out and get to work. She needs to help get people in line for single payer. Realize compromise has failed and get the votes together to ram it down their throats. Take a page from recently departed Bush "You are either for us or against us". Democrats could get single payer if they had some backbone! Or at least they could get us something better than a failed compromise of the public option.

"Maxine should stop the calling Rahm out and get to work. "

PREACH Trumystique. Stop pointing fingers and get the daggone job done already. I don't accept that behavior from my own kids and we sure shouldn't be subjected to that crap from grown folks especially the ones that have a leadership role in our country.

Exactly. She's cryin' over spilled milk. Clean that shit up and press on, stop bitchin' an' moanin' and get to work to fix this mess. Then jump on Rahm's shit.

Waters ain't no friend of mine. I reMeMber where she sat in the primaries and I have not forgotten that the only Senate member of the CBC..received no endorsement from the CBC

BUT

Is she blaming Rahm or,rightly identifying the genesis of this faction in the party and telling Rahm to get his dogs in order?

Seems like we can also say she is saying these are your peeps, get them in line.

"blaming" solves absolutely nothing.

Thank you! I'm sick of folks using the health care fight to settle old scores. Do your damn job. Instead of going all over tv to trash Rahm, why doesn't she spend time on tv pumping up real health care reform.

Duh, what the hell do you THINK she's doing? Rahm and the blue dog coalition HE HELPED ELECT are the ones standing in the way of reform. Maxine and the Congressional Black Caucus have united with the Progressive Caucus to outnumber the blue dogs in the House by 2-1. They are standing firm against any attempts by the blue dogs to water down health reform.

Rahm was supposedly hired because he was the attack dog Obama needed to push his agenda through ongress. Obviously he's not up to the job because he's got his tail between his legs when it comes to health care reform. Maxine is pointing out that he's too sympathetic to the blue dogs to be effective.

OK. So IF Obama is a moderate, like the Blue Dogs, and NOT a Progressive, like he has led many to believe, then Rahm is doing his job.

BUT IF Obama is a true Progressive, Rahm is betraying the President by not bringing Blue Dogs into the single payer/public option fold.

Which is more likely?

I for one would be happy to think that he is truly more centrist. That is why he won. Independents and moderate put him in the WH. Sure, Progressives gave his candidacy legs, but independents and moderates gave it wings.

False choices. It is not about whether the President is progressive/moderate. It is about the fact that the Blue Dogs are the ones opposing the public option and not towing the partisan line. More importantly, these politicos, were brought to the party with the understanding they need NOT tow the party line.

That's the problem. Don't have nothing whatsoEVER to do with Obama.

Bob's Trip to the Doctor: The Movie

Sounds like "Karmi & Conserv1's trips to the Doctor."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7wjUX7DpBc

Karmi & Conserv1's Excellent Adventure?

LOL! Yes.

LOL! Yes.

LOL! Yes.

good post

Folks talking out the side of their necks when it comes to government intervention/takeovers and the like.

Most Americans Would be dead right now, if it weren't for having throughout the decades some semblance of an EFFECTIVE government.

haven't checked out the video yet but is it a trip to a mental instution? . . .Well you did mention Karmi and Conserv so. . . nevermind, I'll watch the video.

This is dope.From the Jacksons show, Feb 23, 1977 3 of the greatest dancers of all time together.
Michael Jackson + Nicholas Brothers (The Jacksons show 1977)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eppLgX87v7Y

Just too cool!

Thanks, dj!

One has to wonder sometimes, what would have been MJ's reach if there was not concerted obstruction and efforts to create a one-dimensional portrayal of him? Even today, I do not believe the vastness of MJ's talents have been fully realized.

Thats something to think about.

Cool.

The Reese Memorandum
by Charles Lemos, Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 01:46:06 AM EST

Entitled It's Time for the US to Declare Victory and Go Home, a blunt memorandum recently prepared by a senior US military adviser to the Iraqi military has surfaced offering a pessimistic assessment of both the Iraqi government and the Iraqi security forces. Written by Colonel Timothy Reese, an adviser to the Iraqi military's Baghdad command, the memorandum details Iraqi military weaknesses in scathing but frank language. The memo points to corruption, poor management, endemic laziness, a lack of initiative and an inability to resist Shiite political pressure at every turn.

Though it is a short three page memorandum, its opening paragraph and the Colonel' base assessment tells you all you need to know.


As the old saying goes, "guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days." Since the signing of the 2009 Security Agreement, we are guests in Iraq, and after six years in Iraq, we now smell bad to the Iraqi nose. Today the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are good enough to keep the Government of Iraq (GOI) from being overthrown by the actions of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the Baathists, and the Shia violent extremists that might have toppled it a year or two ago. Iraq may well collapse into chaos of other causes, but we have made the ISF strong enough for the internal security mission. Perhaps it is one of those infamous paradoxes of counterinsurgency that while the ISF is not good in any objective sense, it is good enough for Iraq in 2009. Despite this foreboding disclaimer about an unstable future for Iraq, the United States has achieved our objectives in Iraq. Prime Minister (PM) Maliki hailed June 30th as a "great victory," implying the victory was over the US. Leaving aside his childish chest pounding, he was more right than he knew. We too ought to declare victory and bring our combat forces home. Due to our tendency to look after the tactical details and miss the proverbial forest for the trees, this critically important strategic realization is in danger of being missed.

If the United States feels that "declaring victory" satisfies some sort of strategic imperative, that's truly myopic. We plow desert sands that tomorrow's turbulent winds will undo. Iraq is a failed 90 year experiment that should have never been in the first place. It is an artificial state created by British imperialists to provide a bulwark against a presumed Russian presence in Anatolia in the post World War One period. Even if Iraqis can today cheer a national football team, there is little else to keep their centrifugal tendencies from spinning out of control other than the classic recipe of a harsh dictatorship. In the end, it seems that we have substituted a Baathist regime for a Dawaist one. The facade of electoral democracy is celebrated but we overlook that the edifice that is good governance was never constructed.



Colonel Reese's assessments:


The general lack of progress in essential services and good governance is now so broad that it ought to be clear that we no longer are moving the Iraqis "forward." Below is an outline of the information on which I base this assessment:

1. The ineffectiveness and corruption of GOI Ministries is the stuff of legend.

2. The anti-corruption drive is little more than a campaign tool for Maliki

3. The GOI is failing to take rational steps to improve its electrical infrastructure and to improve their oil exploration, production and exports.

4. There is no progress towards resolving the Kirkuk situation.

5. Sunni Reconciliation is at best at a standstill and probably going backwards.

6. Sons of Iraq (SOI) or Sahwa transition to ISF and GOI civil service is not happening, and SOI monthly paydays continue to fall further behind.

7. The Kurdish situation continues to fester.

8. Political violence and intimidation is rampant in the civilian community as well as military and legal institutions.

9. The Vice President received a rather cool reception this past weekend and was publicly told that the internal affairs of Iraq are none of the US's business.


Sir Arnold Talbott (AT) Wilson and Miss Gertrude Bell created Iraq out of three Ottoman Turkish provinces (Basra, Baghdad and Mosul) at the close of First World War. It was an unholy union of Kurd, Sunni Tribes and Shia Marsh Arabs with pockets of Jews, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Yezidi and Armenians. Its borders defined by AT Wilson, its monarch chosen by Gertrude Bell and its people bombed into submission with the first systematic use of air power by the Royal Air Force. Then as now, empires might pretend that have achieved something lasting but the folly and hubris of empire is that they cannot bring themselves to accept harsh realities. They choose to pretend that it can all be fixed with some combination of time and more military action.

The failure of the American Empire Project in Iraq and elsewhere should be self-evident but I fear that most Americans yet remain distracted by the hazards of a suburban life. I pray they wake up.

It's time to admit defeat, attend to domestic priorities and bring troops home from our far flung Empire. The global reach of the US military today is unprecedented, unparalleled and still growing. Officially, more than 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees are massed in approximately 900 military facilities in 46 countries and territories. The unofficial figures are far higher. When is this madness going to end?
http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/7/31/1467/67106

All I could think of after reading the memo was the scene in Pirates of the Carribean II. The crew has escaped from the natives about to burn Captain Sparrow(represent by this quote form the memo, "They will tolerate us as long as they can suckle at Uncle Sam’s bounteous mammary glands.). They get to the boat and will yells out I won't leave w/o Jack. Will looks up and Jack is running down the beach w/ the natives behind him. Wills says, "Time to go"

I suspect the Col is right but we will not leave until 2013 and only if President Obama wins a second term.

Wonder how many know that "we" went to "war" with a country that had a majority population of women and children? Just how much more warring is required?

"The global reach of the US military today is unprecedented, unparalleled and still growing. Officially, more than 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees are massed in approximately 900 military facilities in 46 countries and territories. The unofficial figures are far higher. When is this madness going to end?"

It sure wont be within the next eight (8) years.

Because of the military-industrial-complex (MIC)?

Good Morning.Roots Friday is here.Enjoy
Black Uhuru - Happiness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j349xqmofdE

Thanks.