Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The FIrst Thing We Do, We Kill All the 'Other' Guys

UPDATE IV: Fear, Anger, Hatred + Radical Right-Wing Media = Delegitimize Then Kill the President. Read The New York Times, Where Did ‘We’ Go?

UPDATE III: Watch who you threaten. Read the Washington Post, Blogger's Case Could Test the Limits of Political Speech.

UPDATE II: Should Hitler and Nazism be used as a metaphor? Read the Washington Post, At the Town Halls, Trivializing Evil.

UPDATE: Will all the Republi-con pandering to fear, anger and hatred backfire? Read the Washington Post, A Price to Pay for the Town Hall Rage.

Some call it the return of Karl Rove:

But the truth is he never left, Republi-con DNA is Rovian by nature.

More on how Republi-con Fear, Anger, Hatred = Violence, a Virginia Republi-con candidate's fierce call to resist President Obama's political agenda -- with bullets, if necessary :

"We have a chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box," Crabill said. "But that's the beauty of our Second Amendment right. I am glad for all of us who enjoy the use of firearms for hunting. But make no mistake. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our Second Amendment right was to guard against tyranny."

Republi-cons are awash in grievance, self-pity, resentment, and anger. Does that sort of leadership style appeal to anyone, or does it just make them seem like poor losers?

Maybe they need to read Christian Mommies, The Poor Loser Ailment Seven Tips to Cure Unsportsmanlike Attitudes in Kids.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Friday, September 25, 2009

Class Today at NoBullU on WEBY

UPDATE: As discussed on the show, here is a copy of the Consent Decree and Order:

Consent Decree and Order

Listen to the voice of wisdom and reason in a wilderness of partisan rhetoric -- No political insanity, no conservative hypocrisy, no liberal foolishness -- Just straight talk, straight at you, and that’s no bull!!

NoBullU will broadcast today from 4:05 to 6 p.m. at 1330 AM WEBY and on line, courtesy of Cyber Smart Computers.


Local and regional: Time for the Principal's Office; and

Nation and international: Was the 'Victory' Really a Defeat?.

But I'll discuss anything. (Disclaimer: the host reserves the right to end any discussion and hang up on you.)

So tune-in, call-in, but only if you can handle the truth!

WARNING: You may not want to call in if you have veritasphobia.

Was the 'Victory' Really a Defeat?

After the not guilty in the criminal contempt trial against Lay and Freeman (see the Pensacola News Journal, Lay, Freeman found not guilty), I noted that there was no Roy Moore defense, rather as I predicted the defense used the prayer was "an old habit" defense.

It made me wonder if God was thrown under the bus to get the not guilty. Seems I'm not the only one who thinks so. Read this week's Chuck Baldwin Live column (written this week by his son Tim Baldwin), Another LAY Case.

Tim Baldwin will be a guest today at 4:30 p.m. at NoBullU on WEBY.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Milking Murders for Money?

Is Ashley Markham trying to cash in on her parents murders? She is the the daughter of Byrd and Melanie Billings and it is reported that she will fly to Chicago to tell Oprah her family's story and "let people know they're going to need help providing for the children."

You might remember that $160,000 was found in a safe inside the home, but that money "will be going toward estate taxes" says an attorney.

But the estate tax exemption for 2009 is $3.5 million.

One commentor wrote: "What BS this is. No way there will be any taxable estate OR Estate tax--no way. I'm betting that these folks raked in at least 100 grand a year in FL adoption assistance and SSI from the feds, and that's why these children are where they are."

With "FL adoption assistance and SSI from the feds," why does Ashley need more money?

How Will Parent Embarrass Their Kids?

Read The New York Times, Are Bathtime Photos Pornographic?

I'd like to know if the state took the kids from the parents before any court hearing. I've seen that done in Florida, and unless the situation is an emergency, it is illegal.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Time for the Principal's Office

After years of warnings, $196,500 just to be forced to finally admit wrongdoing. Read the Pensacola News Journal, Schools to pay ACLU.

Bet this will be an issue during the next elections.

Did Your Egg Stand?

Urban legend says that you can stand an egg on its end on the spring and fall equinox.

Happy autumnal equinox! Now where is the fall weather, when does the Christmas music start, and will I get a refund on my hurricane insurance?


The egg standing thing is an urban legend.

Malpractice Reform

There has been talk of limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, but shouldn't the objective of health care reform be to reduce medical malpractice. Read this good, but somewhat misleadingly titled, artice in The New York Times, Medical Malpractice System Breeds More Waste, which notes from a recent study that:

"The direct costs of malpractice lawsuits — jury awards, settlements and the like — are such a minuscule part of health spending that they barely merit discussion, economists say. But that doesn’t mean the malpractice system is working.

The fear of lawsuits among doctors does seem to lead to a noticeable amount of wasteful treatment. Amitabh Chandra — a Harvard economist whose research is cited by both the American Medical Association and the trial lawyers’ association — says $60 billion a year, or about 3 percent of overall medical spending, is a reasonable upper-end estimate. If a new policy could eliminate close to that much waste without causing other problems, it would be a no-brainer.

At the same time, though, the current system appears to treat actual malpractice too lightly. Trials may get a lot of attention, but they are the exception. Far more common are errors that never lead to any action.

After reviewing thousands of patient records, medical researchers have estimated that only 2 to 3 percent of cases of medical negligence lead to a malpractice claim. For every notorious error — the teenager who died in North Carolina after being given the wrong blood type, the 39-year-old Massachusetts mother killed by a chemotherapy overdose, the newborn twins (children of the actor Dennis Quaid) given too much blood thinner — there are dozens more. You never hear about these other cases.

So we have a malpractice system that, while not as bad as some critics suggest, is expensive in all the wrong ways.

Of course, the debate over medical malpractice isn't about reducing medical malpractice, but don't try to explain that to the Republi-con's unholy alliance.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Corporate Personhood

What is corporate personhood? Read The New York Times, The Rights of Corporations.

Should corporation have the same rights as individuals?

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Contempt of Court, Time to Suffer the Consequences (or Not), The Sequel

UPDATE III: As we discussed Friday, the case ain't over yet. Read the Pensacola News Journal, Group seeks change to consent decree.

UPDATE II: Not guilty -- the violation was not willful because "to say the prayer was nothing more than an old habit." Read the Pensacola News Journal, Lay, Freeman found not guilty.

You might remember that I predicted the prayer was "an old habit" defense. No Roy Moore defense here. Makes me wonder if the defense threw God under the bus to get the not guilty.

And where was the national media?

We'll discuss today during class at NoBullU.

UPDATE: Expect a crowd tomorrow at the federal courthouse in Pensacola. Until then, another opinion focusing on religion:

September 16, 2009

Viewpoint: Prayer dispute is disturbing, sad

The controversy over prayer in public schools is both sad and disturbing. It is sad because it involves people who sincerely want to follow and obey Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and who think that is why they must stand firm in their resistance to the ruling of the court.

It is sad because many have been taught and encouraged by their pastors to think this way, and to insist on their right to pray whenever, wherever and however they believe they are called by God to do so.

It is sad because nowhere in Holy Scripture are those of us who seek to love and serve the Lord, and to follow and obey Jesus Christ, taught that prayer is a right, or that it is to be used as a way to witness.

We who would follow Jesus are taught what the consequences of honest prayer will be: We will "do justice, and love kindness, and walk humbly with our God.''

We are taught by Jesus that prayer will lead to a transformation of our hearts and minds to reflect more of the compassion, mercy, forgiveness and generosity of God.

We are taught that by prayer, which is the opening of ourselves to the Holy Spirit, we will be led and empowered to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, and soul, and mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Paul teaches the followers of Jesus that the liberty we have in Christ is not to be used willfully if, by so doing, we might lead astray a weaker brother or sister, or a non-believer.

The sad and disturbing aspect of the controversy is that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is being used as a higher authority than the teachings of Jesus by many who insist on their right to pray as they want in the public schools.

Jesus was specific when he taught his followers not to make a public issue or spectacle of prayer, but to "pray in secret, and our heavenly Father who hears in secret will reward us,'' and will hear and respond to us.

If we who profess to follow Jesus put constitutional rights ahead of his teachings and example, and demand our right rather than allowing prayer to be the way God works his Grace in our lives, blessing, reconciling, healing and loving others through us, then we will most likely not encourage anyone who is on the fence when it comes to believing in God to draw nearer to the throne of Grace.

And we will probably convince those who gave up on God long ago that they were right.

The Rev. Robert Graves is priest associate at Christ Church of Pensacola.

As I said before, given that the clerk was cleared in the prayer suit, where her actions were clearly more planned and deliberate than an impromptu blessing of the food and the standard of proof in her civil contempt case was substantially less than a criminal contempt case, the U.S. Attorney's Office should save everyone time and money and just dismiss the criminal contempt proceeding against Lay and Freeman.

The local debate continues to focus on the religious aspects of the case with a series of opinion pieces in the local paper, the Pensacola News Journal, which I republish here, in chronological order, in case you missed them (and because after two week the articles are removed from public access):

First an opinion from ,J. Earle Bowden, editor emeritus of the Pensacola News Journal and a local historian and preservationist:

August 8, 2009

Learn in school, worship in church

I shall not argue the prayer issue in Santa Rosa County schools, now reaching federal criminal velocity, an unnecessary legal twist in which few will be pleased. Forging lawsuits and standing before the bar of justice for uttering a Christian prayer on school grounds grinds down to more emotion than trying to understand and accept the Jeffersonian essence of religious freedom, a true gift to American governance.

After many debatable years since the high court prevailed in limiting prayers in schools, validating Thomas Jefferson's appreciation for a wall of separation between church and state, I'm amazed by the misunderstood religious freedom phrase in the American Bill of Rights, an outgrowth of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom written in 1779 by Jefferson and enacted by the Virginia General Assembly in 1786.

The religious freedom act is one of only three accomplishments Jefferson instructed be put in his epitaph, included authorship of the Declaration of Independence and founder of the University of Virginia.

His friend James Madison said the Virginia law "extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind."

Jefferson's First Amendment idea flows from the Virginia law: "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. We are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right."

Naturally, Jefferson gained a reputation as an enemy of religion. Thirty years later he wrote that "the priests indeed have ... thought it proper to ascribe to me ... anti-religious sentiments. ... They wished him to be thought atheist, deist, or devil, who could advocate freedom from their religious dictations."

Religious belief, or non-belief, is important to every person's life; freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself.

Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state" is absolutely essential in a free society.

Jefferson replied to the critical Baptists in 1808: "We have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." He also wrote, "The constitutional freedom of religion is the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights."

I hope we Americans understand that public schools are for educating American youth for life's journey; churches, without governmental hindrance, are free to offer worship to free Americans who choose to believe.

Next a response which it appears from the following opinions to have been written by our veritasphobia Congressman:

August 22, 2009

Viewpoint: J. Earle Bowden sidesteps on Jefferson, Pace prayer

After reading J. Earle Bowden's Aug. 8 column ("Learn in school, worship in church"), one would think that Thomas Jefferson was the final and only authority on all church and state issues during the founding years of our country. We are left to believe that the First Amendment came out of the "Jeffersonian essence of religious freedom."

But what Bowden fails to mention is that there were 90 framers of the First Amendment, and Thomas Jefferson was not one of them. While Jefferson was serving as minister to France, Congress debated the wording of the Bill of Rights. According to the Congressional Record from 1789, not once during the months of debate did the framers mention the words "separation of church and state."

The origination of this phrase comes from a letter newly elected President Jefferson penned to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Conn., in 1802 regarding religious freedom. There is probably no other occasion in history where a sentence from a personal note, taken out of context, has become the foundation for U.S. policy.

When we put the Danbury letter in perspective, we see that Jefferson was responding to the question of religious establishment. The Baptist congregation specifically questioned the government's interference in the church, not the religious principles of our governmental leaders. Jefferson accurately responded that the First Amendment precluded the government from establishing a religion or denomination. Jefferson did not state that religion has no place in our government.

The "wall of separation between church and state" is a one-way wall. It was not the founders' intent to keep God out of the government, but to keep the government out of the church.

There are hundreds if not thousands of documented expressions of the importance of religion and Christian principles by our Founding Fathers. From the Mayflower Compact to the Declaration of Independence and beyond, early American leaders believed as George Washington believed that "it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."

It was not until the late 1940s when a liberal Supreme Court began to misinterpret Jefferson's words. Earlier courts held that the government may step in only when religious principles turn into dangerous actions such as polygamy or human sacrifice. But the government has no right, and is in fact prohibited from interfering with religious practices and beliefs, whether that be in the church or in the classroom.

Although Bowden sidesteps the issue of Pace High School and prayer in our schools, I will not. Precluding prayer at student events is wrong. Prohibiting a class president from speaking at graduation because she might mention God is offensive. And prosecuting a man as a criminal for offering a prayer before a meal is abhorrent.

I am proud of the Pace community for standing up for our country's founding principles of a faith in God that cannot be broken. Americans must be free to worship when they please, free to pray where they please, and free to speak what they please. These are the very basics of our American liberties and the foundation upon which this country was built.

For as Thomas Jefferson argued, "The constitutional freedom of religion is the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights."

Followed by an opinion written by Bruce Partington, a partner at the law firm of Clark Partington Hart (where I believe Judge Rodgers once worked) and a member of the vestry at Christ Episcopal Church in Pensacola:

September 5, 2009

Viewpoint: Miller got it wrong on church, state

Congressman Jeff Miller's viewpoint on the debate about prayer at Pace High School, and the doctrine of the "separation of church and state," is incorrect both historically and theologically ("J. Earle Bowden sidesteps on Jefferson, Pace prayer," Aug. 22). Unfortunately, the fundamental aspects of this debate seem to have been largely ignored, with the focus being principally on the political arguments.

Theologically, the concept of separation between church and state finds its genesis in the Gospel itself. At the time of Christ, the Romans, recognizing the importance of their faith to the Jewish people, granted the Jews an exemption from the requirement that the emperor be regarded as divine. In Mark we find Christ's direction to give the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and God the things that are God's — in short, a direction by Christ himself to observe a distinction between government and faith.

During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther published in 1523 his work "On Secular Authority" which articulated what is now known as the "Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms" and urged that church and state confine themselves (or be confined) to their separate realms. In 1599, John Calvin urged the same in his "Institutes of Christian Religion." In 1644, Roger Williams, the forbear of the Baptist traditions, spoke of "a hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world."

The founders of our nation were not only steeped in the Reformation, but mindful that the new nation had foundational traditions of religious tolerance and diversity. Indeed, the Puritans, Quakers and others had come to our shores to escape religious persecution and found a nation free of the constraints of a government-imposed faith.

In 1773, Isaac Backus, a prominent Baptist minister, wrote that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue or pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."

In 1779, Thomas Jefferson authored the Virginia "Statute for Religious Freedom" which was, in part, the model for the "Establishment Clause" of the Bill of Rights. Likewise, James Madison wrote of the importance of the "total separation of the church from the state." Madison also declared that the "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States." In a letter, he wrote "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings and Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." These writings came squarely in the period (1789-1791) during which the First Amendment was being ratified by the states.

Finally, we arrive at the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797 (when many of those who developed our Constitution and Bill of Rights were still serving) which states in Article 11 that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. ..."

In short, the debate about the propriety of religious advocacy by governmental employees must be considered in the full historical and theological context.

First, the founders were unequivocal about the separation of religion from the process of governing. Second, that view comes not from the desire to impose atheistic views on the populace or to squelch religion, but was originated and espoused by theologians to avoid demeaning the Christian faith they were striving to reform.

Finally an opinion by Ken Bell, also a partner at the law firm of Clark Partington Hart, and a former justice of the Florida Supreme Court:

September 15, 2009

Federal courts wrong on the issue of prayer

Bruce Partington is a brilliant lawyer and great friend; but, I cannot agree with his viewpoint on the theological and historical understanding of the "separation of church and state" in 1791, when the First Amendment was ratified ("History, theology elude Rep. Miller," Sept. 6).

Bruce expresses well the underpinning of the recent judicial decisions that apply the extra-constitutional phrase "separation of church and state." But this perspective is far from the theological understanding and political theory of our Founding Fathers and the church reformers.

The Founders (and the reformers) would explain the "separation of church and state" by using the "sword/key" dichotomy described in the Westminster Confession of Faith (as modified in America in 1789, two years before the First Amendment was ratified). They believed that God established "civil magistrates to be under Him, over the people, for His own glory and the public good; and to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense ... of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers."

These civil magistrates could not assume "the administration of the Word, and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or ... interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is (their) duty ... to protect the Church ... without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatsoever shall enjoy the full free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred function without violence or danger."

This separation of church and state under God without giving preference to any denomination was our Founding Fathers' church/state perspective.

Importantly, the First Amendment itself was written more narrowly. It provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The constitutional proscription was solely against Congress' legislative powers.

The Founders' understanding of church/state (both under God) and the narrower constitutional proscription on legislative powers are mirrored in our state constitution. The preamble to the Florida Constitution states, "We the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits ... do ordain and establish this constitution." Article I, section 3 provides that, "There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof."

So how did we get to a federal court proceeding where governmental employees face criminal charges for the non-legislated expression of gratitude to God for sustenance? "Incorporating" the First Amendment through the post-Civil War 14th Amendment, the federal courts expanded its express limitation on congressional legislation to the states. Once incorporated, the courts exceeded the plain text and original intent by prohibiting non-legislative "religious" activities. In other words, the courts made a policy decision to go beyond the constitutional text and apply the "separation of church and state" doctrine to curtail non-legislative actions of state government employees. Relying on a revisionist history, the courts have erected a "wall of separation" that extends far beyond the separation originally understood and intended by the Founders.

Let me be clear: I write solely to explain that our Founding Father's doctrine of "separation of church and state" was starkly different than Bruce's and the recent federal courts. And, more importantly, no matter how far the First Amendment case law has strayed from the plain constitutional text and its original intent, every trial judge must follow and apply the applicable case law.

Finally, Bruce and I have enjoyed a spirited but respectful discussion on this contentious issue. We remain good friends. We hope that those on either side will do the same.

All very interesting, but I think they miss the point of the contempt proceeding -- whether Lay and Freeman violated the Court's preliminary injunction/order:

Court Order
It should be noted that Lay was personally named as a defendant in the original lawsuit and specifically "admitted liability" in that lawsuit and agreed to the Court's preliminary injunction/order, which enjoined him from "[p]romoting, advancing, aiding, facilitating, endorsing, or causing religious prayers or devotionals during school-sponsored events."

For everything you need to know about contempt of court, which is the issue (the issue is not religion), read the U.S. Attorney's Manual, 9-39.000 Contempt of Court.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Class Today at NoBullU on WEBY

Listen to the voice of wisdom and reason in a wilderness of partisan rhetoric -- No political insanity, no conservative hypocrisy, no liberal foolishness -- Just straight talk, straight at you, and that’s no bull!!

NoBullU will broadcast today from 4:05 to 6 p.m. at 1330 AM WEBY and on line, courtesy of Cyber Smart Computers.


Local and regional: Morning Joe for President? and Contempt of Court, Time to Suffer the Consequences (or Not), The Sequel; and

Nation and international: Shiver me timbers ye son of a biscuit eater, tomorrow is Talk Like a Pirate Day (there will be a test).

But I'll discuss anything. (Disclaimer: the host reserves the right to end any discussion and hang up on you.)

So tune-in, call-in, but only if you can handle the truth!

WARNING: You may not want to call in if you have veritasphobia, especially if you are a certain veritasphobic politician.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Obama Derangement Syndrome

UPDATE: A picture is worth a thousand words:

ODS is not good for your health.

Is there a new rabid Republi-con minority, where the inmates have taken over the asylum with "wild accusations and the paranoid delusions?" Read The LA Times, Some fear GOP is being carried to the extreme and The Daily Beast, Glenn Beck's Mob Rule.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Class Today at NoBullU on WEBY

Listen to the voice of wisdom and reason in a wilderness of partisan rhetoric -- No political insanity, no conservative hypocrisy, no liberal foolishness -- Just straight talk, straight at you, and that’s no bull!!

NoBullU will broadcast today from 4:05 to 6 p.m. at 1330 AM WEBY and on line, courtesy of Cyber Smart Computers.


Local and regional: New Yoknapatawpha County and Morning Joe for President?; and

Nation and international: the state of disunion -- Is it either Naive-ocrats, or a party of truthers, birthers and deathers, hecklers and hypocrites, and even possibly racists, awash in grievance, self-pity, resentment, and anger? Or will the left-right 'hyperpartisan' divide destroy the country?

Also: The NBU Health Care Reform Act

But I'll discuss anything. (Disclaimer: the host reserves the right to end any discussion and hang up on you.)

So tune-in, call-in, but only if you can handle the truth!

WARNING: You may not want to call in if you have veritasphobia, especially if you are a certain veritasphobic politician.

Shame on the Government

There is old saying: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. One year after the meltdown, it should be shame on the government.


William K. Black, The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry,

The Daily Buy-Sell Adviser, The best way to rob a bank …

Bank Regulator William K. Black: The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

Or watch:

PBS, Bill Moyer's Journal, Corruption in America's Banks?

Michael Moore, Capitalism, A Love Story.

Of course, you can always wait for the Hollywood version.

Or remain foobishly ignorant.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

The NBU Health Care Reform Act

A voucher and exchange plan, with a tax on fats, sugars (especially high fructose corn syrup), processed/prepared foods, and alcohol to pay for basic health care for all.

Why? Because "[o]ne of the leading products of the American food industry has become patients for the American health care industry." Read The New York Times, Big Food vs. Big Insurance.

Loss weight, be healthier.

More Republi-CON Myths

For the latest myth, "[a]ccording to China Daily," read Chuck Baldwin, Red Flag To Fly Over White House.

But even Hedgehog News (which falsely uses the name FOXNews) knows better than to rely on China Daily for its Republi-Con myths.

Another Republi-Con myth bites the dust.

Obama's Mission Accomplished

"One of President Obama’s goals in his speech Wednesday night – unacknowledged, perhaps, but central – must have been to make the intransigient Republican opposition to health-care reform look rude, petty, disingenuous, counterproductive and fundamentally dishonest. My verdict: Mission accomplished, thanks to lots of Republican help." Read more at the Washington Post, Republicans Behaving Badly.


More proof why they are Republ-CONs.

Boys Will Be Boys

Hope his cup holder has a spill proof lid:

Makes ya wonder how mankind survives and thrives.

Why Golf Is Better Than . . .

David Letterman's Top Ten Reasons Why Golf Is Better Than . . .

#10 A below par performance is considered damn good.
#9 You can stop in the middle and have a cheeseburger and a couple of beers.
#8 It's much easier to find the sweet spot.
#7 Foursomes are encouraged.
#6 You can still make money doing it as a senior.
#5 Three times a day is possible.
#4 Your partner doesn't hire a lawyer if you play with someone else.
#3 If you live in Florida , you can do it almost every day.
#2 You don't have to cuddle with your partner when you're finished.

And the NUMBER ONE reason why golf is better than you know what:

#1 When your equipment gets old you can replace it!

Inner Peace

From an email:

If you can start the day without caffeine,
If you can get going without pep pills,
If you can always be cheerful, ignoring aches and pains,
If you can resist complaining and boring people with your troubles,
If you can eat the same food every day and be grateful for it,
If you can understand when your loved ones are too busy to give you any time,
If you can take criticism and blame without resentment,
If you can resist treating a rich friend better than a poor friend,
If you can conquer tension without medical help,
If you can relax without liquor,
If you can sleep without the aid of drugs,
...Then, you are probably the family dog!

Guess the family dog would be a good role model for life.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Republi-CONs are Historic Whiners

UPDATE II: More on that socialist agenda to promote studying, hard work, and accountability in school. Read the Washington Post, An A in Overreaction.

UPDATE: Quick. Hide all the schoolchildren. From what, you wonder? Obama's back-to-school pep talk about studying, hard work, and accountability. Read USA Today, Fight over Obama's school talk teaches sorry lesson.

A local comment after a week of Republi-con hysterical lunacy over the speech:

"Kids across America are now running out of their schools, terrified, shouting, 'OMG! President Obama wants me to study hard and stay in school! And that's not all! OMG! He said to pay attention to my teachers and listen to my parents! And OMG! Here's the worst part! He asked me to never ever give up on myself!!!'"

More proof that the Republi-con party is awash in grievance, self-pity, resentment, and anger.

The Republi-con party will complain about any thing Obama, even a visit and speech to a high school near Washington D.C.

Should Obama Man even try to work with a party awash in grievance, self-pity, resentment, and anger? Read The New York Times, Roosevelt: The Great Divider, for a little historical perspective on Republi-con whining.

Maybe they should reconsider the words of a former member: "It is difficult indeed to maintain a reasoned and accurately informed understanding of our defense situation on the part of our citizenry when many prominent officials, possessing no standing or expertness as they themselves claim it, attempt to further their own ideas or interests by resorting to statements more distinguished by stridency than by accuracy."

Friday, September 4, 2009

Obama Man Can (or Maybe He Can't)

UPDATE V: Holy heresy Naive-ocrats, maybe Obama is just a mere mortal politician after all. Read the Washington Post, Obama, the Mortal.

UPDATE IV: Maybe Obama Man can't. Read The New York Times, The Obama Slide.

Sounds like a new dance, some might say it is a sequel to the hustle.

UPDATE III: JibJab on Obama Man:

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

UPDATE II: Our President, the Miracle Maker. Read The New York Times, And the Angels Rejoice.

UPDATE: More about Obama Man. Read the Washington Post, Obama's Center-Left Two-Step.

Who can save them from bankruptcy? Obama Man can:


Thursday, September 3, 2009

Is the Republi-CON Doing Nothing Plan an Option?

UPDATE II: For more on the terrible suffering of government health care beneficiaries, read The New York Times, Health Care That Works.

We should not ignore the terrible injustice that beneficiaries of some government paid health care programs, such as Congressman, federal and state government employees, military retires, and the elderly, suffer. They should enjoy of the great benefits of the private sector health care (NOT) by canceling all government paid health care programs.

What do you think?

UPDATE: Is the Republi-con doing nothing option really just another name for the corporate health care industry plan to block health reform and continue to deny requests for expensive procedures and cancel policies for expensive disease? Read The New York Times, Health Care Fit for Animals.

Many people who oppose health care reform are beneficiaries of some government paid health care program, including Congressman, federal and state government employees, military retires, and the elderly. If there isn't reform that is fair and equitable, then end all government health care programs and give opponents what they claim to want, a pure market-based health care program for all.

Time to call the health care industry scare talk bluff.

In response to the "vile and stupid" things being said by the Republi-cons, on Friday's show we discussed several options to reform the health care system as outlined in The New York Times, The Swiss Menace.

Another suggestion is a voucher plan. Read The New York Times, Real Choice? It’s Off Limits in Health Bills.

Don't like these options, then what is your suggestion?

Is the Can at the End of the Road?

UPDATE: What good did the can kicking do? "Many scholars believe . . . that nations which suffer civil wars as large as Iraq's was between 2004 and 2006 have "a terrifyingly high rate of recidivism." Two more years of U.S. military presence cannot control whether that is in Iraq's future. Some people believe the war in Iraq was not only "won" but vindicated by the success of the 2007 U.S. troop surge. Yet as Iraqi violence is resurgent, the logic of triumphalism leads here:

If, in spite of contrary evidence, the U.S. surge permanently dampened sectarian violence, all U.S. forces can come home sooner than the end of 2011. If, however, the surge did not so succeed, U.S. forces must come home sooner."

Can't argue with the logic. Read the Washington Post, Time to Leave Iraq.

Instead of acknowledging the invasion was a mistake, Bush kicked the Iraq can down the road.

Now, under a Iraqi-American security agreement, American forces are scheduled to withdraw from Iraqi cities, towns and villages on June 30.

So is the can an the end of its journey, or just at the end of the beginning of a journey which ultimately will lead to a free and prosperous democracy in the Middle East?

After you read The New York Times, Iraq Struck by a Wave of Bombings, you may wonder.

After the all the blood and treasure, partition seems likely, and hardly worth the price.

In which case, instead of shoes, we should send Bush cans.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Debunking the MSM Myth

Watch this segment from CBS News:

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Did Women's Intuition Solve a Crime?

Would a woman, with the "richness of her experiences . . . more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male?" Read BeyondChron, Jaycee Dugard’s Female Heroes Prove Sotomayor Right.