Monday, August 22, 2005
Eye of Newt, Brain of Newt, Medicaid BY Newt
I just watched a Newt Gingrich speech on Medicaid reform. I certainly agree that reforms could be made such as creating electronic health care records and cracking down on fraud. But, I don't like the structure of his plan. He appears to be advocating for health saving accounts (HSA) with health care vouchers as a replacement for Medicaid.
Ultimately, Gingrich is determined to force the same sort of coverage on all Americans - he'll first attack Medicaid, then Medicare, then corporate sponsored health care. He is definitely opposed to a single payer system. Of course, health care coverage for everyone is good but not if it's lousy coverage. I believe that HSA's, plans with high deductibles that allow excess money to be invested, will hurt most people financially. HSA's are right now tax shelter's for people with money to hide and the ability to afford private health care insurance.
The Democrats better get moving on a plan. They should embrace SPUHC in opposition to Gingrich. I am disquieted that Democrats such as Mark Warner and Hillary Clinton have been buzzing around Newt. I don't trust him and I think he is using them. After all, Gingrich is the person who took out the "contract on America" and now I think he is back to finish us off.
Bush in "Bushville"... er Salt Lake City, Utah
"I don't understand people simply blindly going along with
the sort of deceit and utter cruelty of this administration. It's not just we
have the right to speak out, but we have the obligation to speak out when we see
misconduct on the part of the government. The most patriotic thing we can do is
stand up against the misuse of governmental power."
-Republican and Salt lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, in calling for a protest against "G"lobal "W"arming Bush who is came to a very red state to make a very pro-war speech (pitch)
Indeed, I don't understand people who seek to silence free speech - it's the corner stone of any Democracy. The pro-war proponents now claim they are fighting for Democracy in Iraq yet are quick to smother Democracy in the United States! Instead, they should make their case for the Iraq war based on whether it's a just cause. Telling those who oppose the war to be quiet is bullying tactics and decidedly un-democratic.
Bush Speaks in "Bushville"
"Terrorists in foreign lands still hope to attack our
country. The lesson of Sept. 11, 2001, is that we must confront threats before
they fully materialize."
-GW Bush from Utah, today
When did Iraq attack the US? Which one of the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq or sent by Saddam Hussein? We all know by now that 15 of the 19 - 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
Now we're back to "Let's get 'em over there before they get US over here," again, huh? This is "Classic Bush": Still attempting to tie Iraq to 9/11. What amazes me the most is the lack of respect "G"lobal "W"arming Bush has for the American people. A large majority of Americans now know that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, but Bush keeps on pressing.
Maybe this is the "G"reed "O"ver "P"eople party philosophy: When things look bad, get the "Lame Duck" to say something to take our eye off the ball.
There is so much that is very wrong with the GW Bush administration policies, both foreign and domestic that they are now using 9/11-to-Iraq argument as a smokescreen.
The truth of the matter is, the longer there is Chaos in Iraq, the more oil money can be stolen from Iraq; the more money can be made by the likes of Halliburton and the owners of military contract companies; the more it will cost the US taxpayer, not only in dollars, but in services and social programs.
This is "the first war of the 21st century."
-"G"lobal "W"ar Bush
It will probably be the fist war of the first war of the next decade, and maybe the decade that follows that as well. As long as it remains a "profiteers paradise", the followers of "G"lobal "W"arming Bush, Dick "Go <F---> Yourself" Cheney and Karl "The Traitor" Rove will be pushing for the United States to participate in "Global Profits via War".
The price? Nothing more than the lives of our children
and the comfort and security of our middle class.
"The left wing is trying to politicize this to the point that they make the American people feel inferior or guilty. That's exactly what the terrorists want to hear. They want to hear the American people denigrating the United States."
-James Vergauwen, a 60-year-old Vietnam veteran who rode his Harley-Davidson to Crawford from Windthorst, Texas, a pro Iraq war supporter
I am perplexed by this logic. Protest is not the same as denigration. To my knowledge, no one is trying to make the American people feel inferior or guilty. A citizen can legitimately express grievances with their government and leaders while supporting their country. In fact, I think it's a patriotic duty to provide your honest feedback on issues. This is the nature of a healthy Democracy.
As far the terrorists go, we gave them more than enough material to use against us by attacking Iraq. Meanwhile, the mastermind of 9/11 camps under the stars in Pakistan while we burn ourselves out in Iraq.
The Bush supporters need to face reality. There is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda nor are there any WMD in Iraq. All indications are that Bush wanted to go to Iraq for other reasons. Hence, we should insist that this administration bring the war in Iraq to a quick end and re-focus on Al Qaeda.
"Bushville"... er... Utah Station Refuses to
Air Anti-War Ad
A Utah television station is refusing to air an anti-war ad featuring Cindy Sheehan, whose son's death in Iraq prompted a vigil outside President Bush's Texas ranch.
The ad began airing on other area stations Saturday, two days before Bush was scheduled to speak in Salt Lake City to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
However, a national sales representative for KTVX, a local ABC affiliate, rejected the ad in an e-mail to media buyers, writing that it was an "inappropriate commercial advertisement for Salt Lake City."
In the ad, Sheehan pleads with Bush for a meeting and accuses him of lying to the American people about Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction and its connection to al-Qaeda.
"I love my country. But how many more of our loved ones need to die in this senseless war? I know you can't bring Casey back. But it's time to admit mistakes and bring our troops home now."
weary-looking Cindy Sheehan asks in the ad.
Salt Lake City affiliates of NBC, CBS and Fox began running the ad Saturday. (etc.)
-Forwarded by Jenny Hanniver
More Bush Quotes Up Next
"A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam. When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming."
-G"lobal "W"arming Bush, in his speech to accept his party's nomination, September 02, 2004
Okay, let's check whether these "principles" were applied to the Iraq war.
The causes were false. We didn't find any WMD or relationship between Iraq and UBL. There was no linkage between the events of 9/11 and Iraq.
The goals are murky. The President keeps using banal slogans such as "stay the course", "stand down when Iraqi stand up", etc...
Three years later we are still there fighting an insurgency that may have actually grown in intensity. Senior advisors, such as General Eric Shinseki, recommended 500,000 troops and building a large coalition. But, we went into Iraq with 100,000 troops and a weak coalition. Some troops are now serving a third rotation. There are reports that we still have inadequate armor.
I guess that when it's a Republican war the lessons of Vietnam don't apply(?).
More Bush Stuff
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."
-"G"lobal "W"arming Bush, The Houston Chronicle, January 2002
Just like you "went to war in Vietnam, GW?
"I, George W. Bush, upon the successful completion of pilot training, plan to return to my unit and fulfill my obligation."
-GW Bush's Air National Guard pledge, 1968
Well four out of six years isn't bad.
"They could sense I would be one of the great pilots of all time."
GW on why the Air National Guard took him, Houston Chronicle, August 1988
Although Lt. George W. Bush said he "wanted to fight", when it came time to fill out his Texas Air National Guard Application, he checked the “I do not volunteer" for overseas duty check box.
Didn't GW scored in the 25th percentile in the aptitude portion of the Air National Guard test? Doesn't that mean that 75 percent of the others taking the test scored higher? Wow... Talk about grading on a curve.
Hey GW, didn't the Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes get you into the Texas Air National Guard? Well at least some poor minority kid from a barrio somewhere had the pleasure of serving in the US military for the future President of the United States. GW ought to look him up... or plant flowers on his grave.
I "served in the Air Force.
I was in the Air Force
for over 600 days"
-George W. Bush, the Lubbock Journal Avalanche, 1978
The US Air Force considers inactive guardsmen NOT on active duty, and NOT in the Air Force
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada."
-The Houston Chronicle, 1990
Having a daughter who has lost the hearing in one ear and has diminished hearing in the other, I don't even know what to say about that one.
In 1972, Lt. George W. Bush lost his flight status for failing to submit to an annual physical. Lt. Bush couldn't take the physical, he explained during the 2000 campaign, because he was in Alabama at the time and his regular doctor was in Texas. However, his regular doctor could not have given the examination because it must be administered only by certified Air Force Flight Surgeons. These surgeons were on staff at the Montgomery (AL) Air Force Base where Lt. Bush was living.
"What I did as a kid? I don't think it's relevant. Did I behave irresponsible as a kid at time? Sure did. You bet."
-GW in the Texarkana Gazette, 1994
In 1976, 30 year-old George W. Bush was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine for drinking and driving. Was he a "youth" at the age of 30?
Some of US had young children to take care of. at the age of 30. Some of US had new businesses that we started up on a shoestring budget (without the help from "Daddy" or his "Friends") at the age of 30. Some of US had our youth end when we became adults because becoming an adult means responsibility.
Just When did "G"lobal "W"arming Bush become
-Noah Greenberg (thanks a lot to David Korn)
In response to Note from a Madman's remarks about Eminent Domain, Stephen J Spiro writes:
I think you are a little too enthusiastic about trashing the Republicans.
It was not/is not the Republicans who are involved in the disgusting abuses of eminent domain.
Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor voted AGAINST the eminent domain land grab in the case decided last spring. O'Connor's dissent was a blistering criticism of the decision by the liberal wing of the court. Remember, Democrats TRADITIONALLY place government interests over property rights. Virtually all of the cities where it is going on have DEMOCRATIC PARTY administrations: New London, Connecticut (against whom the case was brought), Washington, DC (D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams, who serves as president of the National League of Cities, issued a statement praising the court for upholding "one of the most powerful tools city officials have to rejuvenate their neighborhoods."), Piscataway, NJ, Perth Amboy, NJ, and my home town of Edison, NJ.
Get it right.
My response was as follows:
I realize that, however, the Republicans are in power and they are just sitting on the sidelines on the subject of Eminent Domain.
I know that, for the first time ever, I think, that I agreed with (gasp) Clarence Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist and O’Conner. I even wrote about it a few Madman’s ago.
The problem I have is that the "G"reed "O"ver "P"eople party leaders offered up only token lip service on this issue and then, yet again, did absolutely nothing.
I have been disappointed by the Democrats before. For example, I was an ardent opponent of NAFTA, even though I could have benefited from it.
Additionally, (Name Withheld) writes:
A whole lot of us liberals--Noah, too, I believe--were disgusted with that Supreme Court decision and agreed with Justice O'Connor's dissent. Eminent domain has been around for a thousand years in European and English law, and has, from the beginning, been an acceptable part of U.S. law. I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand this decision, it takes away many of the legal reviews that had protected the less affluent. Worse, it allows cities to give the seized land to private industry, taking from the poor to give to the rich. Is THAT liberal? Sounds more like Hitler's "state capitalism."
Here are two paragraphs from the section on "Resentment" from my essay, "Fundamentalism". Surprised to see the subject of eminent domain in an essay on the religious right? Shouldn't be!
"We have heard that Fundamentalists are suspicious of liberals because they think we are in league with Satan. Actually their suspicion may be based far more on a practical conviction that liberals have made the lives of small folk miserable through well-intentioned social experiments. That is often whipped up, grossly exaggerated and twisted by propagandists, but it reflects some reality. Remember TVA and the thousands of families whom the flooded valleys displaced? (Of course the people were 'just hillbilly white trash.') Remember the high rise drug-infested Projects? (But those people were 'just lazy welfare blacks.') And most recently, there was the pernicious 2005 Supreme Court decision by liberal justices that permits eminent domain seizures for any reason trumped up by local government, most of which will benefit not the public but wealthy private industry.
"In fact liberal government actions undoubtedly have saved far more lives than they ever harmed, and not one single idealistic program has ever been put into effect without being quickly undercut or under-funded by its enemies, but little wonder that faceless government can easily be painted as the real Enemy. How many of our 'liberal' legislators—paid off by lobbyists—have bothered to protect the rights of ordinary people? Few liberals ever empathize with the disrupted lives of the invisible underclass, but Fundamentalist preachers do, or they pretend to."
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com or firstname.lastname@example.org